Comcast Options

[Psykopath]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080829/wr_nm/...ast_internet_dc

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Comcast Corp, the largest U.S. cable operator, said on Thursday it will cap customers' Internet usage starting October 1, in a bid to ensure the best service for the vast majority of its subscribers.

Comcast said it was setting a monthly data usage threshold of 250 gigabytes per account for all residential high-speed Internet customers, or the equivalent of 50 million e-mails or 124 standard-definition movies.

"If a customer exceeds more than 250 GB and is one of the heaviest data users who consume the most data on our high-speed Internet service, he or she may receive a call from Comcast's Customer Security Assurance (CSA) group to notify them of excessive use," according to the company's updated Frequently Asked Questions on Excessive Use.

Customers who top 250 GB in a month twice in a six-month timeframe could have service terminated for a year.

Comcast said up to 99 percent of its 14 million Internet subscribers would not be affected by the new threshold, which it said would help ensure the quality of Internet delivery is not degraded by a minority of heavy users...

Thoughts?

[impala454]

bandwidth caps have been around for a long time, its just that the enforcement was lacking. i got shut off by cox a couple times in lubbock, but they just turned it back on when i called and said they don't really enforce it yet.

[impala454]

I do think it's bullshit, and that they need to beef up their infrastructure if they're going to not let people use what they pay for. at the very least they need a new pricing scheme which follows usage. They advertise the connection as unlimited and it should be that way. If it only affects 1% of customers then it shouldn't affect their systems so badly.

If you wanted to really use your connection 24x7: assume ~5Mbps download speeds. multiply it out and that cap should be more like 1.62TB/month. I'm fine with paying more because I use more, but they're not even giving that option. Not to mention not lowering the price for some granny who uses 50 MB/month.

[dauss]

This is just another way to try to inhibit the usage of P2P on their networks, though now legally. The FCC ruled that their(Comcast) inhibitions they placed on users was illegal(http://www.techsans.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=6109).

From that thread:

Comcast says that a small percentage of its customers using BitTorrent consume a large share of its network capacity, degrading the Internet access of other customers. So it installed equipment that slowed — but did not completely block — file transfers using BitTorrent.

Now these cocksuckers have found a loophole which circumvents the previous limited access to the users which they tried to illegally limit in the past.

[impala454]

well the problem the FCC had with it was they were limiting usage via specific applications, now they're limiting ALL traffic.

[James]

I don't care too much. I don't steal shit anymore.

[impala454]

I personally never even used bittorrent until recently, and that was only to download various linux distros (was the only way most of them offered to download their DVD isos).

[dauss]

I think there's something else that is at stake. Comcast's bread and butter is television programming. With more major TV networks allowing you to steam TV episodes in regular and HD format. NetFlix and Amazon are now offering on demand streaming content and Apple with their movies and tv shows from their iTunes store. It seems that with this cap in place could prevent usage of other competitor services and force Comcast's customers to turn to their cable OnDemand service. Maybe an antitrust suit is in order?

[impala454]

I don't see how. Comcast cable internet service is not required to use those streaming services.

[dauss]

It would be difficult to prove, but I'm thinking there may be lawsuits over this. Generally all those streaming services usually have a requirement for a broadband connection. I just read today that 1-2% of Americans don't watch television, which means that there's well over 290 millions americans who do watch TV, and there's plenty out there that can't imagine life without cable television. A lot of people are switching to cell phone service only and ditching land lines, so why even bother with another company when your cable company can provide it all. TV, high-speed internet, and digital telephone. So, generally a cable company will also provide the internet service to go along with their subscription television service. What Comcast has done has already trickled down to other companies. Time Warner and AT&T are already testing "bandwidth limitations" in certain areas. The rest of the industry to follow suit will be likely(much like airlines starting to charge for checked bags(and even sodas, seats with extra leg room, pillows and blankets, etc) after one company bravely ventured out into that territory).

We're already into the digital age now. Everything is in HD now. It's all about the Blu-Ray, 1080P, HDTV, HD radio, even YouTube has a high quality streaming videos now. So Comcast, how many HD movies can you download with at 250GB limit? How many HD TV episodes can you watch with a 250GB limit? Seriously, that figure that less than 1% of their customers exceed 250GB a month, when was that from, 5 years ago?

[impala454]

It would be difficult to prove, but I'm thinking there may be lawsuits over this. Generally all those streaming services usually have a requirement for a broadband connection.

The key word being "a". Not "Comcast". You can't have an anti-trust suit based on that. And honestly, while I hate the idea of bandwidth caps, I would side with Comcast/AT&T/etc if the streaming video companies tried to sue over it. Those streaming companies are making their dime off of someone else's service and I think that's BS that they could sue the providers they're not paying a dime.

Now don't confuse this and think I side with them on the subject of bandwidth caps, because I sure as hell don't. I simply think that a lawsuit from netflix to comcast because comcast is capping bandwidth is complete BS.

[dauss]

Generally non-cable internet service isn't fast enough for the demands of streaming HD content.

I guess I didn't clarify either. When I said "I'm thinking there may be lawsuits over this", I meant to say bandwidth limitations. There could definitely be lawsuits from Joe Schmoe in Colorado who's too far away from a DSL hub to get any other high speed internet except for Comcast, and Comcast's bandwitch limitations are preventing him from utilizing Netflix's(or whoever) services.

[impala454]

No way. Are you kidding me? You think someone should be able to sue their ISP for not providing good enough service for Netflix?!?! How about I sue U-verse because they don't carry some HD channel I want? Maybe I'll sue my city because they won't provide me 1,000A service? It's ridiculous.

[dauss]

There have been lawsuits more frivolous than what I suggested.

[impala454]

I'm sure there has been but it doesn't make it right.