page: 1 · 2  |
 
MikeStammer
No prison can hold me
Premium
join:2002-12-26
Aurora, IL | Screw cable All the more reason to go with DSL. SBC does not cap!
--
Mike Stammer | |
|  | 
TrainBuff
The New Haven Railroad
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Buffalo, NY
clubs:  | Re: Screw cable Neither does Adelphia. | |
| | | RavenTKR
join:2003-05-12
Cleveland, OH | Re: Screw cable I read that Adelphia s equally vague i their definition of excessive bandwidth, but unlike Comcast, Adelphia does not terminate user accounts because of excessive bandwidth, at least I have not heard or read it yet. | |
| | | | | | | RavenTKR
join:2003-05-12
Cleveland, OH | Re: Screw cable That's true of almost if not all cable companies.
Haw you ever seen a cable company decrease their prices for cable/internet and other services they offer? | |
| | | | | noochie
join:2002-08-11
Penn Valley, CA | Re: Screw cable Cox doesnt cap nor do they raise prices!! :P | |
| | | | | 
mph300
Two Thirds The Way There
join:2000-11-09 | Actually, Charter just lowered my cable internet from 59.95 to 39.95 AND incresed the DL bandwidth! | |
| | | | | | 
wookie_geek
@xx.charter- | Re: Screw cable Yeah, and just wait til 1 Mar 2004 and see what the prices are then. | |
| | Matisaro
join:2003-11-20
Troutdale, OR
| quote:
CNET and MSNBC touched on the tactic in September, and now Detroit Free Press columnist Mike Wendland tries his best to get answers from Comcast. According to Wendland, Comcast tells him that "less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent" have been kicked offline for too much downloading. But how many were simply warned? How do these users know how far to cut back their usage if the limits aren't defined? Is it unreasonable to desire a solid answer to what these mystery limits are?
It is unreasonable if the defined answer is far less than the flexable vague one. | |
| | 
zabes63
join:2003-04-05
Batavia, IL
| which is all well and good as long as SBC, in their infinite wisdom, sees you and your neighbors as being worthy of DSL service.
For those of us with no choice.....
--
Letting the Oil companies do what ever the hell they want is not an energy policyTri-City Broadband | |
| | | | m1k3
join:2002-01-31
Aurora, IL
| They cap, but it is a speed limit, not a distance limit. I had Ameritech(SBC) DSL for several years, I'm glad to switch to cable after my experience. They didn't try suspend my service, they just tried to degrade it without me knowing and kept raising the price at the same time. I first started paying $39 for their 768/128k and at the end they had me paying $50 for 384/56k and I didn't even know it! I switched to Comcast as soon as it became available in the area and for the same price I got more than double the speed. 1768/354. | |
| | | Bartolini
join:2003-10-15
Asbury Park, NJ |  Re: Screw cable
| |
| | | CCCMTech
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Pound, VA
| Actually, we gain NOTHING by capping your downstream speeds. We provide you with a 24/7 ATM path flowing at your sync rate, most COs are backed with multiple DS3s or OC3s depending on the area. Our dsl routers (Redbacks as most people know them)usually have multiple OC3s feeding them and we currently have a OC192 for our backbone. We have no need to cap you. We set your speed limit based on your line's physical abilities and your purchased speed tier. Our routers have more than enough bandwidth to support you as you cannot hog everyone else's bandwidth (the reason cable caps).
If you were capped on downstream it was because of your line's physical abilities. One advantage to cable is the ability to boost the signal cheaply allowing for speeds over long loops. You were probably about 12000-15000 ft out and had to be capped to 768 to keep from dropping sync.
Also we now offer the deluxe package (768-1536/256-384) for $39 as well. It boils down to variables.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today? | |
| SBC ST
join:2003-08-05
Strongsville, OH
|  An online meter?
| |
| | | | | Matisaro
join:2003-11-20
Troutdale, OR
| Re: An online meter? quote:
have used a max of 29gb in one month, which included many linux iso's(latest and greatest distro's)...and some other *stuff....my average month is about 10-15gb...and that includes grabbing maybe an iso(700mb) a month....
They are only sending letters to people above 100 gigs or more, this is the kind of fear tactic this news report is ment to instill, I dont want comcast to set a hardcap cause it will be far less than the softcap is now.
Keep it up vocal minority, ruin it for everyone else, selfish. | |
| | | |
Agent 86
| Re: An online meter? "They are only sending letters to people above 100 gigs or more, this is the kind of fear tactic this news report is ment to instill, I dont want comcast to set a hardcap cause it will be far less than the softcap is now."
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read...you like knowing that your connection may be terminated at any time, without any explaination?
Isn't it far more likely that if this practice is publicized, Comcast will DROP the cap, since their competitors don't have one, and a "hard cap" would put them at a disadvantage? | |
| | | | | Matisaro
join:2003-11-20
Troutdale, OR
| Re: An online meter? quote:
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read...you like knowing that your connection may be terminated at any time, without any explaination?
Isn't it far more likely that if this practice is publicized, Comcast will DROP the cap, since their competitors don't have one, and a "hard cap" would put them at a disadvantage?
The aup states that comcast can terminate your service at any time for any reason, its pretty clear they can allready and you agreed to it when you took their service.
As far as removing the cap, cox was in this SAME situation and when this crap happened(overblown news reports and fear tactics by the abusers) they set a 30 gig cap, why would comcast be any different, the user base and technology is the same? | |
| | | | | | 
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| Re: An online meter? said by Matisaro  :
The aup states that comcast can terminate your service at any time for any reason, its pretty clear they can allready and you agreed to it when you took their service.
For clarification, Comcast's AUP indicates that they can terminate your service at any time for violating the TOS / AUP. Comcast's Subscriber Agreement indicates that they can terminate your service upon 30 days notice for any other reason. | |
| | | | | vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD
| said by Agent 86:
Isn't it far more likely that if this practice is publicized, Comcast will DROP the cap, since their competitors don't have one, and a "hard cap" would put them at a disadvantage?
I guess you are a cox sucker;)
Just look at what cox has done and you will have your answer. The poster you responded to is correct, the caps will probably be set to 40 or 60 a month if they hardline it.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
| | | | 
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX
| said by Matisaro :
They are only sending letters to people above 100 gigs or more...
One person that was terminated downloaded 60G in one month. That is way below the 100G that you say.
People should be allowed to download whatever they want. If comcast wants to charge more for heavy use let them charge more. The problem is not charging more or less, the problem is that the technology is reaching it's limits and cable companies don't have a clear upgrade path/strategy to accommodate more users. Like the article said "1% of users are using 28% of bandwidth" and "6% of users are using 78% of the bandwidth"
Comcast is just waiting for somebody else to lay the fiber and then use it... much like MCI and AT&T in 1982.
| |
| | | | | averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
| Re: An online meter? This gets back to the old argument charge for "quantity" downloaded, or charge for "bandwidth".
My personal opinion is to charge for bandwidth. Then to "choke" or "throttle" down the "flow" if a user abuses. Example, if a person downloads in excess of of 1.5 gig a day, slow there connection down to something like 128. That still is a fair download speed, but at least they are not "terminated" | |
| | | | | |
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX
| Re: An online meter? said by averagedude :
This gets back to the old argument charge for "quantity" downloaded, or charge for "bandwidth".
.
.
.
MThat still is a fair download speed, but at least they are not "terminated"
Interesting approach, it could work. I'm sure comcast have discussed that option before but that doesn't eliminate the problem... the "bandwidth hog". Using this approach the bandwidth hog lives another day just to come back tomorrow.
Looks like comcast don't want power users and want their accounts terminated leaving them in search of another isp. Unfortunately for some of them comcast is the only option.
I used to pay 179/mo for my DSL. SBC reduced the price to 159/mo without me asking for it. I have no caps, no limits, 5 static ips, 4800+ down and 520 Kbps up. Why can't comcast do the same? Charge power users 50 or 100 or 150/mo I'm sure some users will gladly pay for an enhanced service. | |
| | | | | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by averagedude :
This gets back to the old argument charge for "quantity" downloaded, or charge for "bandwidth".
My personal opinion is to charge for bandwidth. Then to "choke" or "throttle" down the "flow" if a user abuses. Example, if a person downloads in excess of of 1.5 gig a day, slow there connection down to something like 128. That still is a fair download speed, but at least they are not "terminated"
They should take lessons from cablevision. they are very GOOD at throttling people not for downloading but uploading and their threshold is nowhere near 100gb.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | | | | | CCCMTech
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Pound, VA
| Maybe I just don't understand cable's reasoning but, users have their bandwidth hard capped at the modem to a set speed, lets say 3000/256.
Cable is shared in the neighborhood, sharing the connection. DSL has dedicated ATM circuits to the end users capping at the CO. We have sufficient bandwidth to the CO to handle the traffic our users generate... let's do some basics..
Figuring many companies use DS3s and OC3s we'll say cable is using a DS3/T3, that is 45 mbps. Ok, figuring at the max speed, 3 mbps, is would only take 15 simultaneous users to max out this connection. As much as they try, they will not download more than 3 mbps, legally.
Now DSL is shared at the CO and beyond so bandwidth still has to be balanced. So if we're offering the standard 1.5 mbps and using a DS3 it would take about 30 people to max us out at the CO. Considering many DSL users are going to 6 mbps it would only take about 7 people at 6 mbps. If we have more users than bandwidth your first hop pings start suffering because the CO is bottlenecking.
So why does cable have this problem and DSL doesn't? The only I can figure is, as I have said, we use multiple OC3s (~155 mbps usually about 3 OC3s or 465 mbps) where as most cable companies use 1 to 2 DS3s...in my area with adelphia, we're currently being powered by multiple T1s!
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today? | |
| | | | | Matisaro
join:2003-11-20
Troutdale, OR
| quote:
One person that was terminated downloaded 60G in one month. That is way below the 100G that you say.
People should be allowed to download whatever they want. If comcast wants to charge more for heavy use let them charge more. The problem is not charging more or less, the problem is that the technology is reaching it's limits and cable companies don't have a clear upgrade path/strategy to accommodate more users. Like the article said "1% of users are using 28% of bandwidth" and "6% of users are using 78% of the bandwidth"
Comcast is just waiting for somebody else to lay the fiber and then use it... much like MCI and AT&T in 1982.
He uploaded 25 gigs, which is equvalent to downloading 350 gigs, check the thread and your sources. | |
| | | | | | 
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Re: An online meter? So... which is it?
25 GB?
100 GB?
350 GB?
Indeed, it's a mystery! | |
| | | | | |
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| said by Matisaro :
He uploaded 25 gigs, which is equvalent to downloading 350 gigs, check the thread and your sources.
How do you draw a equivalency comparison between upload and download? Due to characteristics inherent in the design of a DOCSIS cable internet system, uploading and downloading have entirely different potential effects on the local cable system (CM to CMTS). | |
| | | | | | | | |
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX
| Re: NOT True!!! said by qworster :
In other words, YOU get punished because of THEIR incompetence to correctly design their network, so it can accommodate the customers THEY sign up!!
Exactly... You've hit the nail right on the head.
Comcast don't want "power users" an ANY cost. Keeping power users means they'll have to upgrade their pipes and the only option is.... fiber.
Comcast only want people that use mail at 1.5Mbps... and next month you'll be able to check your mail at 3Mbps but ONLY mail. | |
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Matisaro :
They are only sending letters to people above 100 gigs or more, this is the kind of fear tactic this news report is ment to instill, I dont want comcast to set a hardcap cause it will be far less than the softcap is now.
Keep it up vocal minority, ruin it for everyone else, selfish.
If anyone is being selfish, it is Comcast by playing this little hide the limit game. We won't ruin it, Comcast will do that all on its own. | |
| | | | fuzydice
join:2000-12-18
Sunnyvale, CA
| Comcast is almost doubling everyone's download speeds (everyone should see the speeds by January) ...what few people realize is that Comcast isn't spending a dime on more bandwidth to allow for these new speeds. They dont need to: sending letters to people who use their connections as opposed to the many who don't (or use it for email & surfing) is a great way to remove strain on the network. However, paying $60/mo to check your email and surf the web at dsl speeds isn't worth it. When the speeds get to everyone eventually (not everyone has power cycled their modems in the areas that have the new download cap of 3.3mbits) they're going to be looking at an intensely overcrowded network that cant handle 1/3 of the people on it... and guess how many more letters are going to go out? Going over the "soft cap" will be as easy as downloading a couple divx movies in a month, or listening to streaming audio/video for a few hours each week. I can see 1gb a day caps in the next 6 months..... and this is the "soft cap" you want to keep so badly.
Away from my prophecies and more to the situation at hand, a "soft cap" can be as generous and brutal as Comcast wants. A "hard cap" can be as generous or brutal as the CUSTOMER ALLOWS. They drop a hard cap at 1gb/day max in both directions and watch the customers flock to DSL & Satellite. They'll be out of business. Instead, why not drop a soft cap slowly lower and lower until only the people with a brain, about 20% of comcasts customer base, realize the tactic and leave. Now, comcast retains a good portion of their idiot customers who barely clock in more 100mb a day, and they get to brag that "we're twice as fast as dsl!" and they'd be correct in that advertisement, because there's no traffic on their unused network. This also means they wouldn't have to perform any upgrades for several years, as long as the idiots dont realize how they're being ripped off. "Cha-ching" for Comcast!
The same tactic worked for the RIAA and music labels for many many years and probably always will, now Comcast is cashing in on the stupidity of Americans. Shit, why not? Idiot Americans spend a lot of money.
-fuzy
--
[referring to the RIAA...] These guys buy congress people like M&Ms | |
| | | | | SaBo7Ge
join:2003-03-12
US
| Re: An online meter? You pretty much summed up my feeling on the matter as well.. The problem with American Broadband is that unless there's a national broadband policy proposed which goes into effect requiring forced upgrades every couple of years to increase speed and capacity, then most ILEC's or CLEC will hapilly create a stagnant environment for no competition or progress as long as the profits keep rolling on in... It's ashame that the US who should be leading the world is again severely falling behind due to no gov't intervention defining a uniform policy for advancement.. | |
| | | | bucknerm
join:2001-12-08
Charleston, SC
| Comcast’s policy has proven most controversial. The company’s terms of service say only that users cannot “represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an unusually large burden on the network.” According to a spokeswoman, the company began sending notes about two months ago to the top 1 percent of the heaviest users—people who collectively use about 28 percent of the company’s bandwidth—telling them they were violating their terms of service.
Eder said there was no specific line crossed by these subscribers, but she added that some of those people were downloading the equivalent of 90 movies in a given month.
Insert from press release | |
| | | | | | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | Re: What Caps! Yeah, lets make some lawyer rich. and give all those kicked off $3.50.
[whispers] PSST..over here...In case you haven't noticed class action lawsuits are a joke.[/whispers]
--
Infogrames != Atari | |
| | mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| said by TrainBuff :
There should be a class action suit against Comcast by those users who got suspended for going over a limit that they (Comcast) refuses to divulge.
Luckily Adelphia is not doing that.
Better read the user agreement! You can not be a member of a class action suit against Comcast, nor can you take Comcast to court! All disagreements have to go to arbitration. Like it or not, you accepted these restrictions the minute you allowed one bite of data enter or leave your computer via your cable modem! I think that you will find this restriction in just about all user agreements you have with any service provider; be it cell phone, pager, cable company, credit card provider, insurance company, etc. The only way these restrictions can be overcome is an act by each of the 50 state legislatures; something that can take years to happen! | |
| | | terogers
join:2003-12-19
Glenolden, PA
| Re: What Caps! Relax a little, guys. These boilerplate user agreements don't ever stand up in court. Some of the stuff commonly included directly compromises your Constitutional rights, which you can never actually lose. That is, you can reclaim them at any time by simply doing so.
All that the company can do is sue for breach. There is no recourse to force you to relinquish Constitutional rights, regardless of their contract, whereas you have every right to sue to compel them to provide service in a manner commonly understood to constitute a reasonable likeness of what they claim to offer. In some states, even if the contract says otherwise, and you knowingly agreed.
Part of their game is to try to bluff the world into accepting their definition of the thing they offer (internet connectivity, in this case) just by blustering and delivering something different for a long enough time that it begins to take on the status of an acceptable example of the type.
This is exactly the strategy followed by Microsoft in establishing the common idea of an "acceptable deliverable" of a software product intended to function as an operating system, which is so broken that it is almost useless. Now there is a norm for some kinds of software to be delivered incomplete and untested, and with no obligation on the part of the manufacturer to provide support or upgrades even to the level of functionality described on the box.
Comcast is trying to do a similar thing. There is a huge wrestling match underway for control of the pipe into your house, involving Microsoft (through both set top boxes and game consoles), AOL (All Out of Luck, at this point), various wireless delivery purveyors (including especially cellular), the Cable companies, DSL, and what's left of the POTS.
I don't believe it's wrong to demand a explicit cap; I think it will serve to expose the whole house of cards that Cable delivery is based on. But I don't think that it's a good idea to blindly engage in a heated debate in a context defined by Comcast. We need to keep our eye on the real issues, like what Comcast's ultimate goal is in foisting such blatantly embarrassing foolishness on their customers.
Try to think of it this way: if this is a hammer, it works just fine as long as you don't drive too many nails with it. But if you exceed an unspecified number of nails in one month, the manufacturer will cause the head to fall off. There is no way to mistake such a tool as actually being what we all understand to be a hammer. I can drive a nail with a shoe, if you get my point.
We know what bandwidth delivery is. There is plenty of historical support for our understanding, and experts to expound on it. Comcast wants to blur and change that definition; what they want to deliver is something different. Lets not get fooled, and lets not let them get away with it.
I say we make them give a different name to what they sell, and let them go off happily selling it to whoever wants a hammer with a head that flies off with no warning.
--TR
(Composed on a Windows machine, delivered through RCN. DOH!) | |
| | | CCCMTech
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Pound, VA
| said by mjcrocket :
said by TrainBuff :
There should be a class action suit against Comcast by those users who got suspended for going over a limit that they (Comcast) refuses to divulge.
Luckily Adelphia is not doing that.
Better read the user agreement! You can not be a member of a class action suit against Comcast, nor can you take Comcast to court! All disagreements have to go to arbitration. Like it or not, you accepted these restrictions the minute you allowed one bite of data enter or leave your computer via your cable modem!
That's funny, we have a statement of indemnity too, but it didn't stop the multiple class action law suits which really had no merit for the most part.
said by SBC's TOS:
12. INDEMNITY
You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo!, SBC and their subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, co-branders or other partners and employees harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of Content you submit, post, transmit or make available through the Service, your use of the Service, your connection to the Service, your violation of these TOS, your violation of the AUP or your violation of any rights of another
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today? | |
| joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
1 edit | 60 gigs of legal music? Funny quote from the Detroit Free Press Article:
"That's a lot of bandwidth, all right. But with downloadable music now so widely available at reasonable prices, it's conceivable that a serious music fan could get there pretty fast."
Lets see, using current (legal) music at 128 bit-rate, that would be about 4 megs a song, or 256 songs a giga-byte. That is 12,800 songs to use 50 gigs of bandwidth.
I don't think anyone is plunking down $12,672 a month at i-Tunes. 
- Of course there is free legal music, but its still funny to think about. | |
| |
See 21 replies to this post | |
Tekkanano
Premium
join:2002-03-02
Alexandria, VA
| Cap abusers instead of ban/supend! Comcast should just cap at 128/64 (or something like that) for abusers when they reach the invisible max data transfers instead of banning/supending them. I would rather have it that way if I had their service. At that kind of speed, it won't effect the neighbors.
Then again, if they it only effects less than 1%, there's no point for them to do that. If they get rid of a few abusers, then they save themselves money on bandwidth, because the abusers will most likely abuse the service again.
Although, for me, I wished the service would really be unlimited. Most importantly, I'm planning on getting their service as a backup connection. So, I will most likely abuse their service  . | |
| ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA
| Law Suit If my service were ever to be terminated for using the bandwidth I pay for then you would be I could squeak beyond the able grease to bring an end to this silly hypocritical lie by the commercial providers.
Its not the subscriber's fault that someone wants to use their maximum paid-for broadband potential when they sit on a miniram tethered by a T1 and suppose to be supporting 4-8 DSL customers. This is the weakest form of over-subscription. I've seen it where there is a ten-fold over-subscription by the telcos (LEC's) and I don't doubt its on the cableco's, too.
I think we need a Beat The Bandwidth day where everyone on broadband AND dial-up tries to maximize the bandwidth utilization for a 72-hour period of time. This would provide a sheer hell for the providers. What say you!?! | |
| 
Phil
Rojo Sol
Premium
join:2001-06-11
Camarillo, CA | It's no mystery why limits aren't set... Once the COMCAST or whoever sets a limit in stone, guess what the competition is going to do? Jump all over that and advertise as being umlimited/no caps on downloads. | |
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: It's no mystery why limits aren't set... Has that happened to Cox? They clearly set their limits after similar outcry....I don't live in a Cox market, so I can't say..... | |
| | |
Phil
Rojo Sol
Premium
join:2001-06-11
Camarillo, CA | Re: It's no mystery why limits aren't set... I don't know about Cox. I do know that Comcast seems to be the one right now not wanting to set limits. | |
| | | | | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: It's no mystery why limits aren't set... Yeah I'm saying they clearly set limits after people complained, and I didn't see any DSL providers using that in ads....so I don't know how much the idea Lophophora put across holds up..... | |
| | 
ykrad
join:2001-08-23
Petaluma, CA
| Right on the money. I'd say Comcast isn't setting a limit because of marketing blahzah. They'll lose that "unlimited" always on deal every ISP uses these days. DSL marketing will jump all over that opportunity.
Soo good to be on DSL. | |
| 
not2cr8iv
join:2000-08-20
Potomac, MD
| Is there really some defined limit... or are multiple variables used in deciding whether to cut off service? If so, what might those variables be? Is one of those variables how vocal you are with local elected officials when Comcast delivers poor service or fails to honor service terms of its franchise? Should users be afraid to speak out to their elected local officials when Comcast is being unresponsive?
The lack of *any* guidance from Comcast on this issue leaves Comcast users subject to the Comcast's whim, a whim backed-up by the defacto monopoly Comcast has in many areas. | |
| s25843
join:2002-09-10
Haverhill, MA
| Stop your Whining I have had DirecWay for about 3 years now, and just recently dumped them for Comcast HSI. They had what they called the FAP (Fair Access Policy) where you could only download 170mb of data every 9 hours or if you went over that you would be capped at 56k speeds till you slowed down.
Stop all your whining! 2 gb a day of transfer limits is WAY MORE THAN ENOUGH!!!!!!!
--
DW SRS 4.0.3.9--G4R--1350mhz--XP Pro--1ghz PIII--512 Ram--Constant Signal of 69 | |
| | muecker
join:2003-07-20
Littleton, CO | Re: Stop your Whining Says you. | |
| | 
Synon29
join:2003-09-13
Cabot, AR
| That's enough for you. But what you use may not be right for someone else. Just because you think it's enough doesn't mean it is. I run my own online game and frequently do file transfers backups etc. Not to mention the online gaming i do, the web pages I look at. I don't really consider myself to be a bandwith hog, but I certainly wouldn't want to be put on a 2 gig a day limit. | |
| | 
X_Digit
Binary Enhanced
Premium
join:2003-06-12
Mansfield, TX
| Eat your words... AT LEAST you were downgraded to a slower speed. Comcast users are being DELETED and BANNED from using their accounts again... and sadly, not getting a refund for the part of their services they have remaining after they have been cut!
And, it doesn't stop there... they THEN get the emotional stress of not getting a decent REASON why they've been cut, and only forwarded to a "voice mail system", where you can only PRAY that somebody will EVER call you back!
You see... DirecWAY and Comcast are VERY different, so please don't try to compare between the two again.
--
Respectfully, X_Digit | |
| | | Matisaro
join:2003-11-20
Troutdale, OR
| Re: Stop your Whining quote:
Eat your words... AT LEAST you were downgraded to a slower speed. Comcast users are being DELETED and BANNED from using their accounts again... and sadly, not getting a refund for the part of their services they have remaining after they have been cut!
Thats bullsh!t, they are getting their refunds, quit making stuff up and debate on the facts, not your fantasy | |
|
Harknell
@dowjones.com
| Information is never bad, except for the company The real crux of this problem is not "people shouldn't abuse their accounts" as some have said it is, it's about access to correct and timely information about a service you are paying for. This is not a government service, or some free hotmail service, as a paying customer you deserve to know the full parameters of what you are paying for. As has been noted, Comcast doesn't want to release this information because it doesn't want it's users to be able to compare the value of what they have against another possible competing service. Well, quite frankly, I don't give a damn about their market share, my money is spent for my benefit, not theirs. There is no case where my being kept in the dark is really for my benefit. If the abuse is truly so small as they claim, that also begs the question of what type of impact could it really be having on their net in the first place. It's not like one user can take all of the transfer ability of their entire network. It's all a part of trying to maintain a monopoly based on a lack of information, and a lack of desire to offer real value based on a customers ability to choose. In cases like this, even if a company is "good", I suspect a lack of faith in their own service. That would make me choose elsewhere.
Harknell | |
| 
Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH | I love it when.... I love it when people use numbers like "less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent". I mean, does that just sound like a really, really low number ?? So small, that people shouldn't be making an issue of it since it involves so few ?? | |
| |
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX
| Re: I love it when.... said by Hall :
I love it when people use numbers like "less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent". I mean, does that just sound like a really, really low number ?? So small, that people shouldn't be making an issue of it since it involves so few ??
Good ol' American fuzzy units.
Thinner than the human hair.
You could build a 8ft wide side walk from here to there.
If you stack them together it will be higher than the Empire State Building.
With this telescope you can see a firefly mating in Tokyo.
| |
| | | 
Misu
Hey, I Saw That
Premium
join:2000-11-28
Orlando, FL
| Re: I got the run around Here are the supposed caps! 1.8 megs total download a day? That can't be right.
If you were to download just 2 of my full-sized digital pics on my online photo gallery, right there you'd exceed your daily limit. My g3 takes pics at 1.5megs a piece.
--
The things I do for love... | |
| | 
aszure3
You Only Live Once
Premium
join:2000-07-11
Spokane, WA
clubs: | I just called again and was told that there is no limit and that it only applys to email mass mailing | |
| | | 
Anti_Cyrix
Premium
join:2003-03-06
Sacramento, CA | Re: I got the run around Here are the supposed caps! Are there any "invisible caps" on Charter yet?
I hope not.
They just limit our upload speeds to 128kbit and I don't think they care much about the download (which is @2Mbit) | |
| | | |
aszure3
You Only Live Once
Premium
join:2000-07-11
Spokane, WA
clubs: | Re: I got the run around Here are the supposed caps! I do not have charter anymore but I do not belive they have caps | |
| sago
join:2001-12-19
3 edits | one one hundredth of one percent If that is true, and you know, I kind of believe it, actually... there are a LOT of subscribers to Comcast - if it really is one one hundredth of one percent, then, as a matter of principle, there really isn't any reason to state what the limits are.
From what I have read here, on Usenet newsgroups, and Comcast's help forums, my best guess about the situation is this:
1. Comcast is trying to reduce its own bandwidth consumption at the backbone level. By contacting customers that are driving up their peaks on the backbone, they reduce the amount of money they have to spend on their connectivity, which is good for the bottom line. Every single one of the people they have contacted is costing them money to retain as a customer. Can you blame them? Comcast should be able to decide for itself whether or not it wants to use the light internet users that use far below the national average to offset the losses from the heavy users who are getting the equivalent downstream data transfer capacity of two $1200 T-1 lines combined for pennies on the dollar. If I owned an ISP, I would certainly retain that right. Many DSL companies have chosen to offset the losses from the heavy users with the fact that generally speaking, the people who use less than the national average make up for those losses to some extent, and that by offering "unlimited" data transfer, it increases their market share and attracts customers to their service. I believe that it should be a choice. Leave it up to the ISP to decide, because they are the ones losing money on the heavy users.
2. This whole thing is being overblown, and misunderstood. It's interesting that the people who post here who have gotten the letters and/or have been disconnected, tend to have no idea how much bandwidth they use. So it's really hard to put any kind of number on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, because there is no hard evidence coming from anywhere to try to gauge what's going on.
What I will never understand is why people are demanding that Comcast give limits. Guess... the sixty-four thousand dollar question ... what do you think the limits are? What do you think Comcast would say, if they could say, how much data a customer can transfer? Give up?
Ok... since you asked... 2 gigs a day down, 7.5 gigs a day up, with perhaps no more than 45 gigs a month total. That's what they'll tell you, approximately, if you ever force them to do so. So why bother? Everyone knows what the caps are going to be already, I don't see why it's even necessary for Comcast to come out and specify. Look at Cox, look at Time-Warner, look at some Canadian ISPs, and you will get a pretty good idea of what the "current industry standards" are for data transfer limitations. What makes everyone think that Comcast has got something else going on that would make those limits very much different from the current industry trends? | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI
| If I were a DSL company..... I wouldn't wait for them to announce the cap, I'd advertise that cable is CAPPED AND LIMITED RIGHT NOW and let them complain about it. That would clearly draw attention to the issue(negative toward cable). That's the best way to play this out in the "court of public opinion", the highest court in the land. | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL
clubs:
| Guys, they need to stay vauge about caps! Comcast needs the shelter of not having to define any preset limit because the quality of their provisioning is so variable. In areas where they are so overloaded (like mine- Chicago) they need the flexibility to boot as many "heavy users" as they need to in order to keep some level of quality to the network. Drawing a line in the sand by stating how much is too much, would take away their ability to do that. Yes they haven't booted too many users, but it certainly keeps that card ready for play.
Seems unreasonable, I know, but so is their vague "no server" policy, which basically outlaws everything from web services, P2P, VPN, VoIP, and apps that "phone home". Not enforced much to be sure, but an easy way to get rid of troublesome users if necessary via TOS violation. | |
| |
See 16 replies to this post | |
| | dking17coxne
join:2002-09-09
Fredericksburg, VA
| Re: Yeah! The most forward answer I can get One word - GREED.
ComCast,Cox,Aldelphia,etc. would all prefer that we all auto debit our cable bills and keep our cable modems turned off. This would of course maximize their profits and make middle and upper management happy.
However, I live in the real world and so do these cable ISPs. If an ISP offers a service they should expect their customers use it to it's full potential. | |
| | | corigan
join:2003-12-18
Woodstock, GA
| Re: Yeah! The most forward answer I can get Exactly, Comcash wants nothing but cash and grannies that log on for 5 minutes a day to check their email and make sure they haven't been outbid on ebay.
Think about it this way, they terminate 1% of their top abusers. Then who becomes the top 1% of course the people who were 2%. So then the cap becomes lower. Next thing you know you're down 10-15% and the cap has dwindled and dwindled to where you can't download anything. Since they insist that no cap exists they can keep making it smaller and smaller to suite their needs.
We are nothing but cattle to Comcash. They don't care what they want. I'm happy I will be taking $150 a month worth of buisness away from them in the next few months. Don't subscribe to this company, they won't even give you a real answer. Call up tech support/IP abuse department 10 different times and you will get 10 different answers. This company has a severe problem of the left hand not talking to the right.
There new ad should state.. "Unlimited unless of course you want to download more than 50 gigs and your node isn't full, and even then in the next few months we could change the AUP to even screw you more, enjoy and here some lube.." | |
| | | | chadt9
join:2002-02-09
Ashland, MA | Re: Yeah! The most forward answer I can get I'm so glad I have Verizon DSL.
No caps, no BS, I own evry bit of my bandwidth
1.5 down 128 up
I can even see my total usage in my online support pages | |
| haertig
join:2000-12-31
Broomfield, CO
| Pay-per-byte seems like the fairest thing Why not something like: "$1 per Gb. Minimum monthly bill $10." If they grab tons of low volume users at this price and start losing money, they up it to $2 per Gb. When their customers start dumping them and they begin losing money again, they try $1.50 per Gb. Let the customers have the final say on what's an acceptable price (by voting with their feet). Pretty much like cellphone service has gotten to be. Don't like your service or the price they're charging? Move on. Now the cellphone folks just need to work on that little gotcha that cellphones don't work with different carriers and you have to buy a new one! Luckily (?) for us however, cellphone batteries wear out quickly and are so expensice to replace that it's usually cheaper to buy a whole new phone anyway.
All of the above depends, of course, on customers having a choice to go elsewhere if they don't like the price or service offered. This is the ultimate goal, but probably far from reality for the majority of customers. | |
| |
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX | Re: Pay-per-byte seems like the fairest thing You'll be paying for pop up windows ads, for spam, for all those ads in web pages, etc.
I don't think so. No way Jose. | |
|
X_Digit
Binary Enhanced
Premium
join:2003-06-12
Mansfield, TX
2 edits | All wrong... I think you folks are taking it all wrong when you speak of "paying more for extra bandwidth". If an ISP provides a set restriction in speeds, it needs to do so based on the assumption that users will continually throttle those speeds. For instance, at 3MBs down, they need to assume that individuals CAN and WILL download 972GBs of data monthly. I know a few of you are gonna say "Hey, no way in hell!", but it's the way it should've been since the beginning. If you PROVIDE the bandwidth spectrum, expect the user to use 100% of it!
The increase to 3MBs/sec down is ONLY a selling ploy! Why advertise it if you won't let your customers use it! This type of "falsifying services" started when 56kbps advertisers claiming to give "UNLIMITED" access, only to the boot people from the system for "tying up their lines"... by implying that "UNLIMITED" means unlimited internet searches, & traveling (not unlimited time usage).
This, unfortunately, is one of the MANY "falsifying services" that corporate America has been, and obviously can, get away with... at this day in age! Take MCI's neighborhood (unlimited local and long distance callings) for instance... it claims it all for ONE FLAT FEE, only the new users get their socks blown off after their first bill because they charge all the other hidden (per minute) fees and taxes!
They get by with this crap, ONLY because the PEOPLE allow it! Start ACTUALLY switching services (in masses... and be sure to explain WHY you're leaving), and I guarantee these corps will eventually change their attitude!
--
Respectfully, X_Digit | |
| | The Baz Man
join:2003-03-11
San Diego, CA
| Re: All wrong... Ever heard of "sales puffery"? Salespeople have to make the product sound enticing...as long as they just stretch the truth and not tell an outright lie there is nothing illegal about that. Unlimited access means they don't filter out any sites -- which might happen in a communist/dictatorship country when they don't want you going to certain sites. | |
| | |
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Re: All wrong... "Unlimited use" is the term that is widely used. Slowly, Comcast is changing their promotions, which smacks of bait and switch. | |
| |
MrPac
@comcast.net
| While I am also uneasy about an ill-defined cap, I disagree that "The increase to 3MBs/sec down is ONLY a selling ploy" As a relatively new ComCast subscriber (prev. DSL) who d/l's some legal music, does some FTP for moving files to be accessed elsewhere (kids homework projects to be d/l'd from School) I definitely appreciate the rockin' speed.
Keep the speed and bandwidth issues seperate...ComCast may be criticized for vague limits but they should be lauded for outstanding speed.
MP | |
| whdoka
join:2000-12-26
Knoxville, TN
| Do we really want to know what the caps are? | |
| |
KYGGYK
@chcgil.ameritech
|  Re: Do we really want to know what the caps are?
| |
| | | DavidJ01
join:2003-11-23
Overland Park, KS
| Let's add VOIP into the equation So what happens to users that sign up for Vonage or some other VOIP application. That, added along to the downloading of music, service packs, streaming audio / video, the occasional software application, newsgroups, etc... and I can see where the usage can start to rise. What if I'm a heavy VOIP user? Do I have to start watching my Gigs's as if it's one of those ridiculous cellular contracts, do I have to put off updating my anti-virus software this month because I spent 15 hours on the phone this month and I may or may not go over the limit?
I know this sounds somewhat ridiculous, but seeing as how I am considering a VOIP solution, I think it's something to be at least a little concerned about. | |
| | DavidJ01
join:2003-11-23
Overland Park, KS
1 edit | Re: Let's add VOIP into the equation Sorry... This was supposed to be a response to the "Mystery Limits" thread...
Update... I now see it was / is... I thought it went to the wrong forum... | |
| |
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Verizon FIOS
| I think with VoIP, the consideration isn't so much the bandwidth (although it can't be dismissed), rather you need to consider how critical your voice communication is. If Comcast terminates you, do you have a backup?
You may be able to do without your music, video, software upgrades and apps, newsgroups, etc. until you make alternate plans, but are you prepared to do without voice?
Perhaps you've got a cell phone, so termination wouldn't be too much an imposition. | |
| | | ld2950
join:2001-09-22
Medford, MA | Re: Let's add VOIP into the equation I wonder if they include their own cable phone service in these invisible caps.. | |
| | | | jamesnash2k3
join:2003-12-13
Philadelphia, PA | Re: Let's add VOIP into the equation Better yet, do they include Video On-Demand service in these caps. If you watch 2 x 2 hour movies on OnDemand each day for 30 days, you can easily go over 30 to 40 GB. | |
| | | |
|
|
More on Mystery Limits
I got the run around Here are the supposed caps!