Critics Speak Out on Comcast's Plan to Charge Overages While Level 3 Says They've Proven Unfair Prioritization As we noted yesterday, Comcast has announced the company is raising their universal 250GB usage cap to 300 GB -- while announcing that they'll be experimenting with a variety of usage-based surcharges over the coming months. Not too surprisingly, competitors and consumer advocates aren't too impressed with the changes -- Free Press arguing that the company's usage caps are not necessary and should be eliminated entirely. From a statement posted to the organization's website: "Comcast has never had any legitimate reason to cap its Internet customers, and today's announcement of new overage charges is just another example of the cable giant's efforts to discriminate against and thwart online video competition. Data caps are not a reasonable or effective way to manage capacity problems, which are virtually non-existent for Comcast.
"While the move to increase its caps is overdue, the notion that Comcast would charge an exorbitant rate for additional bandwidth — while continuing to exempt its own traffic under its Xbox deal -- illustrates that Comcast is really trying to discourage subscribers from experimenting with online video alternatives. We call on Comcast to drop the caps and these exorbitant overage fees entirely." Netflix, who for obvious reasons has been highly critical of usage limits, also had plenty to say about the changes: “Increasing the data cap is a small step in the right direction, but unfortunately Comcast continues to treat its own Internet delivered video different under the cap than other Internet delivered video. We continue to stand by the principle that ISPs should treat all providers of video services equally." Adding fuel to the fire, Level3 has posted analysis claiming they've looked at the data and that Comcast does appear to be giving their own streaming video traffic preferential treatment. You'll recall that Level3 and Comcast have had several years of disputes over network neutrality and additional connectivity surcharges. Meanwhile, Canadians, who deal with some of the most draconian caps and usage caps anywhere, say they'd love it if their ISPs raised their caps to 300 GB.
|
  GbcueP.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | Overages And so it begins, when they shouldn't have had a cap in the first place.
--
My Blog 2.2 | |
|  |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Overages said by Gbcue:And so it begins, when they shouldn't have had a cap in the first place.
it begins? at&t started charging overages a YEAR ago. | |
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | Its all just a cash grab. Keep your investors happy, rape more money from your customers without having to invest in infrastructure.
Personally, I don't think I reach 250 Gb, but I don't want to have to think or worry about it. I don't want to have to check in the last week of the month to make sure I can download that video. Peace of mind is worth a sacrifice in speed to me, and I will probably switch to a slower provider if it means no caps.
I have AT&T U-Verse now, where caps are "in limbo".
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
|  KommiePremium
join:2003-05-13
united state
kudos:2
1 edit | There should be no caps at all!! Government should outlaw caps. This is an Infrastructure issue for the 21st century that is bound to stop innovation. | |
|  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
| Finalized Details Though they list there will be a 300GB cap for the lower tiers, just from discussion on this forum most people are blast and above.
If that starts at 400 or 500, that would be very reasonable. For those few of us that push 1TB+, time to switch to business. | |
| | | | | | Lower tiers have slower speeds already. If Comcast can't handle TBs of data they need to admit that they aren't a broadband company and offer a product that they can actually deliver of a few hundred kbps. Since most customers only use 5GB or something, there shouldn't be a problem. | |
|
 IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
1 edit | I've been saying this all along... I'm proud to be on record as having said this all along.... for perhaps the last few years on this website.
»The Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management Topic
»The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~
Comcast has NEVER given a legitimate reason for the 250GB usage cap.
Furthermore, this usage cap was NEVER about addressing congestion. That's what the real-time congestion management system Comcast has is for. This cap was designed to prevent the emergence and ultimate viability of competitive alternative services for media consumption, such as Netflix/Apple TV/Vudu/Roku/Amazon, you name it.
Comcast implemented this cap to have TV remain TV, and Internet remain Internet. Comcast didn't want Internet becoming TV and this cap was intended to prevent that from happening. Having Internet become TV would undermine its entire business model, and Comcast wasn't going to let that happen, even going so far as to create an arbitrary usage cap that had no bearing on network congestion management.
This all became the more clear when Comcast decided to exclude XBox Xfinity App content from the 250GB usage cap. Why go so far as to exclude it if that usage cap was really high enough for normal usage?
Guess the game is up now Comcast. Deal with it. Welcome to your new cable bill and the cord-cutter generation.
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
| |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: I've been saying this all along... said by IPPlanMan:Comcast implemented this cap to have TV remain TV, and Internet remain Internet. Comcast didn't want Internet becoming TV and this cap was intended to prevent that from happening. Having Internet become TV would undermine its entire business model, and Comcast wasn't going to let that happen
And don't they have that right? To do business as they see fit and not as you or the government sees fit. | |
| | | | | Re: I've been saying this all along... Ah.... No!
They will do business as the government sees fit, or they will be punished or not be doing business at all. It is as simple as that.
The government is an extension of the people (or it should be), so if we press them they press Comcast. | |
| | | KommiePremium
join:2003-05-13
united state
kudos:2 | said by Linklist:said by IPPlanMan:Comcast implemented this cap to have TV remain TV, and Internet remain Internet. Comcast didn't want Internet becoming TV and this cap was intended to prevent that from happening. Having Internet become TV would undermine its entire business model, and Comcast wasn't going to let that happen
And don't they have that right? To do business as they see fit and not as you or the government sees fit. No they do not have a right to do business as they see fit. Thats what regulations and laws are for.
Its time to start worrying about the average joe and not the average ceo. | |
| | | | | | Re: I've been saying this all along... You do realize that there is basically NO regulation on the Internet. And the FCC has no legal ground to even say anything. | |
| | | | |  bear73Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly SkiesPremium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND | Re: I've been saying this all along... there is a BIG difference between the internet (ie. web) and the physical interconnect that gets you from your house TO the internet. There are many laws surrounding the intermediary between you and the backbone | |
|
| | | zed260Premium
join:2011-11-11
Cleveland, TN Reviews:
·Charter
| said by Kommie:said by Linklist:said by IPPlanMan:Comcast implemented this cap to have TV remain TV, and Internet remain Internet. Comcast didn't want Internet becoming TV and this cap was intended to prevent that from happening. Having Internet become TV would undermine its entire business model, and Comcast wasn't going to let that happen
And don't they have that right? To do business as they see fit and not as you or the government sees fit. No they do not have a right to do business as they see fit. Thats what regulations and laws are for. Its time to start worrying about the average joe and not the average ceo. nope regulations and laws are done solely to give the people a feel like the goverment is doing something nothing more
they can and will do as they see fit because they have money and money is all that matters in this world
Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws. is a classic quote and is the truth behind or modern world
has been for years why do you think rome collapsed money why do you think the south lost the cival war etc
»the-classic-liberal.com/give-me-···s-money/ | |
|
| | n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD | said by Linklist:said by IPPlanMan:Comcast implemented this cap to have TV remain TV, and Internet remain Internet. Comcast didn't want Internet becoming TV and this cap was intended to prevent that from happening. Having Internet become TV would undermine its entire business model, and Comcast wasn't going to let that happen
And don't they have that right? To do business as they see fit and not as you or the government sees fit. No one "does business as they see fit". There are rules, or there is no system, period. No economic system functions without rules.
If it were otherwise, assassination and fraud would also be "doing business as one sees fit". | |
| | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | That's a bit of a false choice there... but I'll bite....
They have a legal obligation to be truthful in advertising and service offerings. They weren't. They got called out for it. They're shifting blame. It's that simple.
»blog.comcast.com/2012/05/comcast···hes.html
Posted by Cathy Avgiris, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Communications and Data Services, Comcast Cable
"Over the last several years, we have periodically reviewed this policy, and for the last six months we have been analyzing the market and our process and think that now is the time to begin to move to a new plan. This conclusion was only reinforced when, in recent weeks, some of the conversation around our new product introductions focused on our data usage threshold, rather than on the exciting opportunities we are offering our customers. "
Couldn't resist a swipe at the customers could ya Cathy?
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
| | | | | If they see fit to murder and kill those who don't agree with their business is that okay too? | |
| | | | | | Re: I've been saying this all along... said by Metatron2008:If they see fit to murder and kill those who don't agree with their business is that okay too?
Long as they can make a buck from it! | |
|
| | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | Comcast was acting in an anti-competitive manner by having a cap applicable to competitive services like Roku/Apple TV/Netflix, etc. and not their own. | |
| | | bear73Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly SkiesPremium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND | no, they don't. Particularly when they have monopolies in many markets. And you can't say that 1.5mb DSL is a competitor. These days, T1 speeds are nearly dial-up speed in terms of what customers want/need and what is available within the industry | |
|
| | i agree and disagree they are a business, so technically they should be able to do what they want. but the problem comes in where most places dont have any internet competition. so if i dont use comcast for my internet im stuck with 7 meg dsl.
yes and i know i have it good. alot of people cant get more than 1.5 meg.
so now you have to make the choice be capped and pay more money, or stick with 1.5 meg and not worry about the cap. | |
| | KommiePremium
join:2003-05-13
united state
kudos:2 | Re: i agree and disagree They can't do what they want. Thats where regulations come in! | |
| | | | | Re: i agree and disagree right within regs  there is no regulation saying they cant do what they are doing. | |
| | | | | | Re: i agree and disagree Yet. Regulations can be interpreted or created ex post facto. Comcast is free to pack up their wires and go home. | |
| | | | | | | Re: i agree and disagree im in total agreement, i wish there were no caps. but currently nothing will be done, besides complaining. | |
| | | | | KommiePremium
join:2003-05-13
united state
kudos:2 | said by Wilsdom:Yet. Regulations can be interpreted or created ex post facto. Comcast is free to pack up their wires and go home.
Those wires were subsidized by the public! | |
| | | | | | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: i agree and disagree I think hes being metaphorical. But so long as a company is acting within regulations they can do as they please. once they step so much s a toe outside of them they should be punished. While the caps/overages are fine within regulations, the xbox not counting against the cap, even though it comes through the internet just like netflix is, when netflix counts against it, over the line I think. | |
| | | | | | | bear73Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly SkiesPremium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND | Re: i agree and disagree The bankers were operating within regulations when they caused the financial meltdown too.... businesses have a moral and fiscal responsibility to be good stewards. You can't (shouldn't be able to) make money when your customer base is jobless or simply can't afford your product. | |
|
| | | | | | | you do realize that the Cable companies did not get any funds such as the Phone companies right? They may have been granted monoploy status back in the day- but the public did NOT pay for those wires. And in this day in age those wires were replaced at the expense of the company. People back then also were free as they are today- NOT to sign up with CATV if they don't want it.
The same as you are free not to use Comcast or any other company. | |
|
| | | | | | Can I say first off it's awesome having the comment system back!!!
What about the regulations on the regulations? | |
|
| bear73Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly SkiesPremium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND | Using your statement/logic that they are a business so they should be allowed to do what they want.... thats precisely what the banks did which resulted in this little "economic reset" starting in 2008/9. AND it was mostly all Legal!!!
So, no. businesses have a moral and fiscal responsibility to be good neighbors and stewards. If companies took a longer view to profits rather than trying to cash in on the short term alot of the problems would fix themselves... but that's also pie-in-the-sky thinking...  | |
|
| | What are they thinking? I find it funny that the engineers at Comcast think they are so damn smart that they can prioritize their traffic and then lie to us about it and think they can hide it.
If you have not done so, read Level 3's analysis of this. 3 things to pay attention to are: 1.) There isn't a separate channel for the X traffic 2.) The X servers are reachable from the internet 3.) The congestion chart.
»blog.level3.com/2012/05/17/an-ip···ization/ | |
| | | | Re: What are they thinking? One problem with their analysis: they correctly note that the xfinity servers are accessible from the public Internet. But, they really need to compare both trace routes from their home and work locations.
Comcast may be taking the position that all the xfinity traffic is within their internal networks, and they are tagging packets to accomplish that. The leak onto the public network could be unintentional, or only when the destination is outside their network.
Or, they could be covering their collective behinds. But, I"be learned to take technical details repeated by non-technical PR, sales, and management people with a grain of salt. They are simple repeating their recollection/interpretation of what they were told, and it is rarely completely accurate. | |
| | Reviews:
·Charter
| said by Skippy25:If you have not done so, read Level 3's analysis of this. 3 things to pay attention to are: 1.) There isn't a separate channel for the X traffic 2.) The X servers are reachable from the internet 3.) The congestion chart.
not to be the bearer of bad news here, but lets clear this up a bit from Level3s bias(I dont like comcast as much as you for this, but bear with this, and understand why this was left out by level3), but factually correct findings(they did prove the traffic is treated differently, in a manner that anyone can replicate easily, but its bias in a way to spite comcast for it, and so its written in a very obtuse manner).
The server IP that the xfinity content is coming from is 76.96.125.242.
An ip lookup of that server shows that the IP belongs to comcast, and the sever host is also comcast(its showing as one of their regional DNS servers in chicago). Now, here is the only thing I wish to point out that is NOT pointed out in the Level3 post:
IF(and this is a big if, but its what the courts will look at if someone sues them) the traffic for the xfinity app always stays in the comcast network, meaning it never crosses a peering point into someone elses network, then factually, Comcast is correct in calling it a private IP network, because it is.
IF, however, the Xfinity content ever crosses a peering point into another ISPs backbone, THEN its not a private IP network, because it is leaving their own network.
I can understand why comcast might see that if it stays within their own network, its considered a "private IP network", regardless of what hardware it goes to.
What a potential suee would have to prove, and it would be very easy to do so if it is, is that the content is leaving the comcast network, because then its not within their "private" ip network.
I can also see the flip side, how it is unfair to treat something that is over the internet, since the internet is just a series of connected computers and devices, because it stifles innovation, prevents and chokes competition, and only aids in lining the company investors pockets more.
The real problem here, is the stock exchange and investors in general. I think the stock market has only driven prices for everything higher and needs to be shut down, so we can resume our old trading practices minus the ridiculous demand for short sighted profits at the expense of customers. | |
| | | | | Re: What are they thinking? You may want to Google Private IP addresses as you are incorrect in your assessment - "then factually, Comcast is correct in calling it a private IP network, because it is."
In a nutshell if an IP address can be addressed from outside your network and the IP address is routable publicly, then it is NOT a private IP address nor is it a private network.
Arguing whether or not any packets transit across a peer is only relevant in Comcast eyes. But they need to walk a fine line because that argument can be made about an awful lot of Comcast traffic that should not be counted against the caps any more then this service. I really dont think they want to go there and I believe that statement is going to bite them in the butt one of these days.
What is clear in the grid is that congestion has very little effect on Xfinity traffic while killing Netflix. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: What are they thinking? said by Skippy25:You may want to Google Private IP addresses as you are incorrect in your assessment - "then factually, Comcast is correct in calling it a private IP network, because it is."
In a nutshell if an IP address can be addressed from outside your network and the IP address is routable publicly, then it is NOT a private IP address nor is it a private network.
Arguing whether or not any packets transit across a peer is only relevant in Comcast eyes. But they need to walk a fine line because that argument can be made about an awful lot of Comcast traffic that should not be counted against the caps any more then this service. I really dont think they want to go there and I believe that statement is going to bite them in the butt one of these days.
What is clear in the grid is that congestion has very little effect on Xfinity traffic while killing Netflix.
Just because its pingable or such from an outside source, does not mean its accessable. I can ping nearly every server on the internet, and its set up that way as a diagnostic tool. If you took the time to learn something by typing in that IP, you would see that it refuses all HTTP web requests, and denys any kind of access at all, even with a spoofed browser header. Again, its a comcast owned and run server, and if the packets never leave their network, it IS a private network. The problems exists in that it shows that their network is far from congested, because the xfinity xbox traffic does not suffer any from internal or external network congestion, which proves that the "network congestion" boogyman they use to justify caps and crappy network management policies just went out the window, and comcrap deserves to be sued for deceptive and anti-competitive behavior. Caps need to be abolished, and this may very well be the screw up that gets congress and the DoJ to actually investigate them on the terms of the merger and the legitmacy of the "congestion" issue as a justification for caps and overages.
Hell, we all know its just a money grab, and so does the DoJ and the Att. Gen, but they need a legal and legit reason to initiate an investigation, and this is one. Also, this would give the FCC the juice(if it had the balls and teeth, which were all bought out) to reclassify ISPs as class 2 services and that would then make it fall under the full regulatory scorn of the FCC. Comcast will fight tooth and nail to prevent that, and they have already put 1 nail in the coffin, by convincing a court that the FCC does not have the power to impose fines(hmmm, a regulatory body with no ability to fine and regulate isnt a regulatory body, its a puppet show). I hope someone sues them, and I hope that Comcrap gets investigated by the DoJ for this crap, which is clearly and rightfully so, anti-competitive, and could potentially be illegal. | |
|
|  MoracCat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1
·Comcast
| The problem is that Comcast isn't prioritizing their traffic, they're simply excluding it from any restrictions. The Xfinity Xbox traffic is ignoring the speed tier restriction, actually allowing customers to exceed their allotted bandwidth. So it's not the the Xfinity Xbox traffic is being preferred over the Netflix traffic, it's simply not being treated the same.
»ber.gd/post/23025893856/comcast-···tization
Makes me wonder what Comcast's congestion management system would do if a household was continuously sucking up 50 Mbps on a 16 Mbps plan, by streaming multiple Xfinity.TV Xbox streams.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·KCH Cable
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| There is another way to look at this... One fact that rarely gets discussed is "usable time."
Assuming a 30 day month:
(disclaimer: I don't know exactly what speeds/plans they have these days, but let's assume the following for easy math on a 'standard' plan that a "regular household" might have)
Say one's connection can sustain an 'exact' 2MB/sec (yes, MegaBYTES per second),
One gets about 1.8 Hours of "full speed" use per day before exceeding the limit.
While it's true - most will NOT use this much, (I, for one, do not), the principle of the matter remains. Time (at full available speed subscribed to) should be a factor instead of pure quantity of data used.
Obviously, if one's connection is faster and the 'cap' is larger, the numbers will change (but not by large amounts).
Another breakdown might be:
124.275KB/sec. sustained transfer speed, per 30 days, assuming non-stop use.
Netflix numbers, well, those have been run before. I'm not going to bother, except to say that even at 300GB/mo., you're looking at a few hours of HD per day. Perhaps a small percentage of "normal" users will be affected, but that will rise sharply as more "average households" start using more of their connection.
- - - -
Math:
(please correct me if I'm off... running on little sleep)
300GB =322,122,547,200 bytes / 7,549,797,200 bytes per hour (at 2048KB/sec) = approx. 42.666 "GB hours" in a 30 day time period (yes, let's create a unit of measure - you heard it here first(?)  ), finally, divided by 24 hours = 1.777766004098759 hours (rounded to 1.8 above).
----------------------------------
All in all, I'm glad they're increasing the 'cap' by a small amount. Finally. It's still a move to make a little extra money in some cases out of essentially "thin air." | |
| | | | Re: There is another way to look at this... You are correct, but the thing is that caps are there to prevent lots of download and what is a lot of download? It is mostly video and streaming. Which just so happens to be Comcast bread and butter.
Follow the money and it will lead you to the guilty. | |
|
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·voip.ms
| wrong on so many levels OK,
They call the internet a dumb pipe, which it is not.
You see in CM land if they are using the SAME channels for IP (the dumb pipe) and their internal services AND have a cap then that is a problem because:
1. If comcast offers VOD (it does) and ships that over IP AND gives it higher priority AND doesn't count against a cap than that is anti-competitve to the Netflix I have and use.
2. I would argue that they have no right to classify VoD at a higher service tier.
3. Xfinity - It's going over the same channels as regular internet than even if it is piped from their datacenter they need to count this as against the cap.
4. So say Comcast comes out w/ cloud locker or cloud backup (they will) to compete against Gdrive, mozy, crashplan, etc) and don't charge backup against their cloud backup but the full monty against the others -- Anti competitive. Again QoS or class.
5. So say Comcast comes up with a virtual terminal service that uses a remote display protocol and sells me a Windows VM within their data centers. Now I have a private VPN that does this today to my work. Should not caps count against this. Who gets priority
The list goes on. If the government lets this start, it will destroy competition, lives, and our wallet BELIEVE IT. On top of that as they add "value added" services it will make it more difficult to switch to a competitor if they have your experience locked in.
The downside to regulation is that there will be inevitable taxes added but if this supports my pipe and lets me do what I want with it, so be it. Better yet, let Level 3 be the police I bet you they won't let a byte slip by and do it for a much lower cost that 10,000 gov't bureaucrats.
On top of all of this foolishness they are vertically integrated at own NBCU. So that in itself was anti-competitive.
So regardless or the tone, if comcast is shipping ANY service that competes with another entity (PHONE INCLUDED) than if there are caps or "congestion management" that it is done fairly.
If you want to see the opposite extreme, go to Canada. They are what the US wants to be. Low caps, high prices, paywall competiting services, poor service, and selective prioritization. | |
| | | | Re: wrong on so many levels There is NO infrastructure problem. COmcasat has 8 channel downstreams in some areas with 3-4 channel upstreams.
They just want our money ;'(
SOMEONE STOP THEMM
Also you can easily go over 300 gigs:
Dropbox 50 gig plan and I have it mostly filled
then install all my steam games again
That's like 400 gigabytes in 2 days on my 50megabit connection from them. | |
| | |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| Re: wrong on so many levels said by JigglyWiggly:That's like 400 gigabytes in 2 days on my 50megabit connection from them.
And some ask why are there caps  | |
| | | | | | Re: wrong on so many levels is what I am doing so untypical?
Get out you comcast employee and back to scrubbin teh toilets scrub | |
| | | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by tshirt:said by JigglyWiggly:That's like 400 gigabytes in 2 days on my 50megabit connection from them.
And some ask why are there caps And should still be asking why there are caps.. there is no legitimate reason for them. The lies they feed the clueless unwashed masses are just that... lies. | |
| | | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | Re: wrong on so many levels Is that your mantra?
because I heard that if you repeat it enough, some people with limited IQ's will believe it is true. | |
|
vproman
join:2006-12-28
San Diego, CA | Caps, overage fees and throttling are all red herrings. Caps, overage fees and throttling are all red herrings. None of these matter because in a competitive market, where consumers have a variety of choices among non-colluding competitors, these three things will have pressure pulling in both directions keeping them in balance.
The real issue is that the ISPs are EXCLUDING their own proprietary services from all three of these. As a result, the market is NOT competitive. The ISP is effectively colluding with its internal service providers in order to prevent any market competition at all. We saw this when AT&T did not allow you to use third-party long distance service providers and instead you could only use AT&T long distance. Instead of completely blocking third-party service providers, they are crippling them by applying caps, overage fees and throttling to third party services, which is just as good as outright blocking them.
If the ISPs services are required to fall under the same caps, overage fees and throttling as other service providers, then the caps, overage fees and throttling will truly only be applied in order to manage the network. If the ISPs services are exempted from the caps, overages and throttling, then those limitations will not be used to manage the network.
Managing the network does NOT mean giving your own services a higher priority. | |
| Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| hmm... no doubt there will be another round of class action lawsuits to stop the caps altogether.. but if you go after Comcast.. you're going to have to go after AT&T too, it's only fair..
most people in the midwest where the heart of Comcast & AT&T's footprint is have stuck their head in the dirt for a long-time... so this has been a long-time coming.. | |
|  camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
·Comcast
1 edit | All I know.. From scouring the web for info, Comcast has bought up more smaller ISp's throughout the years then have ran cable, so to me it seems like they are getting desperate to keep shareholders happy and not tell them we need to spend money to start upgrading the backbone to handle more and more traffic as the web grows.
If Comcast keeps getting snagged for doing this crap and people file complaints then the governments eyes are going to be looking in that direction,remember people it's election year so most of the Q tips (AKA older folks) which when you look at the house and the senate that's all i see people so out of touch with the current times and all care about staying right where they are.
Good read
»www.answers.com/topic/continenta···sion-inc
One more »www.cedmagazine.com/news/2007/04···idiaries
Seems to me they buy more then lay more cable | |
| BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Not that bad Getting 300GB and paying $10/50GB is not that bad, BUT they need to treat all traffic, including XBOX VOD, the same way. Even if you were streaming Netflix all month, you're not going to get near that limit, it's the big downloaders and torrenters that are going to hit it (I've gotten close, but I was just wasting bandwidth like no tomorrow). | |
|  NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Who Cares The only people complaining here are those working on getting a DMCA lawsuit against them anyway. I classify myself as a heavy user and I have never gone over 150GB in any month.
The only problem I have is that it's not possible to do offsite backups of large data sets IE raw photos that I take and I have over a terabyte of that. The family photos are though converted into jpegs and that's a small enough size that backing up is fine.
--
Ski News - Ski Colorado Blog
Web Hosting - www.FrontRangeHosting.com | |
| | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
1 edit | Re: Who Cares said by NOCMan:I classify myself as a heavy user and I have never gone over 150GB in any month.
Then you're not really a "heavy" user and not even close to it. | |
|
| | Too far... You are all taking this way too far. Comcast is all sour grapes with Netflix because they came up with a great idea and got to market first and do their job really well. Since Netflix crosses the Comcast wires and Comcast now has a competing product they are using every trick in the book to make the Comcast product look better. Comcast needs to compete with Netflix, not make the game unfair. May the better service win.
Competition is king and Comcast is cheating right now. It's that simple.
What's worse... I am a Comcast customer who is happy with their service yet aggravated with their pricing and the fact that they have a monopoly in my area. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
