To All COMCAST Internet Users

[sunnystarr]

I just received this in my email - tiny print with pale grey font. Now that we're all sucked into using broadband it will no longer be UNLIMITED as of October 1st. The assurances they give don't placate me. We have 3 adults and 2 children using 3 computers and 3 laptops in our household. The boys play Warcraft - a lot - almost continually on weekends. Don't ya just hate bait and switch? Between TV and Internet we pay Comcast over $200 each month. Now they want more. Of course they don't tell ya what the excessive use fee is!

Dear Comcast High-Speed Internet Customer,

We appreciate your business and strive to provide you with the best online experience possible. One of the ways we do this is through our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). The AUP outlines acceptable use of our service as well as steps we take to protect our customers from things that can negatively impact their experience online. This policy has been in place for many years and we update it periodically to keep it current with our customers' use of our service.

On October 1, 2008, we will post an updated AUP that will go into effect at that time.

In the updated AUP, we clarify that monthly data (or bandwidth) usage of more than 250 Gigabytes (GB) is the specific threshold that defines excessive use of our service. We have an excessive use policy because a fraction of one percent of our customers use such a disproportionate amount of bandwidth every month that they may degrade the online experience of other customers.

250 GB/month is an extremely large amount of bandwidth and it's very likely that your monthly data usage doesn't even come close to that amount. In fact, the threshold is approximately 100 times greater than the typical or median residential customer usage, which is 2 to 3 GB/month. To put it in perspective, to reach 250 GB of data usage in one month a customer would have to do any one of the following:

* Send more than 50 million plain text emails (at 5 KB/email);
* Download 62,500 songs (at 4 MB/song); or
* Download 125 standard definition movies (at 2 GB/movie).

And online gamers should know that even the heaviest multi- or single-player gaming activity would not typically come close to this threshold over the course of a month.

In addition to modifying the excessive use policy, the updated AUP contains other clarifications of terms concerning reporting violations, newsgroups, and network management. To read some helpful FAQs, please visit http://help.comcast.net/content/faq/Frequently-Asked-Questions-about-Excessive-Use.

Thank you again for choosing Comcast as your high-speed Internet provider.


One Comcast Center
10th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attn: CHSI

[CatWoman]

1. I got one of these Friday

:grr:

[Hawkeye-X]

2. Their service sucked, so I switched from cable to DSL

and nobody tells me how much limits I have.

I torrent, sure, but it's my money that I'm paying for, not yours.

Hawkeye-X

[sunnystarr]

33. They don't have DSL in West Nashville :( (nt)

[intheflow]

52. Who's your DSL provider?

I tried Verizon but they don't have service in my area of Denver. I'd l-o-v-e to get Comcast out of my pocketbook!

[Hawkeye-X]

103. Qwest.

It's the only player in town, unfortunately.

[intheflow]

106. Ah... yes.

The dreaded Quest. Still, it's got to be cheaper than Comcast. I'll have t check it out. Thanks!

[EFerrari]

3. I'm so glad you posted this because I was just about to switch to them.

It would be a $40 a month savings from my ATT DSL. Not gonna happen.

[liberalmuse]

4. I am dumping them at the end of the month.

I can't support this kind of bullshit. And I don't want other services to go the way of Comcast, because they will if this is successful.

[ShortnFiery]

12. Ya know, DSL is the only other option - but it is "an option."

We can be one of the Slow-in-skis. :P

Too bizarre, Comcast has a stranglehold on the cable TV, yet they still have to CONSTANTLY advertise to TELL US how great they are. :puke:

[pokerfan]

104. DSL may be "slow" but at least it isn't capped

So it takes an hour to d/l something that I could d/l in twenty minutes with cable, at least I can d/l it w/o worrying about a monthly cap.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

123. if they can cap cable internet access

they can cap DSL too...just give it time...

sP

[spoony]

5. They don't even give you a way to measure your usage, either

And yet they're willing to drop your account if you run into a limit they say you shouldn't be able to, what crap. I'm in a situation like at your house, but instead of games we all watch netflix online.

[anigbrowl]

21. So download a traffic monitoring utility

Sheesh. 250GB a month is like $2500 in free gas. The chance of your using it all up is pretty low. Just google 'bandwidth monitor'.

[endthewar]

64. But it's more fun to whine and complain like babies

Leave your logic out of this! :rofl:

[spoony]

69. Actually that won't work.

Not for anyone on a LAN, who will have to PURCHASE a device to add to a router, like Tomato. And even then it only gives you a guide, Comcast won't tell anyone what their monitors count much less what that count is, so it's still a bit of a guessing game.

[leeroysphitz]

88. I routinely hit 60+ gb per month but I could NEVER touch 250.

[Seldona]

111. I use that in less than a week.

Just using Miro to download Democracy Now would put me over the limit! Time to switch to a decent service.

[EOTE]

117. You DL 250GB in a week?!?!?

So how large is this Democracy Now that you download? I assume it's on 5 times a week, so that would mean that each show is around 50 gigabytes? What, is it in super-HD and 80 hours long? I really hate Comcast, but I don't have a problem with them capping bandwidth at such a high limit. I do LOTS of downloading on torrents, but I still don't touch 250 gigs a month. As such, I only stand to benefit from their decision as I'll get more of the bandwidth that those excessive users aren't consuming.

[AlCzervik]

6. i just got that this morning.

[no limit]

7. Do you have any idea how much 250 gigabytes is?

If you are downloading that much a month you are abusing the system. Remember kids, the internet is a series of tubes. And bandwidth through those tubes isn't unlimited.

[ColbertWatcher]

11. LOL! The DUer named "no limit" is talking about limitations! LOL! n/t

[no limit]

15. ;)

[CatWoman]

53. DUzy!!! DUzy!!

:rofl:

[godai]

A lot, but this is probably just the first step.

Look for the limit to go lower, with a 2nd tier of pricing if you want more. But, for the time being, 8 GB a day is plenty. Comcast is just establishing putting a limit in place.

[no limit]

18. If anything I think comcast is responding to earlier criticism

before this they could ban your account for excessive use without actually saying what excessive was. Now you know what excessive means. I don't think they will be moving this limit down any time soon, I think they just wanted to define this.

[sunnystarr]

40. If it was just d/l it wouldn't be a problem ....

but when they mention e-mails and games then it has to be more than that? Does that include websites you visit? The only thing I d/l is an occasional pdf and I guess youtube may fall in that category when you watch them. Is streaming radio part of it? They sure don't make it clear.

[no limit]

47. They make it very clear, it's your bandwidth.

That means everything sent over the internet, incoming or outgoing. That includes email, streaming radio, etc. A byte is 8 bits. Like I said below, you can download 24/7 at 100KBytes/s (that's 800kbits/s) and you wouldn't reach this limit. Most web sites won't be able to fetch you data that fast. If you listen to online radio the highest quality streams are about 128 kbits /s which is 16 KBytes /s.

[kirby]

90. From some rough calculations, it is about 250 gigabytes.

BTW, does anyone know how heavy a lb. of feathers is!!!

[ShortnFiery]

8. Yes, as if we don't pay enough to warrant "unlimited" DL access.

But what can we do, there's NO competition (cable broadband) to Comcast.

Welcome to the first in several steps to LIMIT Peasant Usage of The Net.

[greyl]

9. That's good, actually. Verizon Wireless thinks 5 gigs is too much.

I'm hoping Comcast's move puts pressure on Verizon to be more reasonable.

[qanda]

13. I never knew Verizon had a limit

I've had Verizon DSL and now Fios for over five years and have never heard that. On Edit: I think what you're talking about the Verizon Wireless Broadband, but I don't think there's any limit for their DSL or Fios service.

[greyl]

29. Verizon Wireless is different from DSL & FIOS.

I'm not sure about any limits on those 2. :)

[qanda]

37. Yes, I don't think there are any limits on DSL and Fios

[Midlodemocrat]

19. For me, Verizon isn't an option because their upload isn't enough.

Even for me, working online all day, the Comcast limits aren't going to be a problem.

[greyl]

39. Unfortunately, it's my only "high" speed option here.

I use the wireless modem that's mainly intended for mobile laptop use with an antenna going out the window and onto the roof to get a half-decent signal.
With 2 PCs sharing the connection, we've gone over 5 gigs at which time the bandwidth is throttled back for the remainder of the month. No extra charges yet, though.

[qanda]

10. If Verizon FIOS is available in your area, I would make the switch

They provide excellent service for tv and internet.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

108. they make you pay for the TV boxes?

[Greyhound]

14. The limit is 250GB p/mo and if you're upset with then (as you should be)

cancel you account. Satellite TV is just as good (well, just as bad), the phone company still exists if you need a land line, and DSL is available at all kinds of speed levels, any of which is ample for WoW.

This is the only way we have to stop this, people need to stand up against this kind of BS.


WAKE UP AMERICA!

[no limit]

16. If you download at 100KB/s 24/7 you will not go over this limit.

I say its pretty reasonable.

[Midlodemocrat]

20. I agree. I think it is pretty reasonable as well.

[Greyhound]

43. You would.

This is not about your estimate of reasonable, it is simply about greed and living by the deals you make. I'm sorry you can't see that.

[no limit]

55. Can you explain to me how this is greed?

This is one of the most reasonable caps out there. We are talking about constantly downloading at 800 kbits a second 24/7/365. Your hate of this limit is irrational, that's all there is to it.

[Greyhound]

61. You keep talking about the amount of data that figure represents, that is entirely beside the point.

The companies made a deal, entered into a contract, and now don't like the terms.

Is Cox going broke because of these abusers? No, they just see that they are making less money than they want to and instead of opening themselves up to the much deserved lawsuits that banning these people would get them, they see an opportunity to lower expectations and open the door to a new model at the customers expense.

[endthewar]

68. You really have no clue how internet servers work

This has nothing to do with their profits. The result will be slower speeds for other customers, not lower profits for comcast. :crazy:

[Greyhound]

83. No, my 15 years designing databases and developing software,

my degree in computer science, my 12 years consulting to every major IT firm on the planet, and developing over nine certification tests all preclude any understanding of how a sever works.

So I will defer to your obvious expertise.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

86. As stated numerous times before, the number is not at issue.

Once upon a time, a whole MB of RAM was more than anybody could even use and HDD were optional. If you really are a doctoral candidate at MIT, you shouldn't be having the comprehension problems you are demonstrating.

[endthewar]

91. Don't hate because I'm smarter than you

and you know it too. :rofl: Everybody on this thread hears your argument and rolls their eyes. :eyes: You're like someone who sues their neighbor because when cutting their grass the neighbor came 3 inches over on your side of the property. Yes, we hear your yells of, "It's the PRINCIPLE of the matter!" :eyes:

Technically, we understand your point. However, you're making a fuss as if Comcast is now gouging its internet users. If people want to switch internet providers, then they have that option. I however will be keeping my Comcast internet because DSL is painfully slow. So stop being a drama queen about the principle of the matter.

By the way, if you were a Comcast internet user, would you now take them to court and sue their pants off? Or do you just rant on message boards while everybody else rolls their eyes? :eyes:

[Greyhound]

93. And still not one fact, idea, or concept to counter your asinine position of "what

the corporations want is just fine". What a useful tool you will be, I'm sure the republik "think tanks" are all coming at you with offers.

[endthewar]

96. "It's the principle of the matter!!!!!"

:eyes:

:rofl:

[EOTE]

122. Give me a break!

The great bulk of users will BENEFIT from this decision. Frankly, I'm glad they made it because it's going to free up more bandwidth for myself and other more 'moderate' users. And I consider myself a 'moderate' user even though I download dozens of gigabytes of torrents every month. I'm perfectly fine with Comcast charging more for users who consume sometime an order of magnitude more bandwidth than I do. And please spare me any talk of the 'agreement' that Comcast entered with their customers. Business DO, in fact, reserve the right to change their usage policies, and those customers that don't agree with the change still have the right to change their service. But only an incredibly small amount of users are affected by this. I HATE Comcast and am constantly looking for ways to dump them, but stupid stuff like this isn't going to make me do it any sooner.

[Occulus]

92. Actually, the number IS an issue

ANYONE downloading 250GB a month is overtaxing the system. 250GB a month is a ridiculous amount of data, and I can't imagine anyone downloading that much, even legitimately.

Before you say i don't know what I'm talking about, I build my own PCs and have one of the fastest internet connections available in my area. *I* couldn't imagine downloading that much a month without the bandwidth increasing exponentially.

That said, if their original customer agreement was for unlimited use, they must honor that agreement. They need to grandfather in their existing customer agreements or they will be sued, and they will lose.

[endthewar]

94. The person would most likely have to prove that they need more than 250GB a month

and whatever illegal...er...legal activities they do that requires that much bandwidth. I think Comcast would just make a few exceptions to any insane user willing to go that far.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[endthewar]

97. Comcast lawyers must be scrambling pulling their hair out.

:eyes:

They'll do just like every other company. Just toss a little free service to anybody raising too much of a stink. Money shuts people up.



:rofl:

[Occulus]

98. I was going to flame the whole concept of Comcast's limit until

I really thought about how much data 250GB is.

That's my whole storage hard drive. A quarter terabyte a month is an insane usage level.

[no limit]

99. Most customers that have comcast are not under contract, they can cancel anytime

Comcast is free to change the terms at any time for those people, which is what they did. And now that I think about it this is probably part of their acceptable use policy which they are free to change at any time, including during a contract.

[snooper2]

115. Well, my 15 years of designing Data and VoIP networks

degree in Telecommunications, design of data centers, ATM & Frame Relay networks, Retail VoIP networks and Internet Peering Centers between Carriers ( along with the build out of 280 DSLAM for one company (ADSL/SDSL) ) trump your ( "IT Experience" :rofl: )

And your concern is without merit ...

So, I'll roll my eyes at ya too :eyes:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



GOBAMA!

[PVnRT]

102. Greed?

So...some people should be allowed to download as much as they want and clog the pipeline for everyone else?

[Greyhound]

105. Well there is the position that it is incumbent on Cox et al. to upgrade their delivery

capacity to live up to the deal they made. They sold the service as just that, "pay us an inordinate amount of money and you can use as much bandwidth as you like", their deal, their problem.

[anigbrowl]

112. I don't think it's inordinate

$2/day for loadsa bandwidth sounds like a good deal to me.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

128. i suggest you go read your 'contract'

unless you are a business you are likely under NO contract, and even if you ARE under a contract i would bet you dollars to doughnuts that the AUP can be changed at any time...for any reason...with notification...which you now have...

sue them if you will...

sP

[MuseRider]

23. you don't have limits

On your satellite service? We sure do.

[Greyhound]

36. I used satellite for TV when I was still watching it. DSL is my internet

service method and there are no limits.

[endthewar]

58. Your DSL isn't fast enough to exceed this limit.

:crazy:

[Greyhound]

62. Please try to look beyond the 250GB, that's not the point. n/t

[endthewar]

63. Revolution time.

You bring the pitchforks, I'll bring the fire. :crazy:

[Greyhound]

66. I guess discussion and ideas are not your forte.

I may be crazy, but I'm right way more often than you are.

Enjoy.

[endthewar]

67. "I'm right way more often than you are."

Sums up your "discussion" completely. :crazy:

[Greyhound]

70. There has been no discussion, just your epithets.

I just love dealing with users like you that think they understand IT, when they are usually just tool monkeys and microserfs.

[endthewar]

72. Thanks.

:rofl:

[Greyhound]

75. 7h47'5 50 64y

50'5 y3r m4m4.



:rofl:

[spoony]

74. Be careful greyhound!

He has access to Google image search and he isn't afraid to use it! :P

[Greyhound]

79. LOL!

Is this just the result of dropping critical thinking from curricula?

[endthewar]

81. Oh silly.

:rofl:

[anigbrowl]

17. I'm not worried about it

And we have 5 internet users in this household. I don't play WoW, but I play Eve online and the bandwidth you consume in a whole day of play is tiny. It's not sending tons of graphics down the pipe, just positional and interactive information on environment and players. I'd be very surprised if that added up to more than a couple of megabytes per day.

I don't think people appreciate how big 250GB/month is.

[ShortnFiery]

26. I remember in 1989, I purchased a 60 Mb hard drive that was "unheard of" ...

people said, "You'll NEVER fill up that huge hard drive. Why, I didn't know that they made hard drives over 20 Mb."

If you download NetFlix or other assundried video programs - it can/will happen.

Hell, for close to $50 bucks per month, Comcast should bring me my breakfast and coffee in the mornings. :grr:

[EOTE]

124. Just who downloads 8 gigs of movies per day via NetFlix?

AFAIK, Netflix only offers movies in SD right now, so I couldn't imagine them going over 1 GB. So that would require you to download an AVERAGE of 8 movies per day. Assuming the average movie is around 90 minutes long, is ANYONE going to be spending 3/4ths of their waking hours watching Netflix? Would Netflix even allow that? Perhaps in the future, 250GB a month will become more reasonable as to what we should expect to consume. However, at that time the infrastructure will be expanded to accommodate that extra bandwidth. In the mean time, I'd rather get more of my bandwidth back from these 'power users' who consumer more than 10x what I typically do and pay the same price.

[DS1]

22. I watch all my television / movies via downloaded files

And one hour of television a night works out to about 8% of my daily limit. 16% if I'm maintaining a 1.0 share.

Whatever.

edit: teh bettah maths

[donco6]

24. Not a problem with me, but you bw hogs can pay up.

Tell the kids to get a life and go outside.

[tandot]

25. It will only affect a very small percentage of Comcast customers

I am not planning to

* Send more than 50 million plain text emails (at 5 KB/email);
* Download 62,500 songs (at 4 MB/song); or
* Download 125 standard definition movies (at 2 GB/movie).

So, I'll be fine.

[ShortnFiery]

28. For now. But as the technology catches up and people dl more videos, it will get more expensive

for "even the average Internet User" in the SHORT TERM. :thumbsdown:

[TwilightZone]

27. 250GB is a large amount of data.

I use a 15Mb connection to transfer large client files daily, plus I download software and music by the truckload, and I've never used more than 140GB in a month. Most months, I'm in the 40GB-80GB range, and I do a ton of transferring of data.

If they have a significant number of people using more than 250GB a month, it's not surprising that they need to cap it. A lot of companies are setting caps at anywhere from 2GB to 25GB a month, so 250GB really isn't that restrictive.

[ShortnFiery]

31. Yeah, and in 1987, having a Hayes 1200 baud modem was "high tech" for us college nerds.

Don't get me started how popular and geeky I was when sporting my 60 mb hard drive.

Don't fool yourself, this is only the beginning and no, 250 GB is not "a huge amount" of data - especially when you're downloading VIDEO.

[TwilightZone]

34. Roughly 125 movies per month.

Not sure about you, but I don't need to download four movies per day, every day, for months on end.

[ShortnFiery]

38. That's "standard" quality. Really, DVD quality video adds up and it adds up quickly. eom.

[EOTE]

126. DVD quality IS standard quality.

SD is typically listed as 480x720 nowadays, the same as DVD. HD res is 720x1280 or 1080x1920. HD is anywhere from 2.5 to 5x the size of SD, but you're still restricted by your overall bandwidth. Also, compression is going to get more efficient as time goes by, so by the time downloading and renting HD VOD is commonplace, those movies will be a good deal smaller. Even as it is now, I just can't imagine people AVERAGING 3 HD or 9 SD movies in a single day. If they are, then they can afford to pay for the extra bandwidth they consume.

[DontTreadOnMe]

48. You are incorrect with your numbers

a Blue-Ray quality HD movie can easily be 50 GB per movie.... so that means you get 5 movies per month... and no emails.

[EOTE]

127. No Blu-ray movie is 50 GB.

Some are getting close to that, but it's only because they're loading the discs up with extra content to take advantage of the extra space they have and also because the Blu-ray format is lousy with decompression. The video portion of the disc rarely exceeds 10GB. And also, there's no need to download an entire Blu-ray image UNLESS you plan on burning it. HD VOD is typically around 4 GB per movie, so that would require you to download more than 60 of them in a given month to exceed your bandwidth. Downloading uncompressed Blu-ray ISOs would be an incredible waste of bandwidth.

[anigbrowl]

42. Fail. Your argument assumes bandwidth won't expand in the future.

I won't bore you with my technology resume. Suffice it to say that I'm quite confident bandwidth will continue to increase to meet normal levels of demand. I know all about video bandwidth requirements since I work in the film biz; 250 GB/mo is equivalent to a dual-sided DVD image per day.

[ShortnFiery]

49. I think that you and I agree? My point is EXACTLY that: bandwidth requirements will ;)

increase JUST LIKE people could not imagine that I could upgrade from a 1200 to 2400 baud Hayes Modem. Like you mention, in the not to near future people will be downloading 250 GB within a week at the most.

[DontTreadOnMe]

44. Stop trying to convince everyone that a limit is "GOOD"!

I LEGALLY share music that I write and create with other musicians over the internet... these are not MP3s! These are 24-bit/96 Mhz files, the same quality as would be in a Blue-Ray movie.
A song can easily be over 1 meg in filesize. If I post it on my own server, my friends like to be able to stream them whenever they want to listen without worrying about bandwidth limits!

I also share videos I create with family members, I place them on my own server and friends and family can go "view" them...

Don't try to tell me I am doing anything illegal or unwarranted.

Some people now have the capability to stream television on their computer screens via the internet. If I watch CNN on my computer all day while I am also mutli-tasking doing work, I should not be limited to how much bandwidth I use!

COMCAST DOES NOT LIMIT HOW MUCH TELEVISION YOU CAN WATCH on their cable connections! Why should it be different for the Internet, it is the same cable!

[onenote]

60. if you don't understand the difference between cable video distribution and Internet use

you aren't as technologically sophisticated as you claim.

The architecture of video delivery and of Internet usage is different. Everyone on my block watching the same television program on every set in their house isn't going to impact the speed of the delivery of the content. That is not the case of Internet usage, where heavy users can impact other users.

[dixiegrrrrl]

73. while cable and dsl providers do not limit any amount of use.

they DO charge different rates for different amounts of use.
ie: cable "packages" for example.

Alll the major DSL providers are getting into the act of setting different rates for different usage levels.
Our DSL is by Frontier, which is going to "give" us a bandwith meter beginning in Oct. followed by a tiered price pkg. in Jan. Right now their tier is 5GB at current fees.

Of course, once the companies start down that road, they will come along with rate increases every 6 months, I suspect.
Having had Comcast for 6 years in Ca. ( strangely no other cable was allowed in Comcast area)
we got used to annual rate hikes.

[WeDidIt]

30. Limited to a quarter terabyte?

I'm a Comcast subscriber and I've got no problem with this.

[ShortnFiery]

32. I'm going to bookmark this thread ... let's talk again in one short year?

:evilgrin:

[WeDidIt]

35. I've done the torrent thing

Biggest month ever, I donwloaded 5 GB.

Like I said, I've got no problems with this.

They drop it again,. then I'll have a problem, but 250GB as a current baseline is fine by me right now with existing technology.

[ShortnFiery]

41. OK, that's cool ... you know torrent video.

Have a good one ... ;) :hi:

[sunnystarr]

46. lol (nt)

[Sebastian Doyle]

45. Their numbers are ridiculous

If you're downloading songs that are "4 MB" or movies at "2 GB", you're downloading lossy crap.

Not that I advocate the downloading of copyrighted material - at least not the stuff you can actually BUY in a store.

But the music I download, you can't buy at "Best Buy", and in the event that my local independent record store would carry it (and they aren't supposed to) none of the money would go to the artists, so I'm actually taking the profit away from "criminals" by NOT paying for it.

I'm stuck with Comcast due to any lack of alternative. Even if I wanted to go with DSL, which would be slower anyway, the deposit required to the local phone psuedo-monopoly, as well as the ridiculous billing hassles I have had with said company before, would prohibit me from doing business with them again.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. Oh C'mon. You'll NEVER Reach That Quota From Music, And Using A Good Quality Movie At < 5 Gigs,

I doubt most people would be downloading 50 of them every month.

This sounds like a totally fair restriction of overused bandwith.

[K Gardner]

50. Strangely, Comcast service is "out" over many parts of my city right now.. a friend just

called and said she had no internet or email.

[sunnystarr]

51. My email and tv have been spotty for 2 days now. (nt)

[FatDave]

54. Holy fuck!

I'd only be able to download Ubuntu Linux 11 times a day!

[riverdeep]

56. Well, I'm not convinced this may not be some back-door attempt at limiting

'illegal' downloading, but frankly, the case is pretty sound on their end. If you walk into an 'all you can eat' place and empty half the bins, the servers can refuse to serve you next time. Nothing is really unlimited. It's based on most people's patterns of use. Those few that fall out of the expected patterns ruin the model, and so the business has to respond, otherwise the extra costs will get passed on to the more typical customers.

Of course, you can always get your own T1 line. It's only something like $1500/month.

[gravity]

57. 99% of the population is better off with the bandwith limits

I don't want my internet to slow down because some kids on the street are using bittorrent 24/7. Some people abuse the system, and it makes it worst off for everyone else.

[Indenturedebtor]

65. This is a precedent plain and simple

I doubt that anyone is using that much DL bandwidth. They're setting the stage for a legal argument to limit things further, and to rout traffic. Just wait another couple of years to see what they're really after.

[gravity]

82. Some people use that much bandwidth

downloading movies and TV shows off bit torrent 24/7. This is a real problem for internet companies since it clogs up the bandwidth doing something that really isn't even legal.

[Indenturedebtor]

87. Don't forget though that Comcast et al have been pushing to control all internet traffic

I see this as a backdoor approach to effectively controlling the internet as our MSM is controlled.

[ShortnFiery]

71. Does that come with or without chocolate rations, Big Brother? eom

[wvbygod]

59. At least you can even get broadband or DSL

Lucky you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

76. Sounds More Than Fair.

250 Gigs is a friggin ton!

[Barack_America]

78. I can see the Comcast Center from my apartment.

Would anybody like me to shake my fist at them?

I'd be happy to oblige.

[SoCalDem]

80. You are overpaying.. BIGTIME.. I have Dish (everything package for 4 tvs)

have Timewarner wireless internet modem (unlimited) & phone service and pay less than that...

[upi402]

84. Dumping my Vonage and Comcast now

Going back to land line and maybe Sat TV.

I pay Comcast way too much per month.

[kirby]

89. My problem is they have no tool to tell you how much you use...

There needs to be login on your account page which show the number you have used. This is like posting speed limits but driving cards without a speedometer!

They claim they are working on something in the coming months, but shouldn't it be rolled out first before implementing this policy change?

[erinlough]

101. I put a free meter on my computer on September 1st

and I am on most nights from 3:00 to 11:00 and so is my husband who plays poker. I play some games and this month I streamed the conventions so I would say I use the computer a lot. I have only used about 25 gb of the 250 alloted. I am not worried about this. The free device is called SurplusMeter. I found it after a recommendation on CNet. It allows you to put in the GB you have been alloted and will warn if you get close to max. It will keep track of both downloads and uploads.

[kirby]

107. That does not help people with multiple computers

in their house. That is good recommendation for single computer users though. However, it needs to be Comcast who provides this on their side. Who knows if your number will even match their numbers. Their number ultimately is the only one that counts.

[anigbrowl]

110. It's not hard to get that information from your router

Most routers run Linux under the hood anyway in the event that it does need tweaking.

[kirby]

113. That is too advanced for the average user...

Me personally, I run openwrt on my router and run a custom script (vnstat) to monitor traffic stats. Unless you are techy, I would not recommend that approach. And of course there is no way for me to know that my calculation makes the one that Comcast uses--and their calculation is the only one that matters.

[onenote]

134. the average user isn't going to come close to using 250 gig

[Toucano]

100. You're a bandwidth hog.

Five human beings using 6 computers?

Doesn't the dog want one?

Seriously, there is a world outside your window.

[Duer 157099]

109. This is how "Unlimited" becomes "Limited"

It's very similar to how "Constitutional Rights" are subverted via the Patriot Act.

At first, the intention seems to be just fine and will not really affect anyone.

But once that first barrier is breached, it's a slippery slope.

That's why they put the limit at 250 gigs/mo at first. So everybody (as in this thread) can exclaim how absurd it is to complain about being "limited" to 250 gigs.

But we all know that limit will decrease over time.

This is how unlimited becomes limited.

[kirby]

114. Comcast hasnt advertised Unlimited in years...

They say stuff like always on instead...

[Romulox]

118. LOL. There is no "Constitutional Right" to unlimited internet.

:silly:

[Romulox]

119. edit: dupe

[hunter]

116. They are protecting the cable television industry.

If people are able to download whatever they want from whomever they want, there's no reason at all for the cable television industry to exist. Who's going to pay extra for 500 "channels" of television when there is an unlimited amount of programming on the internet?

If I want to watch BBC news I watch BBC news. If I want to download a sitcom or a movie from Amazon or Netflix or an independent artist, I simply download it.

When everything is a torrent, including things like conventional television programs, all Comcast will be able to sell is bandwidth -- you'll simply pay for the number of televisions connected, from one plain old basic television to multiple HDTV sets.

[Romulox]

120. I don't have a problem with this. Like any commodity, those who use more should pay more.

I don't feel it's my responsibility to subsidize bittorrent. :hi:

[bridgit]

121. We mostly upload anyway

[NeedleCast]

125. Well, while I agree that it's a raw deal

I still doubt that even with the heavy computer use you described for your house-hold you're going to come even close to burning through 250 GB of data usage per month. While I'm sure it wont be popular here, 250 GB is shitload of data transfer. My office (45 people) doesn't use that in a month.

[kirby]

129. Some other providers are capping at 60GB unlike Comcast n/t

[NeedleCast]

130. Then the options are to use other services I guess

Back in the mid-90's I worked at a major restaurant in Austin, Texas. We offered free refills on soda, and it was commonly understood by 99.9% of folks that visted the restaurant that free refills ment at this sitting only. Really, soda syrup is so cheap that if we charge you $1.25 for a Coke, you'd have to drink gallons of it before you put us in the red on profits from that sale of a soft drink.

However, there was one - lets call him eclectic - dude who used to come in all the time and demand "refills" despite the fact that he hadn't actually purchased a soft drink (or anything else) that day. He'd do this pretty much daily with the same result...one of the hosts or hostesess trying to explain that free refills only ment at that sitting. He actually even tried to sue the restaurant over "all you can eat" shrimp when we told him it applied to that meal only (yes, he would come in and demand more shrimp despite not having been at the restaurant for days).

I sort of see this as the same sort of scope. For 99.9% of the user base, 250GB/month is, essentially, unlimited usage. If you're using more than that, then yes, I think you should pay more, or at least have to upgrade to a commercial account. If the provider originally offered truly unlimited usage and someone feels they're in breach of contract, take them to court. Bandwidth hogs do have a negative impact on the rest of the user base and I don't have a whole lot of sympahty for people out there sucking down terabytes of data per month.

[kirby]

131. Not an option for all. I get Comcast only. No competitor (even DSL) avail for me.

My usage is well under 250GB, but I do pay extra for a business account anyhow since I work from home.

I have exceeded 60GB though. Currently Netflix has the option to watch movies via the Internet instead of the DVD in the mail option. For those who watch a lot of movies this limit may be an issue. We are so far behind other countries in Broadband.

re: Mr refill man, there always seems to be a few in the bunch that try to ruin it for all.

[NeedleCast]

132. No Satellite?

The problem a lot of people seem to have is that the luxaries they have now weren't avaliable when high speed was in it's infancy. There was no Netflix or Itunes (and similar software) at the time. For better or worse, a whole new world of industry and ability to move your "product" to your customer has become avaliable thanks to high speed internet access. That shouldn't mean the providers are stuck suffering for it. I have NetFlix as well and love it but I understand that when I want to download a movie I'm it's not just me and NetFlix involved in the transaction....I've got to consider the delivery method.

We're are behind other countries in broadband but at the same time, most of those countries have a smaller user base than the state of Texas. It's a lot easier to deal with the infrastructure side of things when you're dealing with, say, Germany or France than when you're dealing with the US (and the fact that we have enourmous areas of land that are mostly unoccupied). Back in the late 1800's and early 1900s people use to say that the US was soooooo far behind Europe in terms of rail-roads and it was true, but at the same time, it's a lot easier to connect Paris to Berlin than it is to connect Boston to San Fransicso.

Maybe it's a lack of foresight on the providers of broadband, but at the same time, we're asking internet providers to move an ever increasing amount of data and then demanding that they do it for the same price they did prior to the increase.

[kirby]

133. No we dont have satellites in my town...

;)

Satellite is no good for low latency applications or for gaming which I do also.

I don't fully believe the infrastructure argument though. During the dot.com bubble there were massive amount of fiber that were laid and are just sitting unused now...So called 'dark fiber'. There are massive amounts of bandwidth avail. Connecting the last mile (to the house) is the real issue and these local monopolies have no incentive to do that and their is no competition to drive a 'market solution'.

Verizon wont install DSL (much less FIOS) here because it costs more per subscriber so they dont care. They oversubscribe the phone system with SLC service. They just do the low hanging fruit customers. Of course over the past decade we paid local taxes to Verizon which directly financed their infrastructure. The equipment they purchased (like digital switches were paid for by us), yet they turn around and charge some outrageous fee for 'Caller-id' which is a free feature of the digital switches we already paid for.

Yes we demand more at the same price. That is how the electronics world works both in productivity and invention. You pay the same for double the size of a hard disk or RAM or CPU speed.

Rural customers (which I am not one of being only a few miles outside a large city) are supposed to be aided by the Universal Service Fee (tax) we have been paying for so long.