Comcast Offers Details On New Cap in Nashville

Right.... so where is the price cut for those that dont use nearly that much as 300GB?

so rediculous
i love the old system
they never enforced it in my area

You shilling otherwise is just silliness.

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.

so rediculous
i love the old system
they never enforced it in my area

And they are doing this why??

And they are doing this why??

it is so cord-cutters like people on this site don't get terribly happy with services like Netflix, Crackle and Amazon Video.

200GB? C'mon that is just 1 (one) retired friend.
How much would household of 4-5 use?

His household has three people in it but that's besides the point. Explain to me why a household of four or five should pay the same as a household of one? Frankly I've never understood this argument as it relates to caps.

Each megabit that you require at a given time requires a certain infrastructure investment on the part of your ISP. Likewise, each kilowatt of electrical demand (not kilowatt-hour, there is a difference) requires a certain infrastructure investment on the part of your power utility. The power grid could not handle every house in your neighborhood simultaneously attempting to draw 200 amps. It's absurd to expect any ISP to build out residential infrastructure at a 1 to 1 contention ratio.

Imposing byte caps is not the best way for ISPs to deal with bandwidth demand but it is the easiest for consumers to understand. 95% percentile billing would make more sense but you'd have a very hard time trying to explain it to the non-geeks.

Since you mention the electric comapny, the easiest billing method to understand would be like how the electric company bills. You pay for what you use.
Then people who use a little would only pay a little. And people who use alot would pay more.

if anything, having a cap is a detriment to the people who use very little bandwidth. Since a person who only uses 50GB a month will be paying the same amount as a person who uses 250GB. (Of course assuming they are on the same speed tier)

5% max allowable utilization is not "high" by any definition.

I.e. a "cap" on Comcast's profit.

If there are truly so few users "demanding" so much bandwidth throughout their network, then there is absolutely no need for the cap as it does nothing to address the supposed bandwidth crunch.

It cost a cable company virtually nothing to provide you 30MB service compared to a 5MB service.

The only issue may be node saturation

Those that are going to then argue that doing so will cause too many full time streamers from saturating the node need to see paragraph one (which is one of your own arguments).

Their entire network can sit there turned on and unused and the cost of its operation compared to full capacity (80% utilization) would be marginal. This has been discussed many times.

1.) You make the assumption that you have a competing service to flee too. Most have cable and phone, though they dont really compete being DSL speed is nowhere near that of cable (for the most part).

2.) I agree with your statement about utilization, but point being rarely are you running at full line speed for an extended period of time.

you would not notice unless that node had several "hogs" all eating from troughs at the same time. But as pointed out, they (you know the ones these caps are meant to capture) are such a small % of user's surely that would not be the case.

3.) How do these caps protect against high utilization anyway? The caps are monthly so they are free to eat away as much and as fast as they want until a.) They reach their limit or b.) they keep paying to keep hogging away.

>>reality of the situation is that very few users will run into them.

200GB? C'mon that is just 1 (one) retired friend.
How much would household of 4-5 use?

Current:17.9 Kbit/s / 1.0 Mbit/s (Out / In)
Today:30.6 MB / 448.1 MB (Out / In)
Month:8.0 GB / 101.8 GB (Out / In)
 
 

I guess you didn't see where it says Month. Tomorrow is another month you know.

And they are doing this why??

Of course now we'll see at least three different people reply with grossly inflated bandwidth numbers while claiming that they are representative of the "typical" user. To them, the "typical user" watches multiple HD streams simultaneously, downloads a different Linux distribution every day, has VPNs established to their friends and family where they exchange hours of home videos, and stores every byte of their data in the cloud.

And they are doing this why??

Many years ago i can understand that node congestion was an issue, due to the equipment not being easily available due to the tech. But as time progressed and better tech came into the market place, and vendors supplying said equipment at huge mark-downs.. Congestion was a non-issue.

But as of now in 2012. The 'congestion' boogeyman is simply more than what i described above, or a pure-cash grab. 50gb for 10 bucks is simply absurd.

And they are doing this why??

I'd just cancel my service and get whatever else possible.

I pay a couple bucks more a month for the Business class.

I pay a couple bucks more a month for the Business class. The only downside is a 3 year contract, but there is no competition in my area so I might as well.

No more worries about caps.

»business.comcast.com/smb/service···et/plans

Comcast should have never been allowed to buy them.

No transport carrier should be permitted to own a content company.