| reply to brianj6
Re: [Connectivity] Contacted by Comcast Abuse Dept Today... First off, I do not have comcast internet (Thank God). But as I see these posts pop up every so often I decided to comment on this one. One way to FORCE Comcast to give you the capping information and make logs available is to sue. Find a sleazy lawyer in your area, explain the issues to him, ie. vague contract, harrasment if you dont follow the rules, refusal to specify the rules. Have him sue for emotional distress, any service interuption, and full disclosure of capping information. Then drop the bomb on comcast. Class Action. Subpeona all the records of the abuse department and get all those people to sign onto the lawsuit. If and I specify If this ever makes Class Action Comcast will very quickly settle and publish any and all Caps in the tos from that point on. You signed a contract. They are holding you to language not included in the contract, and will not tell you what that language is. That my friend is the definition of Illegal.
Good luck, seeing these posts make me happy I have Time warner! |
|
|
|
 CableToolPoorly Representing MYSELF.Premium
join:2004-11-12 | The contract is not vague. Its at their discretion. The limits are different from area to area, node to node depending on penetration. JT uses the word Draconian too much and its annoying. These threads always get locked to its futile to actually discuss the issue. No one here runs their own ISP so their "point of view" is pretty damn limited. etc etc etc. 
--
CableFAQ.org/Technicians Unplugged
|
|
gateguyPremium
join:2001-02-12
Reisterstown, MD Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by CableTool:...No one here runs their own ISP... Any evidence of that?
Or is that just YOUR opinion?
--
Without data, it is just an opinion |
|
 ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
1 edit | reply to CableTool
said by CableTool:The contract is not vague. Its at their discretion. The limits are different from area to area, node to node depending on penetration. JT uses the word Draconian too much and its annoying. These threads always get locked to its futile to actually discuss the issue. No one here runs their own ISP so their "point of view" is pretty damn limited. etc etc etc. You don't have to run an ISP to see that the contract is vague or that some bandwidth management is required by cable operators. It's HOW Comcast chooses to manage usage that is at issue here.
The contract is absolutely vague because the contract only states that Comcast has a right to define what is abuse but absolutely refuses to pass on that definition to those who they accuse of abuse.
I see the solution to be extremely simple and other providers already do it and it works well.
As you state, the actual demands on various cable systems vary from cable system to cable system so an absolute nationwide cap doesn't make sense as you will reduce service to the lowest common denominator.
That said we see from other providers that you can state clear and unequivocal caps and then selectively enforce them to give the best user experience a particular cable system can support.
Cox for example clearly states what the usage caps are for various plans. However they only enforce it on users who continuously exceed it and even then it appears they only do it when the impact on the cable system requires it. And when these subscribers are notified they are given very clear requirements to remain a customer. IOW, Cox's 'abuse team' can point right to the caps all subscribers agreed to when signing up and say "stay below these caps". Then after a few months of compliance it's back to business as usual letting the customer slide until the problem returns.
I'm not sure why Cox can do this and Comcast can't.
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire |
|
approval from:
dot_null 
thumbs down from:
Cabal
ColorBASIC
ptrowski
| reply to IcePirate123
Don't worry bud. The number of former comcast subscribers that have been booted off is growing and a class-action suit is slowly starting to take form.
Comcast won't be able to continue to hide under their one-sided contract for much longer. |
|
approval from:
pflog
thumbs down from:
Cabal
ColorBASIC
| reply to ColorBASIC
The reason why Comcast does not follow the same nor posts the limitations of their service unlike Cox Communications does is because they are using outdated, bad equipment AND they do not implement QOS while Cox does.
If Comcast did implement QOS in their network the first thing that would be compromised is the bullshit "POWERBOOST" feature. They simply want to be the fastest HSI provider. |
|
| reply to CableTool
said by CableTool:The contract is not vague. Its at their discretion. The limits are different from area to area, node to node depending on penetration. JT uses the word Draconian too much and its annoying. These threads always get locked to its futile to actually discuss the issue. No one here runs their own ISP so their "point of view" is pretty damn limited. etc etc etc. And why do these threads get locked?
Simple. It always turns into 2 camps.
The first camp are the Comcast apologists. They say various things including, "those are the rules, there are no 'hard' caps, it's in the AUP, take it or leave it, etc." Other than vague explanations on how things work, they really offer no insight or true help and take ANY criticism of the abuse policy as a personal affront to them.
The second camp are the customers and consumer advocates. Most want an accurate accounting of how much is too much and at least some form of open communication (not vague statements like "use less.") There are even some who want even more (like unlimited data.) It boils down to wanting the information to make an informed decision.
If people are sick of the issue, then don't say anything. It seems both sides have their extremist moths who are drawn into the thread flame. The best way for something to go away is to ignore it. |
|
ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
3 edits | reply to Anonymous1972
said by Anonymous1972 :
The reason why Comcast does not follow the same nor posts the limitations of their service unlike Cox Communications does is because they are using outdated, bad equipment AND they do not implement QOS while Cox does.
If Comcast did implement QOS in their network the first thing that would be compromised is the bullshit "POWERBOOST" feature. They simply want to be the fastest HSI provider.
Cox also has Powerboost.
»Cox Customers Get Powerboost
»Cox Expands Powerboost Availability
»Cox Customers Seeing 'Permaboost' (TM)
Both Cox and Comcast use Camiant
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire |
|
| reply to IcePirate123
Two things...
When you sign up for Comcast service, you agree to their ToS, which states you can't sue them....
and Two, there's no outsourcing to India or Egypt. There just happens to be a lot of those people on the East Coast. |
|
approval from:
dot_null
| reply to ColorBASIC
Then why won't Comcast post the limitations of their service while cox does? |
|
 CabalPremium
join:2007-01-21
Austin, TX
 ·Suddenlink
| said by Anonymous1972 :
Then why won't Comcast post the limitations of their service while cox does?
Because knocking off people who download 500+ GB *AND* are degrading their node is >>>> forcing everyone to 40 GB a month like Cox. Next?
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
1 edit | said by Cabal:said by Anonymous1972 :
Then why won't Comcast post the limitations of their service while cox does?
Because knocking off people who download 500+ GB *AND* are degrading their node is >>>> forcing everyone to 40 GB a month like Cox. Next? Read my post »Re: [Connectivity] Contacted by Comcast Abuse Dept Today... .
Cox doesn't "force everyone to 40GB per month", never has. They selectively enforce it. When the occasion comes and they need to send out a nastygram, they can point to the caps so that there is no confusion as to what the customer needs to do to stay a customer. Meanwhile I know tons of people in Cox OC who routinely exceed Cox's stated caps and never hear a peep from them.
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire |
|
 GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | reply to Alphasee
said by Alphasee :
Two things...
When you sign up for Comcast service, you agree to their ToS, which states you can't sue them....
Actually that won't matter much. Term the service and they're no longer a customer and not bound by Comcast's (your) ToS. Sorry about that.
Besides you can file suit at any time against anyone regardless of such supposed "protections" which allow our lovely corporations to do whatever they want without fear of being sued. The real question is if it would be tossed out of court.
These fellows on the Abuse Dept act the way they do because to them you're the scum that needs to be eliminated. That's about the extent of it. You're a violator so you get what you get.
However, really if Comcast really wants a solution then implementing something where the customer can confirm usage is the way to go. It is clear that they're not interested in this solution, or in actually capping usage at some pre-determined amount. Nor do they wish to create those caps market to market.
Not saying that any of this is a simple solution, but it would be a solution if they had any intention of helping the customer "understand" what they're saying.
This isn't a Comcast issue at all really but rather an ISP issue overall. And yes, my view does matter even if I don't run my own ISP. Sorry 'bout that too.
And one last thing from the OP. In most/many states they cannot record the conversation without disclosing that they are doing so. If they are, then it must be disclosed. Stating that they won't tell you is improper and likely illegal as well.
K.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Angus the IT Chap |
|
CableToolPoorly Representing MYSELF.Premium
join:2004-11-12 | said by GlobalMind: And yes, my view does matter even if I don't run my own ISP. Sorry 'bout that too. No need to apologize, the phrase was "point of view is limited" not unintitled. 
--
CableFAQ.org/Technicians Unplugged
|
|
approval from:
dot_null
| reply to Cabal
I'd rather know the limitations than not knowing if I'm going to cross some unknown line defined by a company that refuses to tell me. |
|
| reply to ColorBASIC
Thank you. I was a Cox subscriber for 7 years and NEVER had a problem. Comcast however, after 7 months I (and hundreds if not thousands of others) get the boot and it was the same scripted, word-for-word story as the user that started this new thread. |
|
juniorx
join:2006-02-05
St John'S, NL | reply to Anonymous1972
In Canada we're cap @ 100GB per month and all p2p applications, ftp and secure cnnections are throttled. I got a feeling if you people keep complaining about not knowing the cap, their going to do the samething they did in Canada |
|
| Good. Cox Communications does that already and I'm glad that they do. |
|
 HealbotPremium
join:2003-07-16
Vancouver, WA | reply to Alphasee
Re: [Connectivity] Contacted by Comcast Abuse Dept Today... Having one user use as much bandwidth as a couple city blocks isn't the best way for comcast to make money now is it. |
|
