Comcast: New Cap Not 'Set In Stone'New cap goes live one week from today... 12:04PM Wednesday Sep 24 2008 by Karl Bodetags: business · bandwidth · cable · ComcastComcast's new 250GB monthly cap goes into effect one week from today, though customers have not yet been given an officially sanctioned consumption tracking tool. An article at GigaOM quotes Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas as saying the limits aren't set in stone, and could rise once DOCSIS 3.0 gets deployed. The piece goes on to suggest that continual and vocal user complaints could also force the cap upward. That’s a hopeful sign, but Comcast has never been entirely truthful about these things in the past, and only they know how much data their subscribers consume — making it hard to hold the company accountable. The other way to get the cap increased — or perhaps eliminated altogether — is to get enough Comcast users to complain. Keep in mind that the people complaining are a minority portion of the company's nearly fifteen million subscribers. The company can literally afford to ignore this small but vocal subset of customers -- particularly if they reside in non-competitive markets and cannot vote with their wallets. Our users had been complaining about Comcast's glass consumption ceiling for more than half a decade before things changed. Only last month was Comcast forced to come clean, paying a $150,000 settlement to Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum. McCollum apparently had problems with Comcast terminating customers for hitting an invisible limit without telling anyone what that limit was (go figure). Now that the cap is clearly laid out to consumers, there's absolutely no legal motivation to raise or eliminate the cap. It's likely that the only thing that could make that cap move is a surge in median HD bandwidth consumption, and anti-competitive charges being brought against Comcast for inhibiting the use of third-party HD delivery networks. In this climate, with this high of a cap, that's unlikely. A show of hands: does anybody expect Comcast's cap to go up with DOCSIS upgrades or alternative HD delivery demand? Do you think it will ever go down?
Related:- Comcast Launches DOCSIS 3.0 In New England
- Comcast: The New Broadband King
- Comcast's Faster Speeds Have Many Users....Downgrading?
- Martin, Comcast, Continue Lover's Feud
- Comcast To Offer Bandwidth Use Tracker In January
- Comcast: 50Mbps Now Available In 20% Of Markets
- Comcast Mum On New Bandwidth Tracker
- New Comcast Throttling System 100% Online
|
page: 1 · 2  |
 fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | I don't get it... Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? | |
|  | 
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
| Re: I don't get it... said by fiberguy  :Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. | |
| | | 
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| Re: I don't get it... said by Rob :said by fiberguy :Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. So very true....
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
| | | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
| said by Rob :said by fiberguy :Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. I disagree. The amount of people that were barking about the 'unknown cap' were so few outside of tech forums that it was contextually insignificant. Comcast used this as an excuse to implement a cap in order to continue the policy of overselling an overburdoned network. This excuse (blaming excessive piracy through torrents) is a much easier sell than going back to the share holders and saying 'we need to spend x amount of dollars to expand our infrastructure in order to accomodate the expanding network use and applications'. Look at it this way, with continued growth of applications through their network, they'll have to upgrade anyway. By implementing a cap system, they can also sell tiered usage with this as a baseline.
And a question for the Jason the comcast guy....what versions of Linux is Comcast using to host sandvine? | |
| | | |
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: I don't get it... said by S_engineer :said by Rob :said by fiberguy :Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. I disagree. The amount of people that were barking about the 'unknown cap' were so few outside of tech forums that it was contextually insignificant. Comcast used this as an excuse to implement a cap in order to continue the policy of overselling an overburdoned network. This excuse (blaming excessive piracy through torrents) is a much easier sell than going back to the share holders and saying 'we need to spend x amount of dollars to expand our infrastructure in order to accomodate the expanding network use and applications'. Look at it this way, with continued growth of applications through their network, they'll have to upgrade anyway. By implementing a cap system, they can also sell tiered usage with this as a baseline. And a question for the Jason the comcast guy....what versions of Linux is Comcast using to host sandvine? It was through their complaints, that the FCC took notice and started to investigate.
Comcast continues to upgrade their network. The caps have nothing to do with the network - it has to do with the cost of bandwidth. It's all about bandwidth. | |
| | | | | 
funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
edit:
September 24th, @02:07PM
| Re: I don't get it... said by Rob :It was through their complaints, that the FCC took notice and started to investigate. Rob, the FCC had nothing to do with the caps.
Footnote 3 in "FCC New Network Management Technique" addresses Comcast's position directly:
These congestion management practices are independent of, and should not be confused with, our recent announcement that we will amend the “excessive use” portion of our Acceptable Use Policy, effective October 1, 2008, to establish a specific monthly data usage threshold of 250 GB per account for all residential HSI customers. This excessive use threshold is designed to prevent any one residential account from consuming excessive amounts of network resources as measured over the course of a month. That cap does not address the issue of network congestion, which results from traffic levels that vary from minute to minute. We have long had an “excessive use” limit in our Acceptable Use Policy but have been criticized for failing to specify what is considered to be “excessive.” The new cap provides clarity to customers regarding the specific monthly consumption limit per account. As with the existing policy, a user who violates the excessive use policy twice within six months is subject to having his or her Internet service account terminated for one year. said by Rob :Comcast continues to upgrade their network. The caps have nothing to do with the network - it has to do with the cost of bandwidth. It's all about bandwidth. Not only do I think you're right about that, I think that the 250 GB amount is still a net money-loser for Comcast. That doesn't make the cap a good thing, I'd prefer no cap. But if they're going to have a cap, it's good to have it disclosed.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
| Re: I don't get it... There is a correlation. The lower the latency, the more bandwidth available. Or, how many transactions per second are being accomplished. Its all about response time.
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
| | | | | | |
funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
edit:
September 24th, @09:22PM
| Re: I don't get it... I understand. I agree with you that the Cap and the prioritization are related in probable effect. Comcast shouldn't need both. | |
| | | | 
Wake up please
@sbcglobal.net
| Who cares if you are capped or even throttled, the thing to be alarmed about is what they claim is their throttling practice. Send RST packets is NOT throttling, it is faking packets. People, wake up on this one. I am not going to bust into any damn stupid analogies. Just remember this, Comcast's "traffic shaping" or "throttling" service does nothing more than pretend to be the site or service you are connecting to and send you bullshit back so you information being sent and received is lost. Slow me down, cap me, just don't touch my shit! | |
| | | | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: I don't get it... said by Wake up please :
Send RST packets is NOT throttling, it is faking packets. But that's not what they are going to be doing. For all intents and purposes what the new system is is QOS, pretty much the same QOS you can do on most recent home routers. It doesn't look like it is going to send reset packets.
Basically if you're targeted and the system has the choice of sending your packet or someone else's it will send that other persons. Your packet is delayed but unless the system is really congested it shouldn't be for more than a split second.
The only time packets would be lost would be if there were so much congestion that the packet buffers on whatever machine is handling this became full; but in that case packets are going to be dropped whether or not you were low priority.
It would be nice if they could say, apply the lower priority classification to specific protocols (ie: place bulk transfers like Bittorrent in a lower priority than say streaming video or VOIP; which is basically how I have my m0n0wall router set up) but they can't since everyone will whine about Network Neutrality or whatnot.
--
The world’s elusive, remember
where love's the leaf
faith, the river
what's born as flame dies in ember
see for yourself! | |
| | | | | |
funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
edit:
September 25th, @12:00AM
| Re: I don't get it... said by Combat Chuck :It would be nice if they could say, apply the lower priority classification to specific protocols (ie: place bulk transfers like Bittorrent in a lower priority than say streaming video or VOIP; which is basically how I have my m0n0wall router set up) but they can't since everyone will whine about Network Neutrality or whatnot. There is no NN issue if they let YOU control which packets go into which priority bucket.
The lower traffic class they're proposing is actually a very cool idea, suited for particular background tasks like file transfer, remote backups, and other non-time-sensitive stuff.
But, as you mentioned, to take advantage of this class, there are NN issues (as well as Standards issues) involved unless the user is doing the identification of the traffic (or specifically authorizing Comcast to do it). They -can- enable this, but such things take time. They're under a clock to change from the old RST method by the EOY.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: I don't get it... said by funchords :They -can- enable this, but such things take time. They're under a clock to change from the old RST method by the EOY. What's driving me nuts is that people seem to be more concerned about the QOS than they were the packet resets. QOS is loads better than random resets. | |
| | | | | | | |
funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: I don't get it... said by Combat Chuck :said by funchords :They -can- enable this, but such things take time. They're under a clock to change from the old RST method by the EOY. What's driving me nuts is that people seem to be more concerned about the QOS than they were the packet resets. QOS is loads better than random resets. Some are objecting because they see "Forged Resets" vs. "the new QOS scheme" as a false choice, especially with a capped service (a fact many just learned).
Have you ever seen the commercial of the Comcast Powerboost guy running in the desert? To some customers, it must seem like seems like he's suffered two broken legs and a concussion. This premium service doesn't look so premium anymore.
Others are objecting because the RSTs never affected them. Still others think that the new effects will hit download in a big way (which I doubt it will). I'm objecting certain technical aspects but I think you're right about this being better targeted to congestion and about this being disclosed -- which permits discussions like this in the first place!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | |
Sturm
@alconlabs.com
| said by Rob :said by fiberguy :Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. Spare me this "we all have to suffer". If you were not using 250, you are not getting anything different. If you were using more than 250, then you are right there with the crowd you call "abusers" and you would have been called by the "abuse" department anyway.
How are you "suffering" ? You make my blood boil. This strategy of turning users against users by apparent pro comcast "plants" is what is the most disgusting in this scam of overselling a sub par network. | |
| | | |
Sturm
@alconlabs.com
| Re: I don't get it... said by Sturm :said by Rob :said by fiberguy :Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. Spare me this "we all have to suffer". If you were not using 250, you are not getting anything different. If you were using more than 250, then you are right there with the crowd you call "abusers" and you would have been called by the "abuse" department anyway. How are you "suffering" ? You make my blood boil. This strategy of turning users against users by apparent pro comcast "plants" is what is the most disgusting in this scam of overselling a sub par network. What we are "suffering" is that now we KNOW what we could count on. No more vague units in variable confusing lengths to muddy the waters as in how many emails or MP3s or pictures we could send. We know that 250GB is a accepted value we as users could count on and compare service with truly unlimited services as DSL and FiOS deliver compared to the METERED service CC has.
Truth is important in advertising for the consumer to make an informed choice. It took a court order and is a victory against questionable business practices. | |
| | | | bjbrock
join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK | Are you willing to pay to upgrade this "sub-par" network? Or do you think you should get it for free?
As your blood boils, tell us your solution. I hope it's one that doesn't cost money. | |
| | | | | 
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| Re: I don't get it... said by bjbrock :Are you willing to pay to upgrade this "sub-par" network? Or do you think you should get it for free? As your blood boils, tell us your solution. I hope it's one that doesn't cost money. Yes, I AM willing to pay. I WAS willing to pay for my high usage. Was not accepted.
The solution is for the federal government to break the monopoly Comcast is. Anti trust regulation is designed for that. Open up the cable franchise for competition. Funny where CC has competition suddenly the service improves. Just a coincidence, of course.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
| | | | | | | | | | compton
join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY
| said by bjbrock :Are you willing to pay to upgrade this "sub-par" network? Or do you think you should get it for free? As your blood boils, tell us your solution. I hope it's one that doesn't cost money.
Verizon built a fiber network from the ground up (which cost over 20 billion), and their rates are competitive with any ISP. So, why do subscribers have to subsidise improvements to Comcast's infrastructure? | |
| | | | | | 
Dogfather
Altitude is your friend
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: I don't get it... They must fill the Brian Roberts retirement fund. | |
| | | | | | | | | MrSpock29
join:2008-02-09
Hammonton, NJ
| said by Rob :said by fiberguy :Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. I can't speak for everyone, but I feel this issue is badly misrepresented. I was a victim to that invisible cap (partly because of their own service issue no less), and I felt that they shouldn't have a cap, but they also shouldn't tell me that their invisible caps changed every month, and then boot me because of it. They were enforcing something that changed every month, and would terminate people based on that moving target. There was no room for discussion, they didn't even care if they were to blame for the overage. "comcast cares" told me that himself. That is patently wrong, and stupid.
Comcast has never proven that a cap is necessary. They have also never been honest about the hidden caps they had. IF they had a cap, they had an obligation to spell it out in the AUP, and they did not. That doesn't mean I would ever support that cap.
Out of over 7 years with them, I went over their hidden cap once. Their poor way of handling it, and their bad treatment of me, was enough to cause me to leave and go down to DSL which is slower here.
Before the trolls step in, let me get the usual stuff out of the way. There was no P2P traffic that I was doing, everything I was downloading was perfectly legal and in the public domain. I was downloading files used in making weather maps! Oooh.....evil!!!! | |
| | | compton
join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY
| said by Rob :said by fiberguy :Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. That how an Ostrich approaches a problem, by sticking their head in a hole and pretending that the problem doesn't exist. Wanting an invisible cap doesn't mean it will not be applied. As we saw with Comcast and others that they did apply the invisible caps. Comcast making know what the cap is doesn't change anything. It only put those who down load about 100 Gigs a month at ease. | |
| | | PittsPgh
join:2003-08-21
Pittsburgh, PA
| said by Rob :said by fiberguy :Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. The only problem with the invisible caps was it seemed to vary from region to region. | |
| | | |
funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
edit:
September 25th, @12:13PM
| Re: I don't get it... said by PittsPgh :The only problem with the invisible caps was it seemed to vary from region to region. I certainly believed that, and it was because the TOS described about usage that impacted. However, as unveiled to the Florida AG, it turns out that it was the "top 1,000 users" systemwide, regardless of region or impact or any other factor.
That is still part of the bandwidth cap. In order to get a warning (or disconnected on a repeat issue), you have to be over 250 GB and one of the top 1,000 users systemwide.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Absolutely. If you cap a previously open service, you will get people who will complain regardless of the cap. Welcome to life. Trust me, your day will continue...
cw | |
| | | | | 
bobjohnson
Premium
join:2007-02-03
Titusville, FL
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
| Re: I don't get it... said by knightmb :said by fiberguy :Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? I think a lot of people see like putting a limit on how much air you can breathe at once. Sure, you can set a high limit that only but the most athletic runners would hit the limit, but still to have it hanging over your head is just not liked. Maybe another example, buying a car and being limited to only driving 2000 miles a month. That might be more than most drive in a month, but feeling limited is not something a lot are accustomed to. Both of those are good analogies but there is limit if you lease a car which alot of people do... Just the same as if you bought your part of the Comcast network, you probably wouldn't have a limit...
--
Any unauthorized copying or distribution of the opinion above constitutes stupidity and you should probably be punished
| |
| inferno
join:2008-07-06
edit:
September 24th, @01:44PM
| Comcast = Pathetic Yea, this sucks. They need to upgrade their network instead of worrying about caps and buying software to throttle the net... :-\ | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Comcast = Pathetic Healthy...
Anyway, most people don't. Businesses, if you don't know, cater to the masses, not the minority few. If you ran a business in the model of catering to the few, and a very HEALTHY few, you'd be out of business very quickly. If you chased after the minority of customers that used more of your resources, you'd be filing chapter 11 sooner than later.
You call them scammers? How are they scamming? .. or are you just ranting? And, the fact that you run, or claim to run, torrents 24/7 "just to try and piss you off"... what do you think that will get you? .. kicked off the service? And you think they'd care or would react?
Save your anger for those that claim they run our country.. where it matters or another worthy place other than something as small as broadband internet. | |
| | | | | | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| socalguy
join:2005-04-15
Redondo Beach, CA | I'll take this over TWC cap... At least 250GB is manageable. I simply can't understand a 40GB cap they are testing.  | |
| | | Tigerpaw509
Premium
join:2006-07-15
Huntley, IL | I'am worried I've used 153 gb in the last 3 years | |
| |
See 11 replies to this post | |
tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
| I think it's likely I doubt it will ever go down, very hard to sell/explain that to new or existing customers.
I do believe it will rise over time, as the network continues to be upgraded, but perhaps in a slower, carefully planned rate,network wide, rather than just the competitive market response we've been seeing.
Healthy growth plan for the company, and probably better serves the majority of customers. (though I expect the usual whining from some users.)
To say that users in ComCast only markets can't vote with their wallets is untrue, they can do without, it's upto them to decide if some service is better than none at all.
ComCast is being fairly generous with their caps compared to some other companies, some of which also serve captive markets. | |
| |
and then one day
@omcastbusiness.net | Re: I think it's likely Bet you wouldn't say go without if I owned the only gas station in your town and charged $10/gallon.
Go without, what are you smoking? | |
| | |
tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
| Re: I think it's likely said by and then one day :
Bet you wouldn't say go without if I owned the only gas station in your town and charged $10/gallon.
Go without, what are you smoking?
well, i could walk, or open my own station and make a killing at $5-6/gal, but most likely if there were enough customers to support it, one of the oil companies would open a new station.
Sepcifically, Comcast charges the same rates (within a couple bucks, depending on taxes and franchise requirements) for the same 250meg cap service (blast is still being rolled out, but will eventually reach everyone) nationwide.
They don't charge double-triple just because you live in a small town too sparsely populated to draw in other wired solutions.
You could of course go with satellite (which has it's own limitations) | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| the cap sounds like baloney to me The piece goes on to suggest that continual and vocal user complaints could also force the cap upward.
if this is true and complaints from customers are enough to get the caps raised (we all know how comcast listens to their customers, right?), it brings into question whether they "need" the caps to begin with.
if they really needed the caps they would either tell the customer to go to hell (1st choice) or they would trot out their public line about maintaining the best broadband experience for all customers by cracking down on the "bandwidth hogs" - they wouldn't raise the caps. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: the cap sounds like baloney to me They need the caps for one simple reason.. it's really nothing but a weapon against a VERY SMALL FEW people that will push and insist that they be defined or they'll wreak havoc against the company trying to manage those that really are abusive on the network resources.
In other words, for the few big mouth smart-asses that want to push the line, the caps have been defined. If there is ever something so true, it's that a few can ruin it for the masses.
Having caps not defined was better than having them defined. Prior to caps, there were people going over 250 a month all the time. Now that they are defined, it's black and white. This move will change it for more so, now, than it would have before.
In one simple world: liability. They must have something to defend against the liability of those that are clueless either by nature, or by choice. | |
| jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Pandora's box I hope they have reps trained to call bullshit on astro-turf efforts by activist consumers to call and complain just to complain -- the rep should pull up their usage history on the spot.
Much ado about nothing. | |
|
Dogfather
Altitude is your friend
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | They have a FAP They don't need a cap too. The FAP provides all the network management necessary to insure that so-called hog activities don't impact other users. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | heh Ever since I read this I started downloading more. I want my moneys worth. | |
| 
Joel
Premium
join:2005-01-29
Plainfield, IL
·Comcast
| Dangerous precedent My problem with this is that I feel like I'm being punished if I use my connection. I may not be coming close to the cap now (though I am a heavy user as a photographer, hobbyist webcaster/podcaster, and I maintain a couple websites for two volunteer organizations), but I see this as a threat to VOD services as well as any kind of streaming content. And who knows what my usage will be like 6 months or a year from now. It also sets a dangerous precedent; they say they may raise the caps, they can also lower them. Comcast holds all the cards. Living in the Chicago-area, we also have no competition here either (and don't tell me U-Verse, they can't come close to offering the 16/2 that Comcast can). So basically what we have is a monopoly changing the rules in the middle of the game, and there's nothing that any of us can do about it.
--
There is no dark side of the moon really, matter of fact it's all dark | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
romulusnr
join:2007-08-01
Federal Way, WA | Maybe an ignorable minority... ...but what if all of us ignorable minority were to call customer service every day and ask "what's my current usage?" | |
| | 
mmickk
join:2003-12-30
Pearland, TX
| Re: Maybe an ignorable minority... said by romulusnr :...but what if all of us ignorable minority were to call customer service every day and ask "what's my current usage?" mmickk
they would probably start charging us for that call.... | |
| | |
|
|
·
Caps will rise and will never go down