 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | reply to AVonGauss
Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by AVonGauss:said by dadkins:Anything else I can help you with today?  No Dadkins, I don't believe you could. Anytime, just ask!
Me or someone else, here in The Comcast Forum, will try to help out.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | reply to netcool
said by netcool :said by funchords:If it turns out that your sense on this is right, My God! What an overreaction this all has been! An overreaction on who's part? The small faction of people who made a stink about getting kicked off or Comcast itself? YES! If you're right, then everyone is overreacting.
Think about it. If warnings and disconnections really only happen 0.01% of the time (1 per 10,000 customers), then Comcast has shot itself in the foot and got a lot of people excited over nothing. If true, then it doesn't have a 250 GB cap!
If the only people that get a call are people who Comcast can demonstrate are operating their Internet connection in a way that unduly impacts others, then there is no bandwidth cap. The bandwidth measure is just an "early indicator" not unlike possible other indicators of accounts with atypical patterns that would tell an investigator who might be a likely source for user-to-user interference.
I don't think you're pulling my leg, but I do think that you've got the wrong impression about what has been going on -- especially recently.
Big case in point: Dave Winer ... this is the guy who, without exaggeration, is deserving of the most credit for everything we now call "Web 2.0." He's not some kiddie with a BitTorrent fetish. I find it unlikely that he was doing something nefarious. It is most likely that he rang the invisible bell simply by transferring podcasts from one server to another.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
|
|
| reply to Alcohol
said by Alcohol:said by dadkins:said by pianotech:Wow, 350 MB/hour....every hour... DAMN! That a whole lot of por... "Research Videos". It's really not if you have multiple computers. 350mb an hour is peanuts in 2008. I would have been happy with it 6 years ago but not today. Amen to that. |
|
thumbs down from:
Linklist 
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:blah blah blah .... snip ... Socialism here we come.  Megadittos! Only privileged children of the wealthy deserve internet access. To ensure an ample supply of servants, it is imperative that we keep at least half the population poor, dumb and broke.
From the Landover Baptist Church Store:
 |
|
dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | reply to Alcohol
said by Alcohol:said by dadkins:said by pianotech:Wow, 350 MB/hour....every hour... DAMN! That a whole lot of por... "Research Videos". It's really not if you have multiple computers. 350mb an hour is peanuts in 2008. I would have been happy with it 6 years ago but not today. I have three online right now... albeit I'm the only user for them.
One is a download computer for - those things, one is a media server, this one is what I spend most of the day on.
Pounding poor Comcast into the weeds with a crippling ~35GB per month.
From a "Per User" POV, I have no issue.
If there were someone on all three... 3 x 35 = OMG! 105GB?
If you and your's have a combined use that exceeds 250GB, perhaps a second account is in order.
No matter what you or I want to happen, things look to be on a downward spiral, huh?
Just be glad we didn't get Rogers-ified at 60(?)Gb per month.
I wouldn't have a problem but MANY would.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | reply to chronoss2008
Re: Just Remember 2 megabit unlimited - 250GB said by chronoss2008:Juse Remember 2 megabit unlimited - 250GB Maybe in Canada -- but in the US, it's about 750 kilobit/s to reach 250 GB/mo.
It must have something to do with our currency devaluation.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to funchords
Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by funchords:YES! If you're right, then everyone is overreacting. Think about it. If warnings and disconnections really only happen 0.01% of the time (1 per 10,000 customers), then Comcast has shot itself in the foot and got a lot of people excited over nothing. If true, then it doesn't have a 250 GB cap! Wait -- there's a lot of things you can blame on Comcast, but the mass panic has been incited by the media like your friends at Free Press and a certain news reporter here on this forum. You've taken a handful of cases, given them a nationwide megaphone, allowed them to make wild claims, and are surprised there's been a reaction? When people get caught by exception, they get angry about it -- and that's the message you're pushing forward. When was the last time you heard someone talk about getting a speeding ticket where they didn't talk about how they were unfairly picked out by the cop? Most of us don't take responsibility or blame very well, so when you have an out like Comcast having some questionable practices, it's going to be in our nature to shine as much of the spotlight on that as possible.
Writing articles about how the infrastructure actually works is boring. Nobody wants to hear that your local cable/DSL/FTTH segment can't move an unlimited number of bits every month, and due to the shared nature of it all every bit you use on the wire is a bit that your neighbors can't use. You get more press coverage if you talk about how big bad Comcast is screwing the average little user. The only problem here is, the users you're holding up as examples aren't average users.
said by funchords:Big case in point: Dave Winer ... this is the guy who, without exaggeration, is deserving of the most credit for everything we now call "Web 2.0." Exactly. Nobody represents the average broadband user more than Dave. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | reply to dolphins
said by dolphins:Forgive me if this has been asked already, I just don't have time to read all the threads on this subject at this moment. My son has Playstation-3 and plays online every day plus we have 2 computers. Of course all 3 are routed from a single modem (IP address). I'm not sure how much bandwidth the 2 computers use (normal usage) but I imagine the PS3 uses quite a bit. Does this setup sound like it would go over the cap? I would be very surprised if it got close.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | reply to dadkins
said by dadkins:Maybe someday, but not at this point in time. When? What would be the differentiating line for you? (Just curious.) |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
1 edit | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:Wait -- there's a lot of things you can blame on Comcast, but the mass panic has been incited by the media like your friends at Free Press and a certain news reporter here on this forum. Free Press had nothing to do with this. They got phone calls in response to this story. It looks like this story was a response to the Florida AG, who apparently was working on this in a cave somewhere.
said by espaeth:When people get caught by exception, they get angry about it -- and that's the message you're pushing forward. When was the last time you heard someone talk about getting a speeding ticket where they didn't talk about how they were unfairly picked out by the cop? That's not the same. In this case, the cop is giving out SUSPENSIONS for running cars off the road based soley on the output of a radar gun.
said by espaeth:the users you're holding up as examples aren't average users. No, they aren't average users. They are exceptional users of bandwidth, and I've only held up two specific users as examples -- one is Dave Winer, and the other one's story is still being written and -- like Dave -- he was using his bandwidth in a completely non-nefarious way.
(The disclosure of the invisible cap actually is a better thing for users like these, because now they can know something before making a purchase decision. No cap would be best, however.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
 joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA | reply to sortofageek
Has Comcast specifically stated they won't provide a meter? Seems that when most users see they've used 4GB by mid month, the anxiety and anger will quickly pass.
Joe |
|
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by funchords:YES! If you're right, then everyone is overreacting. Think about it. If warnings and disconnections really only happen 0.01% of the time (1 per 10,000 customers), then Comcast has shot itself in the foot and got a lot of people excited over nothing. If true, then it doesn't have a 250 GB cap! Wait -- there's a lot of things you can blame on Comcast, but the mass panic has been incited by the media like your friends at Free Press and a certain news reporter here on this forum. You've taken a handful of cases, given them a nationwide megaphone, allowed them to make wild claims, and are surprised there's been a reaction? When people get caught by exception, they get angry about it -- and that's the message you're pushing forward. When was the last time you heard someone talk about getting a speeding ticket where they didn't talk about how they were unfairly picked out by the cop? Most of us don't take responsibility or blame very well, so when you have an out like Comcast having some questionable practices, it's going to be in our nature to shine as much of the spotlight on that as possible. Writing articles about how the infrastructure actually works is boring. Nobody wants to hear that your local cable/DSL/FTTH segment can't move an unlimited number of bits every month, and due to the shared nature of it all every bit you use on the wire is a bit that your neighbors can't use. You get more press coverage if you talk about how big bad Comcast is screwing the average little user. The only problem here is, the users you're holding up as examples aren't average users. said by funchords:Big case in point: Dave Winer ... this is the guy who, without exaggeration, is deserving of the most credit for everything we now call "Web 2.0." Exactly. Nobody represents the average broadband user more than Dave. Comcast gets the reaction they do because of their actions, it is not fair to blame that on everyone else. If they were so concerned about that, they should have thought of that before they handled things as poorly as they have. Lying about throttling when they had been caught is just one example.
I don't consider it a handful of cases, it's been going on for years and has been a cumulative situation. 1+1 only equals 2, but do it long enough, and eventually the numbers get pretty big.
Think about how different things MIGHT have been had they admitted to throttling when caught, and come up with a better defense, reaction, and solution. Same thing with the caps. Telling people there are none and then saying there are but we can't tell you because it changes every month doesn't fly. Yes, that's what was said to me, in the span of 2 different questions. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | reply to dadkins
said by dadkins:Can you, or anyone else, show me where the Government has classified internet as a utility? I'm not sure that's a great standard, either, because there are several Governments. Many cities utility districts offer broadband, so at some point they answered this question positively. So if that's the standard, then it becomes whether or not it is a utility specifically "here" or "there." This is beginning to sound like a semantics argument that itself doesn't make a difference how it is settled.
Utility. Okay - now what?
Not a utility. Okay - now what?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | reply to pianotech
said by pianotech: quote:
The Amish are a small community.
You obviously are not from Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a small community.
(please ignore the fact that I'm in Oregon.)   
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | reply to joetaxpayer
said by joetaxpayer:Has Comcast specifically stated they won't provide a meter? Seems that when most users see they've used 4GB by mid month, the anxiety and anger will quickly pass. Joe No, they have not stated they won't provide a utility or access to the measurement from their system. I haven't seen anything official, but most informal communications I have seen state Comcast has received the feedback and are considering options.
Personally, I don't think a customer side utility is really all that helpful unless it is in the router itself that is directly attached to the modem. Even in that case, the customer really needs access to the numbers on the Comcast system in my opinion. Not that they are charging you per amount used, but the number that really matters is the number measured by the ISP equipment. It's obviously there, customers just need a way to access it - such as through the account management page that already exists. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | reply to pianotech
said by pianotech:But we are getting way off course. I still have not heard a good reason why net users shouldn't be charged according to the bandwidth they use. These are good reasons, but (which is more to your point) they aren't absolute reasons.
1. Many customers don't want to be billed by the byte.
2. A company in the business of delivering video for a flat fee stifles competition when it charges by the byte.
3. The growth rate of individual bandwidth consumption is slowing year after year. So after several years of successfully offing unlimited bandwidth, why the need to switch now unless the service providers are failing to keep up with the times?
4. By-the-byte billing is going backward on the technological scale of evolution.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | reply to Johkal
That's probably usefully illustrative of the baggage that comes along with the designation of "utility" for some people. It was also written in 2006 and is more of an Op/Ed.
I bet if we went back to the 1930s, we'd see many of these same arguments taking place on the Letters-to-the-editor pages of the local newspapers.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
 JohkalCool CatPremium,MVM
join:2002-11-13
Happy Valley
kudos:5
 ·Comcast
2 edits | I don't consider a 2 year article not relevant. Take the article as is, I didn't obviously write it.
Never-the-less, the debate of whether or not the internet is a utility remains an opinion.
The fact is, I challenge anyone to prove the Federal Government states the internet is a utility. The burden of proof is on those who consider it a utility to prove it.
--
Write me up a 125.......I Can't Drive 55 »redrocker.com/ »cabowabo.com/ |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:No, they aren't average users. They are exceptional users of bandwidth, and I've only publicly held up two specific users as examples to members of the press -- one is Dave Winer, and the other one's story is still being written and -- like Dave -- he was using his bandwidth in a completely non-nefarious way. This is a discussion of straight quantity -- who cares what they're using the bandwidth for? It's not like the bits don't get counted on the wire if they're using their bandwidth to save kittens.
said by funchords:No cap would be best, however. Face it, the only way we're going back to no caps is if there is usage based billing, or we have speed downgrades. Every broadband ISP that advertises 'unlimited' service is lying. They don't have the bandwidth to deliver 100% use to every subscriber simultaneously, and if everybody started having usage patterns of the people you are describing they would go out of business because their infrastructure costs would be greater than their subscriber revenue. |
|
| reply to fonzbear2000
How long until 250 is 200? Then 175, then 150 GB/month.
They will continue to chip away until the digital video customers services are no longer affected by internet traffic to the point of calling for service.
After all they are a television provider first and foremost. ISP is just extra gravy for them and not the number one priority. |
|
