teddystacker
join:2001-12-08
Philadelphia, PA
| reply to Alexeo
Re: So has anyone received a bandwidth letter sinc
quote:
..Comcast has chosen to give their franchises discretion
Ok,so it would not be too hard(would it?)for the "local" people to divluge this "magic" number to each customer they send a letter to.As I said in my previous post,is it not better to use "carrot" as opposed to "stick" - ie work with the customer to lower use - seems a fair and reasonable way todo business.If I ever have problems with my customers,I at least try to "meet them half way" in a friendly manner - that way everyone wins.. |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| The number would depend on their capacity to service your needs. As most if not all residential ISPs use a shared bandwidth topology, providing a strict number that applies month to month would have to be set so low as to permit subscriber growth within the franchise.
Comcast has obviously deemed that this would be too restrictive and chooses to rather look at which subscribers are most affecting the network and send them a friendly reminder. Say you only needed your 200GB 1 month but the rest of the time you're a typical user...should you be denied that because some other subscriber is hosing the network month after month after month with huge downloads forcing comcast to go the way of Cox and have 2GB/day 30GB/mo limits? Is that what you would prefer? Or perhaps they should triple every subscribers rate so that they and insure the ability to provide all of their subscribers 200GB/mo. I don't think so. The "fairest" solution (fairest being fairest to ALL users of the service) would be to charge $15 for the connection then $1$3 per GB of downloads ($1/GB for the first 10GB, then $2/GB for 10-30GB, then $3/GB for all over 30GB)...then you with your 100+GB /mo usage would pay $200-300/mo for your service, while the web surfer and email and moderate downloader who uses about 3-5GB per month gets their service for less than $20/mo. But I'm sure you wouldn't like that either since as it stands now the casual user is subsidizing your heavy usage.
In order not to implement hard caps and keep the prices in a reasonable range, Comcast is forced to look at the tiny percentage of subscribers who are using a hugely disproportionate amount of resources and "remind" them of the TOS/AUP.
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-10-10 13:11:09] |
|
gr33dy
join:2002-05-31
Tempe, AZ
| reply to oliphant5
I haven't been keeping up with these threads, but I thought I'd comment.
First off, I just want to say that I am completely against any type of bandwidth limit as most of you are. I think that what most people are misunderstanding though, is that even though you may be using all of your bandwidth for legal purposes, you are still using more bandwidth than Comcast thinks you should. Bandwidth is bandwidth... whether or not you're using it for legal stuff or illegal stuff it is still the same.
Also, IMO, I think that it's a good thing that Comcast does not post a set limit as to what everyone can't go over. Reason for this is even though it's not "fair," there are some people that live in small places where there aren't a lot of people using Comcast (on the same node), so it's not as big a deal when those user(s) download lots of material. - (It's not really affecting other's on the same node...) On the other hand, you have the people who live in hugely populated areas who are downloading tons and may be affecting others in the area. (According to Comcast) I think it mostly depends on where you live and how many other users are in that area. If Comcast posts a public set limit, than the people living in these small areas (who can download more than others, per say) will be capped with limits that are unnecessary. If Comcast can allow these users to take advantage of this, than what's the problem? Again, this may not be "fair," but it's reality.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-10 13:13:49] |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| I agree, but to add, people who need extra usage just during a particular month...say when you buy a new system and you are downloading tons of e-distributed software for it...those users shouldn't suffer because of a tiny minority of users "hogging" bandwidth forcing Comcast to respond with hard caps.
The current solution IMHO is perfect. Asking users to refrain from downloading 100-300GB month after month after month is not unreasonable.
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-10-10 13:13:53] |
|
teddystacker
join:2001-12-08
Philadelphia, PA
| reply to Alexeo
I have to admit,you appear to know (if what you say is true) (and explain it) much much better than the guys at the Comcast Ip Abuse unit - they are just good at following the script so well - but alas the script is not too good in this case.Again Bottom line here is that Comcast Cannot expect its users to obey rules if they dont state them in a clear manner - even if they provided a "VERY rough" limit,I think many would be happy.As it is at the moment,we have to find out what this limit is by logging use each month and then "pushing the envelope" a little more each month - does not sound a VERY sensible / professional way todo it,but I guess its the best we have.. - Thanks for you input.. |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | Hope your service doesn't get cancelled in the meantime. |
|
99664227
Heavily MODerated
Premium
join:2002-11-21
USA
| reply to teddystacker
If you read the AUP and TOS for Comcast. It clearly states they can terminate your service with or without notice for whatever reason they choice. So if you got a friendly letter on bandwidth usage. Then your on Comcast's radar as a mark. It's only a matter of time to they pull your plug.
|
|
teddystacker
join:2001-12-08
Philadelphia, PA | reply to Alexeo
Yes I agree,BUT I have also read the letter that Comcast sent to me  - have you? |
|
WickedWinter
join:2003-08-02
USA
| reply to Alexeo
Re: So has anyone received a bandwidth letter since...
What is the real purpose of caps? I have seen two arguments, not sure if I believe either.
A) Reduce Comcast's total bandwidth usage.
How much does bandwidth cost? They charge $43-53/month, you figure $5 goes for support and infrastructure, half of which already exists because they also offer cable TV. That leaves plenty extra for bandwidth and profit. I expect that upload BW costs more, but I have no clue how much. (you figure they get a deal, since they are the largest cable ISP)
or
B) Lower the usage on the local infrastructure.
Well I'm already capped at 1800/256 to avoid any affect on my neighbors. I can reach max speed any time of day or night, so there is no "interference with the service of others", and it's clear that my node is not being slowed by usage. If an area is over-sold, they should beef up the infrastructure.
So, why the caps? (Don't expect Comcast to answer truthfully) 
[text was edited by author 2003-10-10 15:17:37] |
|
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| reply to oliphant5
Re: So has anyone received a bandwidth letter sinc
Yes, yes...that's all fine & good Comcast can do whatever they want to their subs -- we know this and they obviously act on that "right".
However, I do believe that Comcast is obligated to give me a number of what is the limit. What they have said thus far is that either it varies or they dance around the issue.
I know very well I don't consume nearly anything that is going to get them mad at me -- however, hiding behind overly broad AUPs is really quite pathetic. It makes this clear that the "ding letter" threshold is a continually moving target -- and since they refuse to tell subs what constitutes the limit, this issue will continue.
K.
Edit:
The idea of "just cut your usage if you get a letter" is going to be ineffective without any idea of what the "abuser limit" is.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-10 16:31:27] |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to teddystacker
Meanwhile, in today's news article, spotted by mbernste  ...
said by
Jim Hu, Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Cable firms bet on broadband speed, not price:
During the Goldman Sachs Communicopia conference in September, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts praised the broadband business but cautioned that its true potential has yet to be realized.
"In the last six months, more people are coming up to us and suggesting broadband applications for high-speed Internet," Roberts said, "whether that's ESPN for broadband or Xbox Live or voice-over-IP or video chat or a variety of broadband-only applications."
"We could do 50 megabits if there's a market for that, or 100 megabits," Roberts added.
Perhaps Brian doesn't know his own policies are the reason broadband's true potential can't be realized. The uses teddystacker has been enjoying for 4 years have only been suggested to him recently. |
|
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| said by JTRockville :
Perhaps Brian doesn't know his own policies are the reason broadband's true potential can't be realized.
Exactly. What the hell does it matter if you give everyone 50mbps down if you are going to then cap the data quantity consumed at that speed.
Kinda like here is a 1 mile stretch of road you can go up to 200MPH on if you're car will handle it...but oh, by the way...there is a brick wall at the end of that mile.
K.
--
TheGlobalMind.com
"On a clear disk you can seek forever" |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | You mean... there's a brick wall somewhere along the 1 mile stretch... |
|
jansm38
Vn800-B
Premium
join:2003-05-19
Blackwood, NJ
| reply to Alexeo
Re: So has anyone received a bandwidth letter since...
The problem with a published cap, at least how I see it, is if they do set a limit, hypothetically let's use 100GB, then everyone will strive to reach that limit or else they'll complain about not getting their moneys worth if they don't. And then they'll want pro-rated refunds for every Byte they didn't use that Comcast said they were entitled to.
I believe Comcast is between a rock and a hard place with this issue, they don't want to cap us but on the other hand they can't have everyone running full bore 24/7 either.
It's "All you can eat" not "You can eat it all". |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| reply to GlobalMind
Re: So has anyone received a bandwidth letter sinc
said by GlobalMind :
said by JTRockville :
Perhaps Brian doesn't know his own policies are the reason broadband's true potential can't be realized.
Exactly. What the hell does it matter if you give everyone 50mbps down if you are going to then cap the data quantity consumed at that speed.
Kinda like here is a 1 mile stretch of road you can go up to 200MPH on if you're car will handle it...but oh, by the way...there is a brick wall at the end of that mile.
K.
Well, if the DL speeds were 50mbps given the current policy you would get 5 terabytes of data before getting a letter.
Let's keep this in perspective shall we?
The TOS/AUP is clear. If you can't function without a hard cap provided by Comcast switch services.
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports |
|
gr33dy
join:2002-05-31
Tempe, AZ
| reply to jansm38
Re: So has anyone received a bandwidth letter since...
said by jansm38 :
It's "All you can eat" not "You can eat it all".
Funny, and very true...
----------------
----------------
Everyone seems to want this "limit" in written text. First off, I want to say that I believe these unknown "limits" have been set in place for a reason. If Comcast (or any other business for that matter) could give you something that would not affect how their system ran, than why would they not? All businesses who want business, obviously strive to do better.
I really do think that if Comcast wanted to, they could post a bandwidth "limit" for everyone. This would not be the most efficient thing to do though, because each and every area serviced by them are not the same. In order to be most efficient when making this "limit," they would have to survey every area individually... The problem is that some areas that are serviced by Comcast could and would be able to have more aggressive caps than others(the more populated areas). Assuming Comcast would want to take advantage of this, different "limits" would have to be placed on different areas... They would have to look at the subscriber(s) to node(s) ratio when figuring what it would be. And because Comcast is not a perfect business, having unlimited bandwidth and money to upgrade the network all the time, this process of upgrading everyone to the same "limit" would take time. - (Or just abolish it entirely) The only problem with this method is that most people would complain that "such and such area" has a higher "limit" than (my town). Comcast can't say "(some location) will have no limit on service and (some other location) will have a "limit" until (some future date.)" - People would not like this... grow up. Bandwidth doesn't grow on trees.
People are getting letters that are (in Comcast's mind) abusing the service. Everyone just needs to use some common sense when using their connection. Don't act dumbfounded when they tell you to lay off when you're downloading 150-300GB/month. Besides, it's not like you're going to jail over it... people are playing dumb and not accepting the fact that "hey, maybe I did go a little overboard.. I'll watch my usage next time."
This is all just my opinion. |
|
huyvu
join:2001-03-25
| said by gr33dy :
... "hey, maybe I did go a little overboard.. I'll watch my usage next time." This is all my opinion.
And that's what this whole debate is about. Everyone, including Comcast, has an opinion about what is "overboard" because so far it's a relative term.
Personally I think Comcast should:
1) Provide a soft cap (50-100GB per month)
2) Charge you maybe $1 per GB over that cap (rounding up) - much like how domain hosting companies "control" their bandwidth utilization.
3) Provide us a way of checking how much we're using without having to call them. Web page at the cable modem level? (possible? - I haven't looked at the Docsis spec).
4) Shoot the next marketing guy who puts the word "unlimited" in their ads.
I can't wait to hit the unknown limit twice as fast when they up the DL to 3MB/s. (unless the limit is based on upload as above poster have mentioned). |
|
rid0617
join:2003-07-20
Greer, SC | reply to fantomposter
I rented a car last week that was advertised as $32.99 a day and unlimited mileage. I drove the day lights out of it. No charge for mileage because it was unlimited. |
|
Piggy12345
@rasserver.net | reply to Alexeo
I got the letter too,Also I download about 150/month-steady. They told me to cut back or they cancel the account.
I was mad so i cancel. I also pay the high rate $60/mo-HSI
There no dsl here so i back on dial up(Booo-hoo) |
|
dweeb
join:2002-06-23
Ferndale, MI
| said by Piggy12345:
I got the letter too,Also I download about 150/month-steady. They told me to cut back or they cancel the account.
I was mad so i cancel. I also pay the high rate $60/mo-HSI
There no dsl here so i back on dial up(Booo-hoo)
You should have just waited until they booted you instead. Now you are stuck on sloooowwwwwwww dial up. |
|
