 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| reply to JigglyWiggly
Re: Why? said by JigglyWiggly:so rediculous
i love the old system
they never enforced it in my area
And YOUR heavy usage is one of the reasons for the change.
Your neighbors are either very happy or they are approaching with burning torches. |
|
| I would be willing to bet his neighbors never noticed a single slow down or "saturation" on the entire node.
His heavy usage had absolutely nothing to do with it. It is their foresight into the future and trying to limit competing video that caused it. You shilling otherwise is just silliness. |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by Skippy25:You shilling otherwise is just silliness.
Whoops! Wrong again Skippy
Shill would imply I work for or otherwise receive compensation for promoting their products.
In fact, I'm just an enthusiastic customer, an admirer of sound business and network management, and a person that can think beyond the "free", "where's mine?" and "someone else should pay" petty greediness you advocate repeatedly.
Stand up, grow a pair and pay for costs you incur and Mom might let you out of the basement. |
|
| omg, it's Ralph J. Roberts himself! Amazing that he still gets around on the intertubes, look at him go... |
|
| reply to tshirt
First, I would recommend you look up what a shill is before you continue to attempt to say you are not one. »www.dictionary.com should help you.
Second, so you are against the petty greediness of "someone else should pay" yet you are OK with it when it benefits you?
I guess by your statement then you would agree they should be regulated like a utility with a connection fee and all GB's billed at an appropriate amount determined by experts and not boardrooms. I mean that is probably the most accurate way to make sure none of us are riding the backs of others, not even the executives right? While we are at it, lets not allow any ISP to install/upgrade any lines without forcing that customer to pay the full price of such? Allowing that cost to be absorbed by many would only encourage leeching. |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | said by Skippy25:First, I would recommend you look up what a shill is before you continue to attempt to say you are not one. »www.dictionary.com should help you. Since your URL failed to actually link to the word shill, I must assume you also failed to read and understand the definition, so I offer 2 sources
»dictionary.reference.com/browse/···&ld=1087
1.
a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
»en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shill
shill (plural shills)
1.A person paid to endorse a product favourably, while pretending to be impartial. [quotations ¥]
2.An accomplice at a confidence trick during an auction or gambling game. [quotations ¥]
I have no interest or benefit in you being a comcast customer or not.
said by Skippy25:Second, so you are against the petty greediness of "someone else should pay" yet you are OK with it when it benefits you? I was of course answering YOUR suggestion that the proposed tiers would be OVERCHARGING normal users.
At the $0.25 per GB flat rate at 250GB user would pay $62.50 the highest regular stand alone HSI price I have ever seen listed, but it seemed a reasonable comparison, The reason it would work well for me and millions of others is the most I have ever used is 159GB, so MY bill would only be $39.75.
However, that would REQUIRE those in overage catagories to pay many thousands of times the proposed fees to reach the same total revenue, a highly unlikely event.
The current base works for me and apparently is one model ComCast is choosing to explore.
said by Skippy25:I guess by your statement then you would agree they should be regulated like a utility with a connection fee and all GB's billed at an appropriate amount determined by experts and not boardrooms. I mean that is probably the most accurate way to make sure none of us are riding the backs of others, not even the executives right? While we are at it, lets not allow any ISP to install/upgrade any lines without forcing that customer to pay the full price of such? Allowing that cost to be absorbed by many would only encourage leeching.
The once again YOU guessed WRONG.
While at some point down the road (years away IMHO) broadband may reach utility status, it currently is a service provided by MOSTLY privately own companies over privately owned networks and in the case of cable Privately(via a public offer stock and corp. bonds) financed and built.
ComCast in particaular can set their price for HSI at what they believe is the market price. Consumers have the choice to purchase or not as they see fit. At times to entice new customers to join they offer promotional pricing, as they see fit.
So far the blend of regulated (Telephone, Secuirty, etc) negotiated agreements (Most cable started and is still under the control of a negotiated franchise agreement which often set a price for "lifeline service plus fees and services to be provide for public benefit * ) and the unregulated HSI products have returned a profit in the historical industry average of approx. 10%, fairly modest for a publicly held company.
* I would suggest if you want influance over the franchise terms at next renewal you become involved in the PUBLIC reneogoietion process. then you would get a chance to PROVE that their broadband services should be a REGULATED utility. |
|
