Comcast to cap data monthly maximum at 250gb

[G_P]

It doesnt sound legal that the only available tv service in your area can say "sorry you use our service too much your being banned"

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.

[RevDisk]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[Vodka7]

Like RevDisk pointed out, Comcast is already doing video on demand and VOIP.  The thing is, they want you to pay them to use their services.

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.

[Manedwolf]

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.

[Paragon]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[K Frame]

My experience with the cable company (Cox in Northern Virginia) was horrific. I couldn't get rid of them quickly enough.

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.

[RevDisk]

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.

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. 

[mtnbkr]

At the time I got started running a VPN service for my company, Comcast was notorious for blocking IPSEC traffic and/or canceling accounts if you didn't have a business account.  They considered VPN traffic to be business related just the same as if you were trying to use the connection as a corporate Internet gateway (instead of merely telecommuting).  They've since changed that, but still, it was not fun explaining this to some of my users.

Chris

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

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. 

I don't dispute any of that, but it has no bearing on the sensibility of capping extreme users.