Comcast 250gb per Month Cap

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nismotigerwvu

Golden Member
May 13, 2004
1,568
33
91
Originally posted by: DrPizza
I have a better solution to Comcast's 250GB cap: "We will allow the MPAA and RIAA to closely scrutinize the downloads of people who exceed 100GB bandwidth usage per month." That would completely eliminate their need for caps.

I would sign a petition for this
 

EMPshockwave82

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2003
3,012
2
0
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Should this thread (along with several others with 100+ posts) make it quite clear that this is a horrible idea for Comcast? The general opinion is, yeah 250GB a month is reasonable but the idea of a cap is large step in the wrong direction.

No, the idea that you should pay so little for so much is what is wrong. Customers are used to the all you can eat model and it just doesn't work anymore. ALL PROVIDERS will be using caps or metered services for consumer broadband.

Want unlimited? Real simple, pay for it.

I see I struck a nerve there with you huh? If the business was so expensive, why would they even be in it? If my service is actually costing Comcast the life fortune you claim it does, how could they possibly continue to operate? Perhaps they should back off the "power boost" and overselling of their network instead, since everyone knows they never provide anything near the numbers they love to qoute all over the place, using the qualify "up to" as a crutch. Yes of course, I can sprint up to 100 miles per hour. I swear to God, but if you make me actually do it you'll have to pay me.....lots....and actually I'll never really do it for you, I'll just insist you are doing illegal activities and don't deserve to see me sprint.

You can't sprint 100 miles per hour (but their service is typically physically capable of the speeds they claim) and at least 90% of the people that use 250GB or more per month ARE doing illegal activities to reach these ridiculous amounts.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Should this thread (along with several others with 100+ posts) make it quite clear that this is a horrible idea for Comcast? The general opinion is, yeah 250GB a month is reasonable but the idea of a cap is large step in the wrong direction.

If it's a step in the wrong direction, then maybe a competitor who offers a better service will come in and provide unlimited bandwidth, faster, and cheaper than Comcast. And when that happens, Comcast can fire their CEO and all the guys making the big bucks for making the decisions that lead to profitability, and just hire you instead. Hell, maybe they should offer 100/100 up/down for $20 a month, and toss in a free hooker every time you pay your bill on time. That would make it so that no one could move in on their territory and compete with them. Besides, they have to upgrade everything to 100/100 ASAP regardless of profit/loss because that's what the future is going to require.
 

nismotigerwvu

Golden Member
May 13, 2004
1,568
33
91
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Should this thread (along with several others with 100+ posts) make it quite clear that this is a horrible idea for Comcast? The general opinion is, yeah 250GB a month is reasonable but the idea of a cap is large step in the wrong direction.

If it's a step in the wrong direction, then maybe a competitor who offers a better service will come in and provide unlimited bandwidth, faster, and cheaper than Comcast. And when that happens, Comcast can fire their CEO and all the guys making the big bucks for making the decisions that lead to profitability, and just hire you instead. Hell, maybe they should offer 100/100 up/down for $20 a month, and toss in a free hooker every time you pay your bill on time. That would make it so that no one could move in on their territory and compete with them. Besides, they have to upgrade everything to 100/100 ASAP regardless of profit/loss because that's what the future is going to require.

A very nice mature reaction to a valid point. Yes, any use of logic requires grade-school level tantrums. This will totally win everyone over to your point of view. Wait, you're a moderator? Don't mistake this for a call-out but don't you feel like you should try to better represent Anandtech and your fellow mods by "taking the high road". Read what you quoted of me, and then take a look up where I had just agreed with the last point you made. Just my personal opinion, but if I were a mod here I'd feel a little insulted by having one of my peers making the position seem so, juvenile.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
I think they key points are:

A) If you have been hitting the 250GB cap, you would have been warned already, so it doesnt change anything.

B) It is almost impossible to hit the 250GB cap without illegal filesharing programs

C) Unless you signed a long-term deal with your provider, they have the right to change the terms at anytime. Just like you have the right to either cancel or switch providers.

D) Stop fucking crying like little kids. Noone feels bad for the top 1% of bandwidth hogs.
 

EKKC

Diamond Member
May 31, 2005
5,895
0
0
whatever the debate is, i still think this is a step in the wrong direction, ignore the illegal usage, and you still have the following:

1) flash based ads are no longer small (I know about adblock but not everyone uses it)
2) youtube and other video sharing sites are becoming more popular
3) to continue on #2, even network TV are showing their TV content online
4) companies like netflix are moving towards an online download/rental model
5) game demos are only getting larger and larger

my point is. 250GB is still not enough.
 

uhohs

Diamond Member
Oct 29, 2005
7,660
43
91
yeah, while 250gb is more than the average user needs/uses now, it's only a matter of time before they'll be hitting that range. so what people need is assurance from comcast that the cap will be increased in the future to match growing internat usage/trends/etc.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: uhohs
yeah, while 250gb is more than the average user needs/uses now, it's only a matter of time before they'll be hitting that range. so what people need is assurance from comcast that the cap will be increased in the future to match growing internat usage/trends/etc.

They've already stated it. That mark is the top .1% of their customers, the abusers. As traffic increases that cap will increase as well, it's stupid to think otherwise.

In general traffic doubles every 2 years to 2 years from now the cap would probably be in the 500 GB/mo range.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Originally posted by: EKKC
whatever the debate is, i still think this is a step in the wrong direction, ignore the illegal usage, and you still have the following:

1) flash based ads are no longer small (I know about adblock but not everyone uses it)
2) youtube and other video sharing sites are becoming more popular
3) to continue on #2, even network TV are showing their TV content online
4) companies like netflix are moving towards an online download/rental model
5) game demos are only getting larger and larger

my point is. 250GB is still not enough.

and all that summed up is still nowhere near 250gb
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,165
1,637
126
Not complaining about the 250GB, but "4mb per song" ..... maybe in 1995 when everybody was using 112kbit mp3s .....
And 2GB per SD movie .... Most DVD's have around 8 or 9 GB of data. If I were to theoretically convert a dvd into xvid or divx, it would wind up being between 700MB and 1.4GB ....

Their disconnect with reality is strong!
 

thegimp03

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2004
7,420
2
81
Jeeze, glad I saw this thread. I've been a Comcast customer for the past 4 years and I didn't get an email regarding this or anything.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
its not whether the users are doing illegal things or not. they paid for an advertised service and should get it. if theres a cap it should no longer be advertised as unlimited.
like it or not companies like comcast are government sanctioned monopolies. competition with things like cable are limited by nature. so they should have to play by stricter rules to make sure they don't take advantage and stifle innovation.

and of course the fact that other countries are charging ahead with more and more bandwidth makes the whole reasoning for capping americans tiny pipes rather unbelievable.

250gb seems big now. but eventually with cloud computing and remote backup users data will go up and up. just a few years ago 10 gigs a month would have been massive.
 

DefDC

Golden Member
Aug 28, 2003
1,858
1
81
Comcast has now announced that their digital phone and TV service has been capped at 100 calls and 200 TV shows per month. This is more than anyone can or should be using. If they're using more than that, they're in the top 1%, which is unacceptable. Was it ever really advertised as unlimited?

Again, I'm just saying this is a bad precedent. If you are a heavy user, who DOESN'T fileshare, now you're going to have to monitor your bandwidth.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
100 calls? You have a link on this?

That seems a bit unreasonable. Also I have no idea why they wouldn't cap by hours, as you could make 100 one minute calls and be using much less than someone who calls ten times a month and talks for 30 minutes each. It just doesn't make any sense.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
100 calls? You have a link on this?

That seems a bit unreasonable. Also I have no idea why they wouldn't cap by hours, as you could make 100 one minute calls and be using much less than someone who calls ten times a month and talks for 30 minutes each. It just doesn't make any sense.

I think he's posting a shitty hypothetical example.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
Originally posted by: DefDC
Comcast has now announced that their digital phone and TV service has been capped at 100 calls and 200 TV shows per month. This is more than anyone can or should be using. If they're using more than that, they're in the top 1%, which is unacceptable. Was it ever really advertised as unlimited?

Again, I'm just saying this is a bad precedent. If you are a heavy user, who DOESN'T fileshare, now you're going to have to monitor your bandwidth.

Wow...just....wow. You might want to read the rest of the thread, that makes what you just said sound pretty dumb.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
100 calls? You have a link on this?

That seems a bit unreasonable. Also I have no idea why they wouldn't cap by hours, as you could make 100 one minute calls and be using much less than someone who calls ten times a month and talks for 30 minutes each. It just doesn't make any sense.

No, the OP is being childish.
 

Canai

Diamond Member
Oct 4, 2006
8,016
1
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Should this thread (along with several others with 100+ posts) make it quite clear that this is a horrible idea for Comcast? The general opinion is, yeah 250GB a month is reasonable but the idea of a cap is large step in the wrong direction.

If it's a step in the wrong direction, then maybe a competitor who offers a better service will come in and provide unlimited bandwidth, faster, and cheaper than Comcast. And when that happens, Comcast can fire their CEO and all the guys making the big bucks for making the decisions that lead to profitability, and just hire you instead. Hell, maybe they should offer 100/100 up/down for $20 a month, and toss in a free hooker every time you pay your bill on time. That would make it so that no one could move in on their territory and compete with them. Besides, they have to upgrade everything to 100/100 ASAP regardless of profit/loss because that's what the future is going to require.

If only there weren't so many areas where companies like Comcast or Charter have monopolies on internet. Here in WI Charter had a *legal* monopoly up until just recently, so hopefully we'll see some competition in the future.

It just irks me that the US has such shitty network infrastructure compared to much of the Western world, and the companies are whining about network usage and pulling crap like these limits. If they had followed the rest of the world and upgraded their networks, we wouldn't be in this situation.
 

Jeff7181

Lifer
Aug 21, 2002
18,368
11
81
Originally posted by: DefDC
Comcast has now announced that their digital phone and TV service has been capped at 100 calls and 200 TV shows per month. This is more than anyone can or should be using. If they're using more than that, they're in the top 1%, which is unacceptable. Was it ever really advertised as unlimited?

Again, I'm just saying this is a bad precedent. If you are a heavy user, who DOESN'T fileshare, now you're going to have to monitor your bandwidth.

Wrong answer, McFly. "Everybody's doing it" is not a viable defense. I consider myself a "heavy user" and I'm no where near the 250 GB/mo mark and the only way I can find a way to get there is by doing my best to use bandwidth.

However, if IPTV takes off, the cap will be a real concern.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Canai
If only there weren't so many areas where companies like Comcast or Charter have monopolies on internet. Here in WI Charter had a *legal* monopoly up until just recently, so hopefully we'll see some competition in the future.

It just irks me that the US has such shitty network infrastructure compared to much of the Western world, and the companies are whining about network usage and pulling crap like these limits. If they had followed the rest of the world and upgraded their networks, we wouldn't be in this situation.

It's real easy to "upgrade" when you didn't have a massive telecommunications infrastructure to begin with or have such long distances and sparse population.

Europe and Japan are the leaders in passive optical networks because it is much cheaper to do so there given the subscriber base, length and density.