Forum Moderators: open
[comcast.net...]
Today, we're announcing that beginning on October 1, 2008, we will amend our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) available at [comcast.net...] and establish a specific monthly data usage threshold of 250 GB/month per account for all residential customers.
More tidbits and details here:
[dslreports.com...]
the new system should only impact some 14,000 customers out of Comcast's 14.1 million users (i.e. the top 0.1%).
Wonder how many WebmasterWorld members will be impacted by this change?
It isn't their job to decide on the legality of users content, so it should make no difference.
Well, I hate to disappoint you but DSLREPORTS claims that Comcast *IS* considering the legality:
A press release should drop shortly confirming whether this is still the case. The source claims there was also consideration of a new system whereby users who received more than four DMCA letters in a twelve month period potentially faced account suspension. That's a risky move I would imagine won't make the final cut.
Guess we'll see what happens in the final AUP on Oct. 1.
Anybody know how much bandwidth phone services like Vonage and Skype take up?
and I'll bet the standard low-end cap will be around 10Gb.
you bet. i've got a 10gb/month cap on my umts-"flat rate". more consumption than that and you get degraded to gprs which basically means around old 56k modem speed. in fact, i could leave my work for the rest of the month with that performance. would simply be unworkable.
i currently use up around 15-20gb per month. full time job, always online, normal usage. they didn't slow my connection down as yet, but the feeling they could do it anytime is not very pleasant.. by now you don't get no real umts-flat in germany any more thanks to the heavy users and brutal calculation from the isps.
[edited by: moTi at 7:26 pm (utc) on Aug. 29, 2008]
How would you look at it, if tomorrow the gas stations decided to allow only 250 gallons of gasoline per month per residence? Sure, not all of us use 250 gallons per month...
This move by Comcast is yet another monopoly and a perfect example that in some cases competition is non-existent and regulations should be in place. I am sure if all Comcast customers had at least one alternative for broadband the company would never even consider CAP.
I am not a Comcast customer, nor I reach 250GB a month, but it's indeed a slippery-slope. If only 1% of Comcast's customers could bring the network down to a 250GB CAP, can you imagine the CAP if 10% of their customers increased their usage? And when next year Web 3.0 shows up are we all going back to just checking emails?
All who posted in favor of the CAP - what the h$ll?
Since when is Comcast or any other provider obligated to provide you with "unlimited bandwidth" for $29.00 per month or whatever the rates are for Residential Customers?
Have most of you read the original link posted along with the revised terms and conditions for Residential Customers? How about we do this, let's all take a little snippet from that original link and comment on it?
Currently, the median monthly data usage by our residential customers is approximately 2 - 3 GB.
They are capping it at 250 GB. Did I miss the math in that one? That is one heck of a cap based on the average of 2-3 GB monthly, wouldn't you say so?
I'll bet many of those complaining are also the same ones paying $9.99 per month hosting fees, yes? Or am I being an arse?
The Internet is evolving and so are all the businesses associated with it. If you can't handle change and/or certain restrictions being imposed to protect the integrity of the whole then guess what? You're screwed aren't you? Buncha whiners! :)
I am currently with mobile broadband for $70/month and satellite at $99/month, both business accounts, one CAP-ed at 5GB, the other one FAP-ed. So I pay $160/month for sh$tty Internet BECAUSE people didn't whine enough.
And yes, the Internet evolves, but the ISPs don't. Instead of evolving, they take the short-term solution of limiting usage. Don't worry, soon all of us will be affected thanks to the short-sighted policies and sheep-like customers of theirs.
Oh, and they are obligated to provide me with unlimited since I have signed up for unlimited. The rest is just legal bull.
P.S. If 1% of its customers will feel the punch, this equals to 1,440,000 residences, according to Comcast's report.
Now we pay for BLAST! which is $66.95 per month which Comcast promotes as:
At 16 Mbps - BLAST!® download a 700MB movie in less than 6 Minutes and 5 MP3 songs (20MB) file will take less than 10 seconds.
Then it features all these high bandwidth goodies:
Comcast.net — your Comcast home away from home and portal to the web with invaluable features like The Fan™ Video Player,Video Mail, PhotoShow, Rhapsody® Radio PLUS, Disney Connection, and much more
• The Fan™ Video Player— our exclusive click-and-play feature gives you instant access to the latest, hottest news clips, music videos, movie previews, and more
• Share photos, create slideshows, and order prints with Comcast Photo Center
• Send personal video messages to friends and family with Video Mail
• Streaming Music through Rhapsody Radio PLUS gives you free,
They are actively encouraging high bandwidth burn, they can't deny it.
Maybe what we'll find out this is a ploy to get more people upgraded to the $66 plan where they probably won't complain about high volume usage.
Maybe what we'll find out this is a ploy
No, it's not a ploy: I know someone who was kicked off Comcast for unspecified legal excess of traffic - this is how they were doing it before, but now YouTube and other places increased average consumption so they have to do it to everyone - they don't want high traffic people on network at all and they don't want to upgrade network too. Effectively they want to milk what they have now without making capital expenditure on improving network - that's why this is a bad move, so anyone who thinks it does not concern them is wrong - with such attitude Comcast won't have any incentive to upgrade network.
Effectively they want to milk what they have now without making capital expenditure on improving network
You're seriously off with that comment because I know for a fact that they've made massive capital expenditure in my area on expanding, installing and upgrading the network.
On Monday, the company is officially doubling the top speed of its cable-modem service to 16 megabits per second in most of its Bay Area territory. It’s a welcome upgrade that should satisfy most speed junkies — at least until the company starts rolling out 100 mbps in selected markets later this year.
We had our last upgrade in my neighborhood as little as 3 months ago.
Not only that, AT&T's project lightspeed is being deployed in our area supposedly so I'm expecting the competition to heat up even more as I doubt Comcast will sit quietly by while AT&T takes over the region.
Yup, just milking it...
[edited by: incrediBILL at 12:45 am (utc) on Aug. 30, 2008]
You're seriously off with that comment because I know for a fact that they've made massive capital expenditure in my area on expanding, installing and upgrading the network.
No I am not off - if they planned for network growth they would not be restricting its usage. The fact that they do clearly shows they have no network capacity and whatever capital investment they make is not sufficient even though for you personally things might be different but you need to look at the big picture.
Now you say AT&T is investing in your region - very good, this creates competition! This explain why Comcast would invest in your area because they get competition there - but they don't do it for all other areas preferring to impose limits!
if they planned for network growth they would not be restricting its usage
Nope, I've seen the speed improvements here. Just because they are installing caps doesn't mean some of us in certain areas aren't getting better coverage than others yet to be upgraded.
Besides, why build a bigger faster network and just let the pirates eat all the excess bandwidth?
That makes no sense at all and installing a cap to stop it makes perfect sense so they can expand for legitimate users and stop the networks hosted on their network (and AUP violation anyway) from using it all.
Everyone gets a fair share and the pirates have to look elsewhere.
The boost is long overdue for the valley, home of Google, Yahoo, Cisco Systems, Sun Microsystems and hundreds of smaller companies that actually create the Internet as we know it.
Not to mention that this is the same company which divided customers with TW to increase monopoly, as well as snooped and choke p2p traffic.
Obviously the netwrok is in dire need of upgrading, if 1/10th of 1% of its customers managed to force it into disrupting p2p traffic and imposing 250GB cap.
Nope, I've seen the speed improvements here.
Bill, you are missing on big picture - you look at your own personal situation that is rosy due to AT&T competition in the area and think all is okay elsewhere - no it's not okay, if it was then Comcast would not be imposing these limits.
Everyone gets a fair share and the pirates have to look elsewhere.
Yes, lets ratio bandwidth like in USSR - everybody should get exactly the same allocation, and then use it for bread and other things.
As for pirates then who made you the judge of what other people use the service they paid for?
--
Those caps are just a start - at first they offer 250 GB so most people think its okay, but they are just doing it to set precedent - take away freedom from you and then they will introduce tiered services, lower ones will certainly be way below 250 GB - this happened in the UK and looks like USA is following this very wrong route.
As for pirates then who made you the judge of what other people use the service they paid for?
That's quite laughable when the MPAA and RIAA are making all the claims and filing all the lawsuits, not me.
That's quite laughable when the MPAA and RIAA are making all the claims and filing all the lawsuits, not me.
And their lawsuits are laughable - in any case that has no relationship to certain ISPs having network capacity problems.
I am finished with this conversation.
Now that the second largest internet provider has set the precedent, the rest are bound to follow suit and where it will end is anyone's guess. I hope I am wrong, but this was the first real step towards limiting internet usage in this country...
And while those companies are increasing the speed, no one is doing the necessary - bandwidth. What do I need 1000/mbs for, if I have 5GB cap?!?
They are actively encouraging high bandwidth burn, they can't deny it.
They are going to have to change the way they advertise or false advertisement lawsuits are going to be next. Note those are all Comcast services in your second quote. One thing I will never agree with is if they go forward with throttling sites and charging site owners for preferred speeds. That will inevitably lead us to the same situation we have now on TV Cable. Only a few giant media corporations will have the capital to provide high bandwidth services and/or Comcast themselves. The cost of bandwidth the consumer is using should always be on the consumer. Types of services and what the bandwidth is used for should be irrelevant. Lastly under no circumstances should Comcast services be a "no-cap" service.
I don't mind the cap on the consumer end, I think it's more than fair at this point. I'd imagine they will be moving to provide many more tiered plans such as offering higher end plans for people that are willing to pay for it. Of the quoted 10,000 users this cap is going to effect a percentage of them must be using it for very legitimate reasons and will be willing to pay for the service. It's the only fair way to distribute the cost. As their business expands they'll be able to kick off or limit abusers, charge normal users a normal fee based on their needs and whack the high end users. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a lower end plan, maybe 2mbit and 50GB a month. I don't even know how much bandwidth I use but I'd guess it doesn't exceed that.
So the FCC slaps them and tells them to stop it:
[webmasterworld.com...]
Now go blame the FCC because Comcast has to maintain a decent grade of service for everyone and the FCC said you can't pick on P2P protocols, which were obviously causing the problem, so everyone gets slapped to make it "neutral".
If the P2P people had just kept quiet we wouldn't be having this conversation.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 2:33 am (utc) on Aug. 30, 2008]
In my opinion this a large step backwards from the evolution of a revolutionary medium. Furthermore, it is strange to see so many webmasters taking a stance for the cap just because they automatically associate 250gb with p2p file sharing. There are plenty of other legitimate uses which could easily exceed that cap on a home connection and more importantly there will continue to evolve even more. In conclusion, this is a marketing ploy to sell you something you currently already have, it has nothing to do with infrastructure.
IMHO if this affects you, then vote with your feet and wherever possible immediately switch to a different subscriber to show your dissatisfaction.
Every iteration of online connectivity has gone through this. I can remember when 2400bps was standard and you paid extra to connect to 56k dial-up lines (in BBS, CServe and early modem days).
Every time the data starts filling the pipe, they pull out the scare tactics. The market will flush it out. If Comcast limits you to 250GB and you actually need more, you will be able to pay for it... and RCN or whoever else is the competition in your area will offer 300GB for the same money, (albeit for a 3-12 month promotional period so they get you married to one of their email addresses, get your NICs and routers on their plan and acclimate you to their culture --- then jack up your rate).
If anyone believes their network can't handle the capacity, or their profits can't afford to build out more capacity -- just take a look at your mailbox or daily newspaper "stuffers"... Cable t.v. and telecomms are the ONLY companies that can afford to insert slick full color promos nearly every day).
They know we are addicted to media and all they want to know is how much a month can they count on each junkie coming up with.
In the early days $19.99 was the price point. Now people consider it a good enough deal if they don't have to spend more than $59 - $99/mo for connectivity (bundled with some voice or t.v.)..
I see the 250GB limit as a legal manuever. They will only enforce it on the worst offenders, and it will give them legal grounds to cut them off regardless of what the content in the pipe is -- legal or not.
It's like speed limit signs... sure, it's says "55", but most cops won't pull you over unless you're doing 62+ or driving like an idiot.
In conclusion, this is a marketing ploy to sell you something you currently already have, it has nothing to do with infrastructure.
Even AT&T called Comcast out on their backbone infrastructure in an article about AT&T's Project Lightspeed, so it's not a ploy:
[dslreports.com...]
AT&T COO Randall Stephenson, speaking at Bank of America’s 2006 Media, Entertainment and Telecommunications conference, called Comcast's 16Mbps speeds "irrelevant", and insisted the Lightspeed architecture (fiber & VDSL, providing a total of 25-30Mbps to the home for data & video) would be hard to match. "In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is irrelevant because the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds," says Stephenson.
So they've been upgrading and obviously wanted paid for their expenditure, so they don't get caught holding the tab like the old telcos.
Why do you think the rest of the world playing catch-up skipped dropping cables and went with wireless technology and gave up on even providing land line phones to homes?
It's much cheaper, that's why, cable infrastructure is massively expensive.
However, if we have a good week or 2 of solar flares and such all the satellite and wireless users will be begging to get on the good old cables. Of course I'm not sure Cable TV will have much more than local channels and On Demand either, but it'll be better than a blank screen.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 3:58 am (utc) on Aug. 30, 2008]
Why do you think the rest of the world playing catch-up skipped dropping cables and went with wireless technology and gave up on even providing land line phones to homes?
Could you provide us with data on this statement, because I have been to quite a few countries and yet to see one without a land line in every home.
I also know first hand that currently US is not only playing catch-up to the rest of the industrial world (UK always excluded), but is obviously giving up on the race.
Maybe you are a bit too spoiled and don't have the experience, but let me tell you. I used (and still do) love my cable and would aways trade for cable. But when I moved to an area where satellite was the only choice I first hand saw the sat companies limiting the usage, all the way to some crazy FAPs (fair access policy) and as I mention I am paying $99 month for satellite which often works as dial-up. So paying for higher usage is not always an option.
I have also gone through all major wireless boradband providers. Good speed and little lag. But one company put a 5GB cap, then the next, then the next, until Sprint, the last company to place 5GB cap on its mobile broadband internet, one month after I signed up for the $70/month "unlimited" (switching from the previous wireless carrier with cap).
From what I have learned, the Comcast just took the first step. And I would enjoy reading people like you b$tching in 5-6 months when the cap goes down to 50GB. By that time, however, it will be too late, the caps will be industry standard. But live and learn, I guess.
My prediction - wait for Time Warner to come out with a cap within 2 months.
P.S. From the Comcast website:
And now with PowerBoost®, our fast connection gets even faster, with an extra burst of speed up to 16 Mbps when you’re downloading large files like videos and games.
[edited by: atlrus at 4:36 am (utc) on Aug. 30, 2008]
Your data and usage is no more important than the next guy.
But it is and that is why I pay a premium to have a business account as opposed to a residential account which is what this cap is about. I've seen no discussion on any caps for those that are outside the residential classification.
Why would a residential consumer need more than 250GB per month?
P2P would be an upgrade to the base service since we know that is where most of the bandwidth goes.
It's unfortunate that many of the things that used to be free or cheap are now changing. Its just like the SERPs.
Comcast/Time Warner are a business. That whole dot com boom mentality is over with! Things have changed and so has the Internet business model moving forward. You want free or cheap? Take it offshore. Or move there. One or the other.
I have a Gig of html files in the websites I run so if I do any major updates, it adds up. And I transfer videos (of family kids that not everyone can see grow up live) to and from family around the country and one little 3 minute video can easily be 50MB.
I think you need to look at the future of the Internet.
I did some telco work back in the day and even ran a hosting company for a few years, and have been online arguably longer than most of you except Brett and a couple of others I know on here, and they know as well as I do this is all a grade of service issue.
The entire infrastructure was never designed for 100% of the people online 100% of the time and modems and fax machines caused the first stress test of the telcos.
Heck, if you don't believe me, just wait for a 4.0 earthquake to hit in CA and everyone calls each other on cell or landline and you get busy signals, fast busy and the dreaded "all circuits are busy" until everyone is sure everything they know is safe. Then once it hits the major news and everyone outside of CA starts calling again and it starts all over.
That's the whole point, the infrastructure can't handle that kind of load and was never designed for it.
All the streaming technologies are making it obviously clear and the P2P being the worst offender as you can download for days, everyone can, next thing you know we're all back to 56k.
So someone has to take the hit so the majority gets high speed on demand as we need it.
Even Spock knew the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the P2P ;)
Seems like they just need a tier system. Charge people at different levels of consumption. If someone is using 250GB, they should pay for it. That right there will discourage some people from what they do and others will pay because they need it for business.
Ah, a voice of reason! A tier system is exactly what they need and what they are most likely preparing everyone for. If we were having this discussion 5 years ago throwing around the 250 GB number, everyone would be jumping for joy. We've become spoiled, bottom line! Not me. I've been paying for my business account ever since going on broadband back in the day. I like premium services, you usually get what you pay for.
Who have spoiled us? Google of course. And what is Google doing right now? Take a guess. They are delving into this particular market. I have this crystal ball vision of G becoming the next largest provider of broadband services. They'll call it something else and use some technology we've not heard of yet or that they recently purchased. Ting, ting, ting... :)
