Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2008, 11:23:34 AM
Why should they care? It's not like you have an alternative in most areas.
Quote
Starting October 1 customers of Comcast's residential data services will have an invisible barrier on their monthly data usage. Under the new guidelines of Comcast's Acceptable Use Policy announced Thursday, that cap will be set at 250 gigabytes per month, per account.
Users who go over the limit will get a courtesy call from Comcast's customer service for the first instance. However, under the new policy a second-time offense means the service is immediately suspended for an entire calendar year.
Surprisingly the company is not providing any tools to help users monitor their current usage. An FAQ on Comcast's support site simply suggests that customers do a "Web search" for bandwidth metering software that will track this amount for them. Going forward there may be plans to set up alerts over certain thresholds, or bundle some official tool as part of the company's starter software.
Comcast notes that the median usage for most residential customers falls somewhere between 2GB and 3GB, a number that is regularly broken within a matter of hours and sometimes minutes by customers taking advantage of streaming HD video and online backup services.
Users who go over the limit will get a courtesy call from Comcast's customer service for the first instance. However, under the new policy a second-time offense means the service is immediately suspended for an entire calendar year.
Surprisingly the company is not providing any tools to help users monitor their current usage. An FAQ on Comcast's support site simply suggests that customers do a "Web search" for bandwidth metering software that will track this amount for them. Going forward there may be plans to set up alerts over certain thresholds, or bundle some official tool as part of the company's starter software.
Comcast notes that the median usage for most residential customers falls somewhere between 2GB and 3GB, a number that is regularly broken within a matter of hours and sometimes minutes by customers taking advantage of streaming HD video and online backup services.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10028506-2.html?tag=mncol;txt
Quote
Thursday's news about the upcoming 250 GB monthly cap for Comcast data subscribers left some questions unanswered. I shot a few of my own, as well as some from readers over to Comcast to get them answered. These are mostly items that did not appear in both the post about the amendment, or the otherwise comprehensive FAQ page. Comcast representative Bill G. got back to me with these answers:
Q: Will people who go over for the second time be able to challenge the account suspension, or is the two strikes and you're out policy the standard?
Bill G: Once the customer goes over the second time then that's it.
Will there be a usage meter available on Comcast subscriber's online account information?
Bill G.: Comcast is developing a meter to track your bandwidth but for the time being you can google bandwidth meters and any of those will work.
Will you be offering larger bandwidth packages for home businesses or "excessive users?"
Bill G.: No packages at this time is being offered for larger bandwidth.
How does this factor in with users of your Digital Voice service? On average how much bandwidth does that service take up?
Bill G.: Digital voice has no affect on this, the 250 gig cap is allotted for just downloads.
We've also had some questions about the bandwidth averages cited on this page. 2-3 GB median monthly bandwidth seems incredibly low, as does the figure for how large an e-mail is (0.05KB/e-mail). Most messages in my inbox hover between 10-50k. Was it a typo for 0.05MB?
Bill G.: To give an example 250 gigabytes per month is enough to handle 50 high-definition movies, 250 standard-definition movies or more then 6,000 songs every month.
Q: Will people who go over for the second time be able to challenge the account suspension, or is the two strikes and you're out policy the standard?
Bill G: Once the customer goes over the second time then that's it.
Will there be a usage meter available on Comcast subscriber's online account information?
Bill G.: Comcast is developing a meter to track your bandwidth but for the time being you can google bandwidth meters and any of those will work.
Will you be offering larger bandwidth packages for home businesses or "excessive users?"
Bill G.: No packages at this time is being offered for larger bandwidth.
How does this factor in with users of your Digital Voice service? On average how much bandwidth does that service take up?
Bill G.: Digital voice has no affect on this, the 250 gig cap is allotted for just downloads.
We've also had some questions about the bandwidth averages cited on this page. 2-3 GB median monthly bandwidth seems incredibly low, as does the figure for how large an e-mail is (0.05KB/e-mail). Most messages in my inbox hover between 10-50k. Was it a typo for 0.05MB?
Bill G.: To give an example 250 gigabytes per month is enough to handle 50 high-definition movies, 250 standard-definition movies or more then 6,000 songs every month.
http://www.download.com/8301-2007_4-10028992-12.html
Suggested new slogan. "We're Comcast. F__ you, and pay your bill."
Post by: Ben on August 29, 2008, 11:30:26 AM
Post by: Scout26 on August 29, 2008, 11:30:39 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2008, 11:34:37 AM
Well, I can only hope other cable companies don't follow them down that road. Movie watching aside (which I like to do) that would kill my telecommuting since I work with big files.
I wonder how many people working at home will be knocked out when they try to use an online backup service.
There is no FiOS here. Comcast's craptacular service is the only high-speed there is for home office.
Post by: drewtam on August 29, 2008, 01:56:45 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 29, 2008, 02:07:06 PM
Post by: PTK on August 29, 2008, 02:09:24 PM
Post by: K Frame on August 29, 2008, 02:44:03 PM
No, this is Comcast. There's absolutely NO surprise there.
Verizon FIOS, folks.
Put Comcast out of business.
Post by: Gewehr98 on August 29, 2008, 02:57:25 PM
Quote
Verizon FIOS, folks.
Wonderful stuff, if you can get it. Verizon ain't exactly offering it everywhere, though.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2008, 03:07:51 PM
Quote
Verizon FIOS, folks.
Wonderful stuff, if you can get it. Verizon ain't exactly offering it everywhere, though.
Not here anytime. There is no Verizon anymore here.
Verizon sold NH's landline service to FairPoint, who not only has no plans to do FiOS, but started their reign by losing phone service to hundreds of thousands of customers for 11 hours...and also returning to paper billing, because they don't have a website ready for that and don't expect to anytime soon.
I expect them to return to four-digit numbers following a town name, next.
I have a choice of Comcast, or Comcast. Or pointing a cantenna out the window at an office park on a distant hill, which isn't exactly ethical or secure.
Post by: Marnoot on August 29, 2008, 04:08:20 PM
Post by: thebaldguy on August 29, 2008, 05:29:08 PM
Then we got "migrated" to Comcast. Speed dropped, costs when up, and service is pretty bad. When I called about the speed decrease, I was told there was nothing they could do, and I would have to live with it. I knew about the caps coming. It's still eat all you want, but don't eat too much bandwith or Comcast will charge you more. Supposedly this cap will only affect a small percentage of their customers, but I have a feeling it's going to be a lot more.
Our city of Minneapolis is installing a wi-fi internet system, but it's not going too well. The entire city was supposed to be done a year ago, but two major neighborhoods (one is mine) are still not done, with no indication when it will be complete. It's supposed to be a 1.5 MB connection, but most people are not getting anywhere near that and the signal can be poor. At least it's cheaper than Comcast.
Here's a good site for hi speed internet; lots of info, news, and tools for your internet.
www.dslreports.com
Post by: roo_ster on August 29, 2008, 05:59:56 PM
I don't understand; if they suspend your account, how can they keep earning money from you?
They don't want customers that actually use their service much.
Very similar to gyms & memberships: they want the members who sign up, work out for a week, then never go again.
If folks actually use the bandwidth that is advertised, Comcast might have to provide service...as advertised.
MW's last line prety much summed it up.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 29, 2008, 06:02:02 PM
Quote
They don't want customers that actually use their service much.
250 GB is not all that much per month.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on August 29, 2008, 09:13:54 PM
Quote
Bill G.: To give an example 250 gigabytes per month is enough to handle 50 high-definition movies, 250 standard-definition movies or more then 6,000 songs every month.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, this statement sounds like absolute B.S. to me.
50 HD movies is only 250gb's? I know to get a standard def movie on a basic DVD rom (4.7gb) you have to shrink it down. That would sort of negate his claim that you could get 250 SD movies (wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to put 5 movies on one DVDrom?). Most of my MP3's are about 5mb's so I'm not seeing how he's getting 6000 songs out of 250gb's.
Must be that new math.
Post by: Vodka7 on August 29, 2008, 10:46:23 PM
I've only received the "Comcast Call" once, and that was a month when I went over 500gigs. On a normal month, including two roommates, our total data transferred (up and down) averages out to about 80g a month, with 60 being the median. And these aren't guesses, these are exact figures from my router.
As much as I hate caps, I appreciate their new found transparency.
Quote
Bill G.: To give an example 250 gigabytes per month is enough to handle 50 high-definition movies, 250 standard-definition movies or more then 6,000 songs every month.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, this statement sounds like absolute B.S. to me.
50 HD movies is only 250gb's? I know to get a standard def movie on a basic DVD rom (4.7gb) you have to shrink it down. That would sort of negate his claim that you could get 250 SD movies (wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to put 5 movies on one DVDrom?). Most of my MP3's are about 5mb's so I'm not seeing how he's getting 6000 songs out of 250gb's.
Must be that new math.
6kx5m = 30000megs or 30 gigs. 30 is less than 250.
An HD movie encoded to x264 is, depending on length, either 4.37 gigs or 8.4. Usually 4.37. 4.37x50 = 218.5 gigs, which is also less than 250.
Math is right.
Post by: LAK on August 30, 2008, 03:19:21 AM
Post by: never_retreat on August 30, 2008, 08:48:16 AM
So what happens to those using Comcast on rented property on a network of a hundred or more users?
You get screwed by the comcast gods.
Fwi I'm stuck with there craptastic service also. Although I can get dsl now but I going to bet it will still be slower than comcast. Actually I don't have many complaints with their internet but the cable sucks.
I don't want cspan or the shopping networks I want the military channel.
Post by: Vodka7 on August 30, 2008, 10:39:08 AM
So what happens to those using Comcast on rented property on a network of a hundred or more users?
Something like that should have business class cable, which doesn't have these caps.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on August 30, 2008, 11:47:24 AM
Post by: PTK on August 30, 2008, 12:41:46 PM
So what happens to those using Comcast on rented property on a network of a hundred or more users?
Something like that should have business class cable, which doesn't have these caps.
So if I'm in an apartment complex, which is it - is there a cap, isn't there, is it considered a residential line, is it on a large commercial line, what?
Post by: Ben on August 30, 2008, 02:27:57 PM
Post by: Vodka7 on August 30, 2008, 07:50:51 PM
So what happens to those using Comcast on rented property on a network of a hundred or more users?
Something like that should have business class cable, which doesn't have these caps.
So if I'm in an apartment complex, which is it - is there a cap, isn't there, is it considered a residential line, is it on a large commercial line, what?
Call the complex manager and ask. I mean, if you pay your bill to Comcast, then you definitely have the cap. If your pay your landlord, it could be one of two things: a) a giant commercial account, no caps, or b) I forget the word for it, but basically the landlord opens X psuedo-residential accounts in their name for a discount and basically sublets them out to you. Situation B is exceedingly rare, or at least was at the cable company I worked for (not Comcast.) If it's B, you basically have a discounted residential account, and you will have the cap.
Post by: red headed stranger on August 31, 2008, 05:20:17 AM
Post by: RocketMan on August 31, 2008, 06:17:48 AM
Download speeds are currently at 8-12mbs in this area, and after a system upgrade, they will be capable of near 50mbs. The idea is to compete with FiOS.
We will be able to hit the data cap and get The Call" more quickly that way.
Post by: G_P on September 08, 2008, 07:17:19 PM
wtf are you supposed to do then? where i live comcast is the ONLY option for cable television and dish TV sucks in this area and has craptastic reception.
Post by: RevDisk on September 08, 2008, 07:33:58 PM
It sounds like they are not interested in ever getting into the video on demand business.
Usage of their VOIP or video services doesn't count towards the cap. Which I'm hoping causes the FCC to smack them for abuse of monopoly.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 08, 2008, 07:51:28 PM
The simple and obvious solution is to cap usage. Set the cap high enough so that the typical user won't ever notice the cap, so that only the statistically extreme users are affected. 250 gigs per month seems in the right ball park for that, mroe or less.
Perhaps someday they'll offer various tiers of service with different caps for different prices. That way everyone could buy as much service as they actually use, and not have to pay more to subsidize the extreme users who use far more than they're paying for. That seems more reasonable to me than the collective pricing scheme where everyone pays the same rate regardless of their usage.
Post by: Vodka7 on September 08, 2008, 08:42:52 PM
With a data cap, power users are going to have to seriously consider how much bandwidth they use and on what. Users are going to have to decide if Vonage and Netflix's Watch Instantly feature are worth the bandwidth, or if it's safer to cut them and switch to watching Comcast VOD channels and signing up for Comcast Voice.
The real problem is, Comcast wants to expand its features without expanding its infrastructure. Providers like Cablevision, who have much more robust networks, are doing things like doubling, for free, the bandwidth available to customers. (In Comcast's defense, Cablevision does have an unadvertised upload cap, but you're free to download as much as you want.) Just google for the comparison of Comcast HD channels versus FIOS HD channels. Screenshots taken from Comcast HD feeds look like pixelated garbage compared to better providers, and it's because Comcast won't pony up the cash to lay more fiber.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 09, 2008, 04:06:05 AM
Just google for the comparison of Comcast HD channels versus FIOS HD channels. Screenshots taken from Comcast HD feeds look like pixelated garbage compared to better providers, and it's because Comcast won't pony up the cash to lay more fiber.
I keep hoping the consumer agencies will define what "HD" is in technical terms, because what Comcast is doing is not HD. It's three times as compressed, and full of artifacts and noise. In addition, they have "HD" channels that are just upsampled SD content in a stretched format that distorts the picture at the sides...I think it's completely unwatchable, like watching through an aquarium.
Post by: Paragon on September 09, 2008, 06:04:15 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 09, 2008, 06:16:03 AM
Thanks for the heads up; I just called verizon, they will be out next week to set up service. I've had nothing but constant problems with comcast. I should have done this much sooner.
They just started offering FIOS in my old neighborhood. Billboards from Comcast and Verizon sprang up everywhere. There was a Comcast billboard on one street corner that said, more or less, "Use our service, we don't suck like the phone company".
On the opposite corner of that intersection, there was a Verison billboard that said "Use our service, we suck less than the cable company."
It's amusing. The only utility worse than the cable company is the phone company, and the only utility worse than the cable company is the phone company.
Post by: K Frame on September 09, 2008, 07:51:51 AM
My experience with Verizon, on the other hand, has been nothing short of incredible.
Unfortunately, one of my coworkers has had nothing but problems with Verizon since he moved to the area last month and tried to get FIOS installed and set up.
Post by: RevDisk on September 09, 2008, 08:01:11 AM
It's entirely possible for a customer to use far, far more bandwidth than the service is set up to deliver to him. Such customers ruin the service for all of the other users and/or wreck the business model for the provider.
The simple and obvious solution is to cap usage. Set the cap high enough so that the typical user won't ever notice the cap, so that only the statistically extreme users are affected. 250 gigs per month seems in the right ball park for that, mroe or less.
Perhaps someday they'll offer various tiers of service with different caps for different prices. That way everyone could buy as much service as they actually use, and not have to pay more to subsidize the extreme users who use far more than they're paying for. That seems more reasonable to me than the collective pricing scheme where everyone pays the same rate regardless of their usage.
The simple and obvious solution is to cap usage. Set the cap high enough so that the typical user won't ever notice the cap, so that only the statistically extreme users are affected. 250 gigs per month seems in the right ball park for that, mroe or less.
Perhaps someday they'll offer various tiers of service with different caps for different prices. That way everyone could buy as much service as they actually use, and not have to pay more to subsidize the extreme users who use far more than they're paying for. That seems more reasonable to me than the collective pricing scheme where everyone pays the same rate regardless of their usage.
Erm. Phone/cable companies often fall under public utility laws. Even in areas that offer multiple DSL providers, often there is just one telco that simply leases capacity to the other DSL companies. They do not do so out of the goodness of their hearts, it's mandated. By being given a legal monopoly of a service, they must agree to certain terms. One is manditory infrastructure maintenance and expansion, in exchange for tax breaks, grants, subsidies, and govt contracts. When you are a legal monopoly, it is more profitable to make resources scarce and charge accordingly, than to invest in necessary infrastructure. Hence why the mandated incentives. Comcast is quite known for pocketting the cash and not maintaining their infrastructure as they are required. Financially, you can't beat getting paid to do nothing. FCC and very public utility boards do have the ability to smack Comcast, but usually choose not to do so.
Comcast has also started to gauge in an interesting practice. Say person A downloading a file from person B. Comcast has an algorithm, to defeat P2P networks, to forge TCP reset packets. In other words, Comcast intercepts the TCP stream, forges two packets. One they send to person A, saying person B cancelled the connection. The other they send to person B, saying person A cancelled the connection. Dropping the connection would cause both computers to automatically attempt to reconnect and continue doing so. Forging the TCP reset packet makes both computers stop trying, saving bandwidth. It may also be illegal.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 09, 2008, 08:06:51 AM
Chris
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 09, 2008, 08:09:46 AM
It's entirely possible for a customer to use far, far more bandwidth than the service is set up to deliver to him. Such customers ruin the service for all of the other users and/or wreck the business model for the provider.
The simple and obvious solution is to cap usage. Set the cap high enough so that the typical user won't ever notice the cap, so that only the statistically extreme users are affected. 250 gigs per month seems in the right ball park for that, mroe or less.
Perhaps someday they'll offer various tiers of service with different caps for different prices. That way everyone could buy as much service as they actually use, and not have to pay more to subsidize the extreme users who use far more than they're paying for. That seems more reasonable to me than the collective pricing scheme where everyone pays the same rate regardless of their usage.
The simple and obvious solution is to cap usage. Set the cap high enough so that the typical user won't ever notice the cap, so that only the statistically extreme users are affected. 250 gigs per month seems in the right ball park for that, mroe or less.
Perhaps someday they'll offer various tiers of service with different caps for different prices. That way everyone could buy as much service as they actually use, and not have to pay more to subsidize the extreme users who use far more than they're paying for. That seems more reasonable to me than the collective pricing scheme where everyone pays the same rate regardless of their usage.
Erm. Phone/cable companies often fall under public utility laws. Even in areas that offer multiple DSL providers, often there is just one telco that simply leases capacity to the other DSL companies. They do not do so out of the goodness of their hearts, it's mandated. By being given a legal monopoly of a service, they must agree to certain terms. One is manditory infrastructure maintenance and expansion, in exchange for tax breaks, grants, subsidies, and govt contracts. When you are a legal monopoly, it is more profitable to make resources scarce and charge accordingly, than to invest in necessary infrastructure. Hence why the mandated incentives. Comcast is quite known for pocketting the cash and not maintaining their infrastructure as they are required. Financially, you can't beat getting paid to do nothing. FCC and very public utility boards do have the ability to smack Comcast, but usually choose not to do so.
Comcast has also started to gauge in an interesting practice. Say person A downloading a file from person B. Comcast has an algorithm, to defeat P2P networks, to forge TCP reset packets. In other words, Comcast intercepts the TCP stream, forges two packets. One they send to person A, saying person B cancelled the connection. The other they send to person B, saying person A cancelled the connection. Dropping the connection would cause both computers to automatically attempt to reconnect and continue doing so. Forging the TCP reset packet makes both computers stop trying, saving bandwidth. It may also be illegal.