  FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
1 edit
1 recommendation |
FFH5
Premium Member
2012-May-17 1:50 pm
Sounds like a good dealAnd the 250GB cap is raised to 300GB for everyone. And higher caps for faster tiers(which of course cost more anyway). And what many users complained about - the tiered caps can be exceeded by paying more money per GB. In any case, it addresses complaints many user voiced: 1 - that Comcast would never raise the caps. So now they are. 2 - that Comcast just booted you after exceeding the cap without letting you pay for more data. The example of $10 for an extra 50GB doesn't mean that is what Comcast will actually end up charging for extra GBs. Remember, this is being tested in some areas 1st. The amounts and cost may change after the trials. I don't think I'll worry about new cap policy: 
| |
|
 | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
1 recommendation |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-May-17 2:31 pm
Re: Sounds like a good dealYes Comcast raised the cap. Finally it's only been at 250 GB for 4 years. While 50 extra GB is nice, after 4 years that's it? 20% increase in 4 years? That's a 4.66% increase per year on average. At that rate the cap might get to 500 GB by 2023.
yes $10 per 50 GB is better than $10 per ONE GB that Verizon charges and at 20 cents per GB it's not bad PROVIDED you use all 50 GB. If you only need 10 GB you're paying $1 per GB. Not such a great deal.
No matter what Comcast says it's still a cap. If there is a limit on something before some action happens then it's a cap.
Good for you that you only use 20 GB a month. My son started using OnLive and used as much as 25 GB in a DAY. | |
|
| | FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
1 recommendation |
FFH5
Premium Member
2012-May-17 2:34 pm
Re: Sounds like a good dealsaid by 88615298: My son started using OnLive and used as much as 25 GB in a DAY.
Then put a limit on how much he can do on that bandwidth hogging service OnLive. Make him go outside and play. Better for his health.  | |
|
| | |
1 recommendation |
28619103 (banned)
Member
2012-May-17 2:41 pm
Re: Sounds like a good dealThat service is totally a bandwidth hog. I wonder the true economics around the TRUE cost of network vs a game console make it viable long term... guess it depends on who pays for the network.
e.g I could use running tap water as a cooling system in my house, but it isn't cost effective. | |
|
| | | | FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2012-May-17 2:44 pm
Re: Sounds like a good dealsaid by 28619103:That service is totally a bandwidth hog. I wonder the true economics around the TRUE cost of network vs a game console make it viable long term... guess it depends on who pays for the network.
e.g I could use running tap water as a cooling system in my house, but it isn't cost effective.
I agree. The OnLive business plan is based on unlimited virtually free bandwidth. It is very wasteful over the old gaming systems where most of the code existed locally on a game console. As bandwidth costs go up for their end users, their business could suffer significantly. | |
|
| | | | |  whfsdude
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
1 recommendation |
whfsdude
Premium Member
2012-May-17 2:51 pm
Re: Sounds like a good dealsaid by FFH5:The OnLive business plan is based on unlimited virtually free bandwidth. It assumes an average of 7 megabits per user. It's actually a hell of lot nicer on a network than say a software update being pushed where you could have thousands of users maxing out their line. That's why there is a disconnect between metered billing and network usage. A user who runs Pandora using less than 200kbps 24/7 will cause less peak usage on a network at peak periods than a user who downloads a few mp3s and maxes out their connection at 10 PM. Even if the Pandora user uses more overall data during the month. said by FFH5:As bandwidth costs go up for their end users, their business could suffer significantly. Bandwidth costs have been going down. It's getting ever cheaper to push packets around the internet. | |
|
| | | | | |
1 recommendation |
28619103 (banned)
Member
2012-May-17 3:42 pm
Re: Sounds like a good dealsaid by whfsdude:Bandwidth costs have been going down. It's getting ever cheaper to push packets around the internet.
Bandwidth costs (or from an operator standpoint), the capital required for traffic / user growth has gone down, but traffic has outpaced cost reductions for the past 3 years and predicted to continue. Cheaper to push packets, but the packet levels are growing by Moore's law, while the costs are reducing at a much slower rate. | |
|
| | | | | | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
1 recommendation |
to whfsdude
said by whfsdude: Even if the Pandora user uses more overall data during the month. fAcEtIOUs answer would be for them to listen to the radio or buy CDs. | |
|
| | | |
1 recommendation |
to 28619103
Nice analogy, but water is a finite resource for you (im assuming you have to pay to have it delivered to you) whereas bandwidth is not. If you lived by a river, a stream or welled into either you could do this free of charge with unlimited water to you.
And before you try to make the argument about congested networks (thus claiming bandwidth limits), I would like you to show me one. Then I would you to show me how they are only charging when it is congested and letting it flow freely when not being the cost to so is almost 0. | |
|
| | | | | | |
28619103 (banned)
Member
2012-May-17 9:20 pm
Re: Sounds like a good dealsaid by Skippy25:And before you try to make the argument about congested networks (thus claiming bandwidth limits), I would like you to show me one. Then I would you to show me how they are only charging when it is congested and letting it flow freely when not being the cost to so is almost 0.
It's about congestion avoidance via capital investment. Ask any broadband operator. Broadband networks are required to substantially increase capacity every year ($$$) to avoid congestion. Why should the masses have to fund more than their fair share of the incremental costs driven by a few? | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: Sounds like a good dealI debunked your reply before you even made it. Try again. | |
|
| | | | | | | EnerJi
join:2011-02-19
Pacific NW
1 recommendation |
EnerJi
Member
2012-May-19 1:54 am
Re: Sounds like a good dealUhh, no you didn't. Do you really believe bandwidth isn't a finite resource or are you just saying that to troll? | |
|
| | | |  StreetSpiritThis spot reserved for Xenu.
Premium Member
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY |
to 28619103
Not everyone's usage pattern is identical, especially those who run servers. |
ISPs pay pennies for bandwidth, and sometimes nothing at all when peering. The plant expenses are ammortised over several years. This is gouging, plain and simple. And considering today;s economic reality, it pisses me off to no end. If I'm unemployed and looking, I would have to make the choice of buying something substantial like milk or bandwidth. I hate being put into that position. And as for usage: This is all 2 tablets and 4 pcs upgrading... and a bit me downloading from usenet. The upstream is all my web and ircd servers. A lot of it is logging in to access files for work. (works great with my tablet!) | |
|
| | | Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX |
to FFH5
That's the dumbest suggestion ever | |
|
| | | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
1 recommendation |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:said by 88615298: My son started using OnLive and used as much as 25 GB in a DAY.
Then put a limit on how much he can do on that bandwidth hogging service OnLive. Make him go outside and play. Better for his health. Yes that's the answer. Gas to high? drive less. Quit your job and get one closer to home. Just because the Amish can live without cars and electricity doesn't mean I have to or should. So just as you only use 20 GB a month doesn't mean I should have to or should. So kindly take you arrogant attitude and shove it. | |
|
| | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Sounds like a good dealNo you need to be adult and a parent and use and practice discipline.
Oh yes that exactly what I did when gas and electric price got higher I used less. I kept lights off and tun off the heat at night I bundled up and drove less and combined trips.
In the same way I avoided bandwidth hogging applications. I still keep my eclectic bill under 40 and my broadband usage around 25G. | |
|
| | | | | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-May-17 10:57 pm
Re: Sounds like a good dealsaid by Scatcatpdx:Oh yes that exactly what I did when gas and electric price got higher you live like Amish and had no electricity or indoor plumbing? NOT. | |
|
| | | | | Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX |
to Scatcatpdx
I can't tell if you are serious or trolling.
The whole point of docsis 3.0 and ftth is that we can all be heavy users, if you believed otherwise you know nothing regarding broadband in the year 2012 | |
|
| |  jlivingood
Premium Member
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA |
to 88615298
said by 88615298:No matter what Comcast says it's still a cap. If there is a limit on something before some action happens then it's a cap. Well.... Per the FAQs @ » customer.comcast.com/hel ··· ive-use/"Q. Does this mean you're going to stop cutting people off who exceed your cap? A. Effective immediately, we are suspending enforcement of our current data usage cap and we will launch trials of new data usage approaches, although we will continue to contact the very small number of excessive users about their usage, which can be indicative of security or related issues." So unless you are in a trial market... | |
|
| | | |
Banana Eater to 88615298
Anon
2012-May-17 4:25 pm
to 88615298
Are you not the one that is all for the cap as only pirates are likely to go over? Damn your kid is a pirate. | |
|
|  JawsincJaws Incorporated
join:2011-01-12
Woodside, NY |
to FFH5
god that sux a sack. i use 250gb in a week easy...
the first (and prob only) time im going to say that i'm glad im w/TWC... | |
|
| |  djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV |
djrobx
Premium Member
2012-May-17 8:00 pm
Re: Sounds like a good dealsaid by Jawsinc:god that sux a sack. i use 250gb in a week easy...
the first (and prob only) time im going to say that i'm glad im w/TWC...
Yep. TWC went from zero to hero when it comes to unlimited data. They're still building their meters though; we'll see how long the party lasts once it's easy to screw people with a simple policy change. Meanwhile, I'm ... dare I say it ... glad to be a customer. | |
|
|  pianotechPianotech
Premium Member
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA |
to FFH5
Sounds fair to me. Now you can use all you want (and pay for it) instead of being booted. If you don't use a lot, you don't pay any extra. | |
|
| | |
to FFH5
One thing that can be said about it is that it might not be some people's ideal but at least it isn't appalling, as many of these schemes are and have been.
The industry is going to keep pushing for this. The smart thing for everyone to do is to accept the reasonable proposals and punish severely the unreasonable. If everyone insists that, under no circumstances, will they accept any constraints then they have given up their ability to reinforce reasonable behavior in these companies. I don't see why the vast majority of people couldn't live tolerably with these caps and overage prices so why not accept this as a reasonable ballpark and start pressuring other companies to abandon their much more suffocating ideas for caps and pricing? Once there is a standard in place there will be pressure for other companies not to drop below the standard. | |
|
| | |
| StreetSpiritThis spot reserved for Xenu.
Premium Member
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY
1 edit |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:And the 250GB cap is raised to 300GB for everyone. And higher caps for faster tiers(which of course cost more anyway). And what many users complained about - the tiered caps can be exceeded by paying more money per GB. In any case, it addresses complaints many user voiced:
1 - that Comcast would never raise the caps. So now they are.
2 - that Comcast just booted you after exceeding the cap without letting you pay for more data.
The example of $10 for an extra 50GB doesn't mean that is what Comcast will actually end up charging for extra GBs. Remember, this is being tested in some areas 1st. The amounts and cost may change after the trials.
I don't think I'll worry about new cap policy:
[att=1]
This is a good deal in your opinion? So let me get this straight, there is no technical reason for doing this, it's a pure money grab. This is proven by allowing a user to run up bw as long as that user pays for it. Do you know how much bandwidth costs Comcast? Literally pennies on our paid dollars. So they have an infrastructure... Arguably, they wish to make money, hence they build out their infrastructure. If this included 4g service, id be GLAD to pay. But, it doesnt. IT's the old coax to the modem, now Docsis 3, giving plenty of ways to avoid a slowdown, and it's really an idiotic thing to do. Cablevision tried it.. Gave it up after a few years.... Verizon tried it and gave it up within a two week period. If this is what I can expect from the future of cable; completely unnecessary per byte billing, I'm darn glad Verizon is wiring my area finally.. I DO NOT want to leave the cable co, im very happy, but if this spreads, I won't pay anything extra, I already pay extra for the privilage of boost plus, and a 300gig limit would get me after about 5-6 hrs of downloading usenet. 5*60mbps = ... Forget Netflix, Blockbuster, Amazon in HD. Forget Youtube. Forget Skype Forget 1080p streaming media from private servers (you'd be surprised how many people stream old Russian films, French films, and other Hollywood-free masterpieces. I'm into Russian sci-fi from the USSR era. Compressed, the film is about 6-12mbit /s using Matroska as the container and x264 as codec. If Cablevision reinstates capping, there's literally zero advantage for me paying extra for boost plus -- I'd just run that much faster. People do not have as much disposable income. Those who are lucky to have jobs. This is pure gouging in my opinion. WRONG time to do this. Way wrong. Let the exodus begin! especially since we have a proliferation of bandwidth-consuming devices. My tablet alone has downloaded a few gigs in program updates. Wrong market moves can really stigmatize a co. Especially since Joe Smith will see this for what it is -- GOUGING. I use Boost plus to run a web server / chat forum / ircd. The server uploads apx 200gig monthly, and I dl from usenet maybe 150-200gig monthly. I would be over the limit. CV is cool, they encourage you to run a server on boost plus, and allow port 80 and 25 to be opened as needed. I really hope Comcast never acquires Cablevision. | |
|
| | StreetSpirit |
to FFH5
Hi - I commend you on rationing your bandwidth, but most of us enjoy a streaming film. For example my mom listens to davidzon radio, 620am. She uses about 5 gigs a day just for the stream.
I'd rather get kicked off the network than pay gouging rates.
Sorry, just my opinion. Comcast has NO reason for doing this other than greed. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2012-May-17 2:23 pm
Not Terribly BadA higher cap is good, but wouldn't it make more sense to have higher caps for higher speeds?
Even at 300GB you still just hit the cap faster with higher speeds. | |
|
| FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2012-May-17 2:25 pm
Re: Not Terribly Badsaid by pnh102:A higher cap is good, but wouldn't it make more sense to have higher caps for higher speeds?
Even at 300GB you still just hit the cap faster with higher speeds.
They are going to trial BOTH methods. Same cap for all tiers and different caps for different tiers. See their Q&A: » customer.comcast.com/hel ··· ive-use/ | |
|
| | |
to pnh102
It doesn't work like that. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Not Terribly BadWhat does it work like? | |
|
| | |  GlennLouEarl3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA |
Re: Not Terribly BadThe principle in operation here is: we'll take you for all we can. | |
|
| jlivingood
Premium Member
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA |
to pnh102
said by pnh102:A higher cap is good, but wouldn't it make more sense to have higher caps for higher speeds? From the FAQs regarding one of the trials: "...Thus, we'd start with a 300 GB data usage allotment for our Internet Essentials, Economy, and Performance Tiers, and then we would have increasing data allotments for each successive tier of high speed data service (e.g., Blast and Extreme)." So to answer your question, that is exactly how that trial would work - a faster speed tier will have a higher # of bytes, which seems logical for that trial (no details yet - stay tuned). | |
|
| |  DreamWraith
Premium Member
join:2004-04-07
Mount Vernon, WA |
Re: Not Terribly BadSomehow I doubt this will work so well for everyone. I flirt with the cap on a regular basis - This is almost nothing aside from general usage of normal services. Online Backup, Video Gaming (including digital downloads), netflix, hulu, browsing, etc. My parents, several blocks away also have similar usage levels, and they do not do much different from me. My children are still relatively young, but I can only *guess* at the increase in data usage as they come into more computer usage as they get older. This is also better than past months on the chart. There were several months last year where my usage was well over 300 GB. Charging both for speed tier AND data usage is a bit ridiculous, considering the high level of rates already charged. I already dropped cable down to the bare minimum plan due to the price gouging, which, speaking of, is getting even MORE rate hikes. over 20/month for stuff that I can *mostly* already get over the air, or free online via hulu is a bit exorbitant. If this goes through, I will likely be switching carriers, and cutting the TV cord to boot. I have been a Comcast customer since the day I moved out of my parents house nearly 10 years ago - it would be a shame to have to switch after so long. But nickel and diming isn't exactly my cup of tea. Either charge for bandwidth, or charge for speed. Not both. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Not Terribly BadVery similar usage to my own... I'm trying to figure out why my March usage dropped so much. It was an ordinary month and my household members were not away on vacation or anything of that sort.  | |
|
| 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
to pnh102
said by pnh102:A higher cap is good, but wouldn't it make more sense to have higher caps for higher speeds?
Even at 300GB you still just hit the cap faster with higher speeds.
Not necessarily. Just because you might use 100 Mbps doesn't mean you'll use 300 GB a data. And just because you might use 1000 GB of data doesn't mean you need 100 Mbps speed. You can stream Netflix just fine with a 10 Mbps connection, but stream it 8 hours a day and you can use 500 GB a month. | |
|
| |
••••
|
| |
I wonder what the higher-tier caps will beIn approach #1, Comcast will have higher caps for higher tiers (which makes perfect sense). I wonder what the cap for, say, 50/15 would be. 500GB maybe? | |
|
|
••• |
 NOCManMadMacHatter
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO |
NOCMan
Premium Member
2012-May-17 2:28 pm
Did hell just freeze over?I just posted yesterday about this where none of these capped services had raised their caps in years. I can confirm the cap page is removed from the customer portal. | |
|
|
•••• |
ssavoy
Premium Member
join:2007-08-16
Dallas, PA
1 recommendation |
ssavoy
Premium Member
2012-May-17 2:29 pm
Positive ChangeI wouldn't really call this nickel-and-diming. First of all, they're raising the limit +50GB for all users, and $10 for 50GB is very fair.
Even Amazon charges ~$0.12/GB for data transfer and they only have datacenters to manage - not thousands of nodes in neighborhoods around the country.
So I'd say this is a positive change. | |
|
|
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• |
1 recommendation |
That is not eliminationWhen you make it higher and then auto overages, would one really classify that as eliminating caps? | |
|
|
•••••• |
whfsdude
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC |
whfsdude
Premium Member
2012-May-17 2:30 pm
UsageThis is all personal. Backups, Bitcasa, Onlive, streaming media, etc. I have a second connection for business. | |
|
|
••••••• |
 tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-May-17 2:33 pm
so what does this mean for business tier? Since, for many, the primary advantage for getting business tier was no cap, and with the proposed numbers you would quickly exceed the price difference.
Will business soon carry a higher premium?
or face it's own cap? | |
|
Ubiquiti EdgeRouter ERPro8
Netgear R7000
|
Setting the bar for the futureSomeone finally woke up and noticed that kicking folks off your network is not the way to go in the long run. This does a couple of things that really benefit Comcast.
1- Increase revenue from overage charges
2- stops bad press of folks getting kicked off network for using it
3- as cord cutters increase, creates a floor for chsi revenue that can only go in one direction as internet usage goes up
Anyone want to bet on when the FIOS caps and overage charges start? | |
|
| me1212
join:2008-11-20
Lees Summit, MO |
me1212
Member
2012-May-17 3:19 pm
Re: Setting the bar for the futureit would be kinda stupid for them to right now. One of the few still all you can eat, then know if/when competitors cap they will get an influx of customers. | |
|
| |
Seems fair.I think their approach is fair.
I have no problem with consumption based usage, _provided_ the price is fair and reasonable. A 300GB initial cap, with potentially more for higher tiers, then $10/50GB at least seems fair in today's market.
What Time Warner did, for example, was completely ridiculous. Extremely low caps, extremely high overages.
My biggest concern: future broadband use will only increase, of course. But the cost of providing that infrastructure and backend has steadily dropped, as well. This is not a utility that can be measured like water or power from a cost perspective. My fear is that over time (say, 5 years) companies will continue to increase overages that are an absurd markup of actual costs. | |
|
| |
| |
Drop the prices....of your services... then I'll celebrate.  | |
|
| |
This sounds good, but...These plans sound like a good start considering that IP TV is becoming more popular and more and better content is likely.
I agree with folks that if the cap is, say, 300 GB, and one uses 301 GB in a month, charging $10 for each additional GB means that one GB is very a expensive $10. Why not charge $0.20 for each additional GB or fraction thereof over 300 GB? This would be much more fair.
And then there's the comparison of the cost of residential plans and a more expensive business plan with unlimited bandwidth and perhaps better customer service.
The problem with the $0.20 per GB over 300 GB plan is that the monitoring software has to be both accurate and reliable. I'm not sure whether that's possible. My guess the current usage meter is accurate to plus/minus 2 GB per month. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
Re: This sounds good, but...In addition, since they are trying to set a precedence with not charging usage for "on network data" with the xBox stuff, how are they going to manage the caps eliminating all data that stays on network from the meter?
If I Skype with another Comcast user, according to the xBox theory I shouldnt have that data count against me.
If I play BF3 with a friend that is on Comcast, then that data shouldnt count.
If I am in a multiplayer game and the server is on Comcast network, that data shouldnt count. | |
|
| | |
to Streetlight
Bits are bits. You pick what layer you measure at, and what traffic to exclude (e.g. local ARP traffic) and you get an accurate meter for what you're measuring. It's not like you can hold up a magnet to the bit meter and screw with it  As for overage blocks like what Comcast is proposing, from a business perspective having bills that vary by multiples of 20 cents is a pain, so Comcast would likely have higher overage charges per GB in that case. If, on the other hand, there are more broad billing groups (mostly in the +$0 or +$10 range), there's less to go wrong billing-wise, which is always a good thing. Personally, the cap and overage policy is reasonable as long as higher tiers get higher caps. Would be great if Blast/Extreme 50/Extreme 105 got 500/750/1000GB to somewhat correlate with those users' usage patterns. Oh, and there's the whole "business is uncapped" side of things. If they keep that as-is, very high usage customers could just switch and be guaranteed a consistent bill. | |
|
| |
iamwhatiam
Anon
2012-May-17 3:03 pm
This is too funnyAfter years of Comcast trying to convince customers that the more data they "use", the more it costs the ISP to provide it (as if Comcast is actually supplying it), Comcast is now going to give them the "opportunity" to buy as much as they want... and that it's a good thing... and there are plenty of customers who will agree with them.
Yep, Barnum (or whoever really said it) was right: there's a sucker born every minute (well, every second now). | |
|
| |
JasonOD
Anon
2012-May-17 3:14 pm
Stockholders Rejoice!Finally they're about to to what like minded shareholders have been asking for years- monetizing overages! No 'see you later' as in terminations, or pushing heavy residential users onto Business Class offerings, just plain old extra fees for extra usage. Fair enough.
My only complaint would be the rationale for them to raise the cap to 300GB, when the current 250GB is way, WAY beyond what ATT and other cap w/overage providers have in the market. | |
|
| | |
iamwhatiam
Anon
2012-May-17 4:23 pm
Re: Stockholders Rejoice!Except that the "extra usage" costs Comcast nothing extra at all. "Fair enough"? ...hardly. "Complete BS" is the appropriate response. | |
|
| |
usage meterMy usage meter is still there, but has not updated since sometime early last week. I noticed it hadn't been updating since I was uploading a lot of data.
In a related note, got upstream bonding last night, so the uploads went much faster. Will be posting a screenshot later tonight in the appropriate thread. | |
|
| |
leastAt least Comcast is actually giving you a reasonable amount for the monthly fee.. This absolutely slaughters any wireless plan out there now. Granded different systems, but the usage+overages are reasonable.. If comcast where to supply my area with cable i'd be on board... | |
|
|
•••••• |
| |
release the costs..show us how much it costs to $$ BUY $$ your tier-1 data first..
then we can see if the overages are justified...
I doubt ANY cable or telco is paying tier-1 providers they don't own OVERAGE$!! Infact, I'd go as far as to say most bandwidth hogs using bittorrent are being steered to peering hosts in a way that their usage is peer-neutral or better so cable companies break even or make money, but they'll be happy to grab some extra dough from you too for being so good to them & making them money!! | |
|
|
••• |
 ScreeIn the pipe 5 by 5
join:2001-04-24
Mount Laurel, NJ |
Scree
Member
2012-May-17 3:44 pm
geeCap, crap... Just lower the normal bill and more would be happy! lol | |
|
| tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-May-17 3:55 pm
Re: geesaid by Scree:Cap, crap... Just lower the normal bill and more would be happy! lol
That's definately not going to happen (YOU can go to economy if you want) but this does shift the cost of high useage/demand more toward the heavy user, which may help avoid fees rising at the bottom few tiers. | |
|
1 recommendation |
It's all about over the top videoThis is simply a way of charging people an extra $2-3 for every hour of Netflix they use. | |
|
| tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-May-17 3:58 pm
Re: It's all about over the top videosaid by nothing00:This is simply a way of charging people an extra $2-3 for every hour of Netflix they use.
They charge the same for all text pages  Data is data which costs $x to deliver, use more =pay more. | |
|
 MIABye
Premium Member
join:2001-10-28
united state |
MIABye
Premium Member
2012-May-17 3:55 pm
Wow$10 for 50 Gigs? I'd kill for that kind of pricing on my cell phone plan. | |
|
|
•••••
|
|
|
