Comcast 250gb per Month Cap

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

thepd7

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2005
9,423
0
0
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.

Try 1000 calls and 500 TV shows. Then you are getting closer to a decent comparison.
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,440
5,426
136
Originally posted by: Ns1
I think the number of legit uses for >250gb/month are pretty limited.

I once uploaded 25GB overnight. Yep, forgot to cap it...
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
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.

Actually, a better analogy would be (16hours per day * 2 television shows per hour * 30 days per month) = 960 television shows per month - more than a reasonable person could possibly consume and use. 250 GB of bandwidth represents more music or videos than a person would actually watch in a month - they're just hoarding. A few people make the claim, "well, I download all sorts of linux stuffs, cause I'm cool like that." Well, do you actually use all those files? No?? Then make up your mind which files to download & quite wasting bandwidth.
 

nismotigerwvu

Golden Member
May 13, 2004
1,568
33
91
Pizza,

Any reason you keep lampooning the points that are so flimsy anyone could see right through them and avoid the more reasonable ones (IPTV, VOD for satellite providers...ect ect)?
Roughly 5 gigs per hour of video (HD)
Cap is gone with 50 viewing hours
An hour an a half of TV a day alone would put you right at the cap before you even bothered to open up itunes/zune store/steam...ect ect....
This is just a move to try to limit the viability of IPTV and try to keep VOD service a cable only feature.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Pizza,

Any reason you keep lampooning the points that are so flimsy anyone could see right through them and avoid the more reasonable ones (IPTV, VOD for satellite providers...ect ect)?
Roughly 5 gigs per hour of video (HD)
Cap is gone with 50 viewing hours
An hour an a half of TV a day alone would put you right at the cap before you even bothered to open up itunes/zune store/steam...ect ect....
This is just a move to try to limit the viability of IPTV and try to keep VOD service a cable only feature.

Agreed. Actually, 5 gigs per hour of video (HD) is probably the exact foresight that the ISP's have when making a decision to cap bandwidth. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that as streaming HD becomes more and more popular, bandwidth requirements will *quickly* outstrip ISP's ability to upgrade, and will certainly lead to losses rather than profits.

Give me one reason why the ISP's should increase capacity simply so people can stream HD videos all they want? Don't forget, ISP's aren't in the business out of the goodness of their hearts - they need to make a profit in order to survive. You think you can provide that kind of bandwidth to the majority of your customers and make a profit? Go for it.

You're forgetting one particular point though: when people order videos on demand through their cable provider (or satellite), they PAY for them, directly to the people providing that service. Are you telling me that the cable provider and satellite providers have ZERO costs associated with providing that service? Or, is some of the cost of providing that service covered in the fee that people pay? Suppose a cable company charges $3.99 for a video on demand... that price includes their cost of providing the video through their service. Sure, for some cheaper movies/shows that may not be watched as much, they may be able to absorb the costs without passing them on. But, you apparently think it's okay that someone can charge $3.99 for the same content and the ISP's have to absorb the cost of delivering it? You don't realize that the ISP's who are charging for excess bandwidth beyond the cap (some are) aren't simply recouping their costs at that point - PLUS a profit? (Business exists to make a profit.)

And, quite simply, if you don't like it, switch ISP's. I'm sure the abusers, piraters, etc. are also jumping ship to other ISP's. Thus, it won't be long until they realize, "oh fuck. All of Comcasts abusers just came to our network." And, those ISP's drop the cap as well. The ISP's are constantly upgrading their services; people just need to be realistic in understanding that there are a lot of costs to these upgrades; they can only upgrade so fast, and they still need to maintain a profit.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Pizza,

Any reason you keep lampooning the points that are so flimsy anyone could see right through them and avoid the more reasonable ones (IPTV, VOD for satellite providers...ect ect)?
Roughly 5 gigs per hour of video (HD)
Cap is gone with 50 viewing hours
An hour an a half of TV a day alone would put you right at the cap before you even bothered to open up itunes/zune store/steam...ect ect....
This is just a move to try to limit the viability of IPTV and try to keep VOD service a cable only feature.

Agreed. Actually, 5 gigs per hour of video (HD) is probably the exact foresight that the ISP's have when making a decision to cap bandwidth. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that as streaming HD becomes more and more popular, bandwidth requirements will *quickly* outstrip ISP's ability to upgrade, and will certainly lead to losses rather than profits.

Give me one reason why the ISP's should increase capacity simply so people can stream HD videos all they want? Don't forget, ISP's aren't in the business out of the goodness of their hearts - they need to make a profit in order to survive. You think you can provide that kind of bandwidth to the majority of your customers and make a profit? Go for it.

You're forgetting one particular point though: when people order videos on demand through their cable provider (or satellite), they PAY for them, directly to the people providing that service. Are you telling me that the cable provider and satellite providers have ZERO costs associated with providing that service? Or, is some of the cost of providing that service covered in the fee that people pay? Suppose a cable company charges $3.99 for a video on demand... that price includes their cost of providing the video through their service. Sure, for some cheaper movies/shows that may not be watched as much, they may be able to absorb the costs without passing them on. You don't realize that the ISP's who are charging for excess bandwidth beyond the cap (some are) aren't simply recouping their costs at that point - PLUS a profit? (Business exists to make a profit.)

And, quite simply, if you don't like it, switch ISP's. I'm sure the abusers, piraters, etc. are also jumping ship to other ISP's. Thus, it won't be long until they realize, "oh fuck. All of Comcasts abusers just came to our network." And, those ISP's drop the cap as well. The ISP's are constantly upgrading their services; people just need to be realistic in understanding that there are a lot of costs to these upgrades; they can only upgrade so fast, and they still need to maintain a profit.

whether bandwidth use will outstripe their ability to upgrade is not known. what is known is bandwidth growth in other countries is beating us, so it is not that hard. and industries like this do have a history of crying wolf. it could be they just rather like ever decreasing price of data and want to cash in on it by suppressing demand. also, companies like comcast are media companies. they want to protect their cable distribution model, and thats just another reason to stifle web media. as said, such companies do business with help from what is effectively a government sanctioned form of monopoly, so in a way they should be treated as utilities as well as businesses. the pressure on them to provide a service fairly without stifling it for personal business reasons should be different because of this lack of real competition.

But, you apparently think it's okay that someone can charge $3.99 for the same content and the ISP's have to absorb the cost of delivering it?

bandwidth costs were paid twice, once by the company selling the media, a second time by the customer buying the media. so really....cry me a river about bandwith costs:p what these companies with their battling net neutrality and everything have been trying to do is take a 3rd cut. it would be like if the post office muscled in on your ebay business and decided that shipment cost wasn't tenough, but they wanted a % of your profit as well. thats the type of company you are dealing with. so i don't see a reason to trust what they are saying.
 

nismotigerwvu

Golden Member
May 13, 2004
1,568
33
91
Originally posted by: DrPizza

Give me one reason why the ISP's should increase capacity simply so people can stream HD videos all they want?
You're forgetting one particular point though: when people order videos on demand through their cable provider (or satellite), they PAY for them, directly to the people providing that service.
Are you telling me that the cable provider and satellite providers have ZERO costs associated with providing that service? Or, is some of the cost of providing that service covered in the fee that people pay? Suppose a cable company charges $3.99 for a video on demand... that price includes their cost of providing the video through their service. Sure, for some cheaper movies/shows that may not be watched as much, they may be able to absorb the costs without passing them on. But, you apparently think it's okay that someone can charge $3.99 for the same content and the ISP's have to absorb the cost of delivering it? You don't realize that the ISP's who are charging for excess bandwidth beyond the cap (some are) aren't simply recouping their costs at that point - PLUS a profit? (Business exists to make a profit.)
And, quite simply, if you don't like it, switch ISP's. I'm sure the abusers, piraters, etc. are also jumping ship to other ISP's. Thus, it won't be long until they realize, "oh fuck. All of Comcasts abusers just came to our network." And, those ISP's drop the cap as well. The ISP's are constantly upgrading their services; people just need to be realistic in understanding that there are a lot of costs to these upgrades; they can only upgrade so fast, and they still need to maintain a profit.


Not true.....there are plenty of free HD VOD streams on both Comcast and Dish Network/DirecTV. Sure you are paying your normal TV bill but the VOD's are included for nothing. Comcast doesn't want to see a Vonage-esque uprising of IPTV providers (as in Xbox live IPTV should it become a reality anytime soon). Also, someone WILL step up and have a network capable if the incumbents lag. Be it Verizon with FIOS, DSL, LTE, or even some Wimax~ish system. There is just too much to gain for market NOT to head that way (as in the consumer seeing how awesome IPTV would be and jumping to someone who can provide it best).


And, quite simply, if you don't like it, switch ISP's. I'm sure the abusers, piraters, etc. are also jumping ship to other ISP's. Thus, it won't be long until they realize, "oh fuck. All of Comcasts abusers just came to our network." And, those ISP's drop the cap as well. The ISP's are constantly upgrading their services; people just need to be realistic in understanding that there are a lot of costs to these upgrades; they can only upgrade so fast, and they still need to maintain a profit.

This is almost too childish to dignify a response to, but I'm feeling frisky so I'll go ahead.
I AM switching providers rather soon thank you very much.
Remember, not everyone is blessed with a multitude of capable providers and it is Comcast or nothing.
That would be like telling someone on a liver transplant list to stop whining and find a medicine to magically fix the organ.
Also, if everyone jumps ship from Comcast, I think they would be the one's saying "Oh Eff, we just lost a million customers this quarter".
Considering that most people leaving them for internet would more than likely get a dish as well that is more than 100 bucks a month of revenue per lost user a month.
That hurts the fiscal outlook....a lot....a lot more than them shutting their "whine holes" and laying some fiber.
There, I was as immature as you and actually put the blame on the ISP, not all those nasty vile users who want nothing else in life but to horde movies they will never watch.


Lastly, there ARE users such as myself who rely on the internet for far more than just entertainment. I'm working on a Ph.D in Biochemistry here at the university and I'm responsible for information provided at several hour long lectures filmed at locations I physically can not be.
Also, there are huge data files that I need as well, as I simply can't be in my office 24/7 to download it there and need to do some of the work at home.
Add on being a nerd and using my PPC as a sling box (perfectly legal), buying most of my games electronically (either in lab, lecturing, or being lectured to most operating hours of EB and the like).
Factor remote desktop use for operating instruments that wouldn't be feasible to be in front of when needed (running a C13 NMR at any decent resolution can take 3 days for each sample...if I can load the sample on Monday and let it lock/shim on the drive back to my apartment and start my experiments from home over the next few weeks instead of dealing with traffic hell that is downtown so then I'm going to do it.

But in your eyes I'm just a whiny pirate, so that HAS to be the case right?
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
Yes, you are a whiner. If you dont like the cap, dont buy the service. Welcome to how business works.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
But in your eyes I'm just a whiny pirate, so that HAS to be the case right?

You are whining. You seem to think bandwidth/capacity is free. It isn't. It's very expensive.

Apparently your needs far exceed a typical customer. That's fine. All I ask is that you pay for the what you are using. The all you can eat model isn't going to be around for very much longer for consumer broadband. 250GB for the price they selling it at and that kind of capacity (100 Mbs is around the corner) is a freaking steal.
 

nismotigerwvu

Golden Member
May 13, 2004
1,568
33
91
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yes, you are a whiner. If you dont like the cap, dont buy the service. Welcome to how business works.

Oh and while I'm at it, I should just drop out of my graduate program too since that would be more convenient. I've already stated I'd be willing to pay for a commercial account but Comcast won't offer them to a residentially zoned area.
Oh and Spidey, just becuase you say it over and over again doesn't make it true, a residential Comcast account is FAR from a steal. I dare you to show some credible sources otherwise. I'm pretty sure $50 per month is far more than the operating cost for even a heavy user like myself. Also, I'm sure Verizon will be quite happy to take my money. I dare you to find where I EVER said bandwidth was free. While we are putting words in each others mouths here I might as well misqoute you for saying that you love to eat babies and worship Satan....
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
There are always options. T1 for a few grand a month, or you can probably get an OC3 for $20-30k/month. :)
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yes, you are a whiner. If you dont like the cap, dont buy the service. Welcome to how business works.

Oh and while I'm at it, I should just drop out of my graduate program too since that would be more convenient. I've already stated I'd be willing to pay for a commercial account but Comcast won't offer them to a residentially zoned area.
Oh and Spidey, just becuase you say it over and over again doesn't make it true, a residential Comcast account is FAR from a steal. I dare you to show some credible sources otherwise. I'm pretty sure $50 per month is far more than the operating cost for even a heavy user like myself. Also, I'm sure Verizon will be quite happy to take my money. I dare you to find where I EVER said bandwidth was free. While we are putting words in each others mouths here I might as well misqoute you for saying that you love to eat babies and worship Satan....

Look you retard. It's apparent that you are a college student. Don't have any clue about the real world. Yes, the medical industry requires tons of bandwidth and imaging.

Here's a clue, that industry pays for it. I know, I build that shit for them, along with manufacturing and the service provider arena.

You are so totally clueless. Why the hell don't you operate your own service provider if you have it all figured out? You're apparently a smart guy who understands supply/demand, have at it.

Oh, and you have no fucking idea how much this stuff costs. Entitlement fucker.
 

uhohs

Diamond Member
Oct 29, 2005
7,660
43
91
Originally posted by: spidey07
Look you retard. It's apparent that you are a college student. Don't have any clue about the real world. Yes, the medical industry requires tons of bandwidth and imaging.

Here's a clue, that industry pays for it. I know, I build that shit for them, along with manufacturing and the service provider arena.

You are so totally clueless. Why the hell don't you operate your own service provider if you have it all figured out? You're apparently a smart guy who understands supply/demand, have at it.

Oh, and you have no fucking idea how much this stuff costs. Entitlement fucker.

name calling and insults! yay!
this discussion/debate is going places.
 

Soundmanred

Lifer
Oct 26, 2006
10,780
6
81
Originally posted by: uhohs
Originally posted by: spidey07
Look you retard.
Oh, and you have no fucking idea how much this stuff costs. Entitlement fucker.

name calling and insults! yay!
this discussion/debate is going places.

That's when you know they are running out of arguments. Or take the internetz way to seriously. Or just suck as a person.
 

nismotigerwvu

Golden Member
May 13, 2004
1,568
33
91
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yes, you are a whiner. If you dont like the cap, dont buy the service. Welcome to how business works.

Oh and while I'm at it, I should just drop out of my graduate program too since that would be more convenient. I've already stated I'd be willing to pay for a commercial account but Comcast won't offer them to a residentially zoned area.
Oh and Spidey, just becuase you say it over and over again doesn't make it true, a residential Comcast account is FAR from a steal. I dare you to show some credible sources otherwise. I'm pretty sure $50 per month is far more than the operating cost for even a heavy user like myself. Also, I'm sure Verizon will be quite happy to take my money. I dare you to find where I EVER said bandwidth was free. While we are putting words in each others mouths here I might as well misqoute you for saying that you love to eat babies and worship Satan....

Look you retard. It's apparent that you are a college student. Don't have any clue about the real world. Yes, the medical industry requires tons of bandwidth and imaging.

Here's a clue, that industry pays for it. I know, I build that shit for them, along with manufacturing and the service provider arena.

You are so totally clueless. Why the hell don't you operate your own service provider if you have it all figured out? You're apparently a smart guy who understands supply/demand, have at it.

Oh, and you have no fucking idea how much this stuff costs. Entitlement fucker.

And that my friend is why you have 0 credibility.
Go look up some finical information.
Last quarter Comcast pulled a profit of 18 million dollars while spending 6 million on maintenance/upkeep while having a 56% growth in free cash.
They could easily afford to double their spending and still record huge profits.
Note, that is PROFITS not revenue.
Your point is now utterly moot and welcome to the 5th grade.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
76
Originally posted by: Renob
But I do have a Giganews subscription that I enjoy

Is this mean you pay to be part of a new group to download copyrighted material?

Comcast, like many others, used to supply access to newsgroup for free and it is yet another service that is being discontinued to save on bandwidth while prices remain the same or go up.

I remember paying AOL & CompuServe $3 an hour for dialup service at home, then $30 a month for unlimited. Then I went with Verizon for $20 a month for unlimited, then Wal-Mart for $10 a month unlimited.

Why did prices drop so much? because there was competition. Comcast, Time Warner and Cox can do this without fear of reprisal because more often than not they have a monopoly on their area other than wifi or crappy dsl.

Other nations are far surpassing us, hell Japan's speed is 10x ours at a fraction of the cost. Until the local cable companies have competition with a legit wifi or fiber, they will continue to offer as little as they can to have maximum profits. They need to reinvest and make their pipes bigger. Time Warner just started offering 3 different bandwidth speeds, what's the point of paying for faster speed when you are just going to hit your cap quicker?
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yes, you are a whiner. If you dont like the cap, dont buy the service. Welcome to how business works.

Oh and while I'm at it, I should just drop out of my graduate program too since that would be more convenient. I've already stated I'd be willing to pay for a commercial account but Comcast won't offer them to a residentially zoned area.
Oh and Spidey, just becuase you say it over and over again doesn't make it true, a residential Comcast account is FAR from a steal. I dare you to show some credible sources otherwise. I'm pretty sure $50 per month is far more than the operating cost for even a heavy user like myself. Also, I'm sure Verizon will be quite happy to take my money. I dare you to find where I EVER said bandwidth was free. While we are putting words in each others mouths here I might as well misqoute you for saying that you love to eat babies and worship Satan....

Look you retard. It's apparent that you are a college student. Don't have any clue about the real world. Yes, the medical industry requires tons of bandwidth and imaging.

Here's a clue, that industry pays for it. I know, I build that shit for them, along with manufacturing and the service provider arena.

You are so totally clueless. Why the hell don't you operate your own service provider if you have it all figured out? You're apparently a smart guy who understands supply/demand, have at it.

Oh, and you have no fucking idea how much this stuff costs. Entitlement fucker.

And that my friend is why you have 0 credibility.
Go look up some finical information.
Last quarter Comcast pulled a profit of 18 million dollars while spending 6 million on maintenance/upkeep while having a 56% growth in free cash.
They could easily afford to double their spending and still record huge profits.
Note, that is PROFITS not revenue.
Your point is now utterly moot and welcome to the 5th grade.
Why should Comcast invest in the network when it is more than good enough for 99.9% of their customers? You really think they should double their spending just to cater to the 0.1% that demands 100x more bandwidth than their median customer? That's just poor business, it doesn't make any sense at all.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
76
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yes, you are a whiner. If you dont like the cap, dont buy the service. Welcome to how business works.

Oh and while I'm at it, I should just drop out of my graduate program too since that would be more convenient. I've already stated I'd be willing to pay for a commercial account but Comcast won't offer them to a residentially zoned area.
Oh and Spidey, just becuase you say it over and over again doesn't make it true, a residential Comcast account is FAR from a steal. I dare you to show some credible sources otherwise. I'm pretty sure $50 per month is far more than the operating cost for even a heavy user like myself. Also, I'm sure Verizon will be quite happy to take my money. I dare you to find where I EVER said bandwidth was free. While we are putting words in each others mouths here I might as well misqoute you for saying that you love to eat babies and worship Satan....

Look you retard. It's apparent that you are a college student. Don't have any clue about the real world. Yes, the medical industry requires tons of bandwidth and imaging.

Here's a clue, that industry pays for it. I know, I build that shit for them, along with manufacturing and the service provider arena.

You are so totally clueless. Why the hell don't you operate your own service provider if you have it all figured out? You're apparently a smart guy who understands supply/demand, have at it.

Oh, and you have no fucking idea how much this stuff costs. Entitlement fucker.

And that my friend is why you have 0 credibility.
Go look up some finical information.
Last quarter Comcast pulled a profit of 18 million dollars while spending 6 million on maintenance/upkeep while having a 56% growth in free cash.
They could easily afford to double their spending and still record huge profits.
Note, that is PROFITS not revenue.
Your point is now utterly moot and welcome to the 5th grade.
Why should Comcast invest in the network when it is adequate for 99.9% of their customers?

Because today it is 99.9, next month it will be 99.7, a year from now it will be 90%...and so on and so on. Bandwidth hungry applications are out there and are being marketed and used.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
All I want is rollover bandwidth and a service like cell phone companies provide to keep track of your minute usage except I want it for bandwidth. Why is this asking for too much?
 

nismotigerwvu

Golden Member
May 13, 2004
1,568
33
91
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yes, you are a whiner. If you dont like the cap, dont buy the service. Welcome to how business works.

Oh and while I'm at it, I should just drop out of my graduate program too since that would be more convenient. I've already stated I'd be willing to pay for a commercial account but Comcast won't offer them to a residentially zoned area.
Oh and Spidey, just becuase you say it over and over again doesn't make it true, a residential Comcast account is FAR from a steal. I dare you to show some credible sources otherwise. I'm pretty sure $50 per month is far more than the operating cost for even a heavy user like myself. Also, I'm sure Verizon will be quite happy to take my money. I dare you to find where I EVER said bandwidth was free. While we are putting words in each others mouths here I might as well misqoute you for saying that you love to eat babies and worship Satan....

Look you retard. It's apparent that you are a college student. Don't have any clue about the real world. Yes, the medical industry requires tons of bandwidth and imaging.

Here's a clue, that industry pays for it. I know, I build that shit for them, along with manufacturing and the service provider arena.

You are so totally clueless. Why the hell don't you operate your own service provider if you have it all figured out? You're apparently a smart guy who understands supply/demand, have at it.

Oh, and you have no fucking idea how much this stuff costs. Entitlement fucker.

And that my friend is why you have 0 credibility.
Go look up some finical information.
Last quarter Comcast pulled a profit of 18 million dollars while spending 6 million on maintenance/upkeep while having a 56% growth in free cash.
They could easily afford to double their spending and still record huge profits.
Note, that is PROFITS not revenue.
Your point is now utterly moot and welcome to the 5th grade.
Why should Comcast invest in the network when it is more than good enough for 99.9% of their customers? You really think they should double their spending just to cater to the 0.1% that demands 100x more bandwidth than their median customer? That's just poor business, it doesn't make any sense at all.

There is a large difference between the words "could" and "should".
I said they "could" double their spending on upgrading their network and still make money.
I feel they "should" spend appropriately so they can best serve their subscribers.
They should have enough bandwidth so that they could use a "soft" rather than a "hard" QoS system. They could just keep an index of the bandwidth usage of the subscribers and when the network hits a certain utilization point (lets say 70%) the heaviest users get dropped to a lower QoS priority (as in they get slowed down). Some nodes will less stressed than others, so why should the people who are doing no harm to the portion of the network they reside in be punished the same way people who actually do.
 

Shlong

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2002
3,130
59
91
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
There are always options. T1 for a few grand a month, or you can probably get an OC3 for $20-30k/month. :)

Prices have gone down quite a bit if I'm not mistaken. I think T1's are $400 - $1000 now. OC3 $3500 - $10000. OC12 $15000 - $30000.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yes, you are a whiner. If you dont like the cap, dont buy the service. Welcome to how business works.

Oh and while I'm at it, I should just drop out of my graduate program too since that would be more convenient. I've already stated I'd be willing to pay for a commercial account but Comcast won't offer them to a residentially zoned area.
Oh and Spidey, just becuase you say it over and over again doesn't make it true, a residential Comcast account is FAR from a steal. I dare you to show some credible sources otherwise. I'm pretty sure $50 per month is far more than the operating cost for even a heavy user like myself. Also, I'm sure Verizon will be quite happy to take my money. I dare you to find where I EVER said bandwidth was free. While we are putting words in each others mouths here I might as well misqoute you for saying that you love to eat babies and worship Satan....

Look you retard. It's apparent that you are a college student. Don't have any clue about the real world. Yes, the medical industry requires tons of bandwidth and imaging.

Here's a clue, that industry pays for it. I know, I build that shit for them, along with manufacturing and the service provider arena.

You are so totally clueless. Why the hell don't you operate your own service provider if you have it all figured out? You're apparently a smart guy who understands supply/demand, have at it.

Oh, and you have no fucking idea how much this stuff costs. Entitlement fucker.

And that my friend is why you have 0 credibility.
Go look up some finical information.
Last quarter Comcast pulled a profit of 18 million dollars while spending 6 million on maintenance/upkeep while having a 56% growth in free cash.
They could easily afford to double their spending and still record huge profits.
Note, that is PROFITS not revenue.
Your point is now utterly moot and welcome to the 5th grade.
Why should Comcast invest in the network when it is more than good enough for 99.9% of their customers? You really think they should double their spending just to cater to the 0.1% that demands 100x more bandwidth than their median customer? That's just poor business, it doesn't make any sense at all.

There is a large difference between the words "could" and "should".
I said they "could" double their spending on upgrading their network and still make money.
I feel they "should" spend appropriately so they can best serve their subscribers.
They should have enough bandwidth so that they could use a "soft" rather than a "hard" QoS system. They could just keep an index of the bandwidth usage of the subscribers and when the network hits a certain utilization point (lets say 70%) the heaviest users get dropped to a lower QoS priority (as in they get slowed down). Some nodes will less stressed than others, so why should the people who are doing no harm to the portion of the network they reside in be punished the same way people who actually do.
I actually posted about this earlier in the thread, Comcast is implementing a system almost exactly like that.

Shlong: Interesting, thanks for the info. :)
 

nismotigerwvu

Golden Member
May 13, 2004
1,568
33
91
An OC48 line would run about 40~50 grand a month to operate (with a several year lease). This is a high estimate as these are prices I've references for businesses buying one line, not an ISP looking for a large contract.
The payload for such a line would be 2405Mb/sec (taking overhead into account). This works out to about ~18 bucks per megabit. This line in and of itself would more than enough to feed over 1200 users (and even if they ALL were downloading at once at top speed they could have over 2Mb/sec, so we are talking DSL speeds at a worst case that will pretty much never happen so 6~8Mb packages are quite reasonable) providing ~$60,000 per month in revenue.
The costs for this line per user is about ~35 bucks a month. Accounting for servers and technicians and whatnot, I'm not quite seeing the "steal" that $50 per month internet service is.
Coupling cable internet with TV service makes the profit margin even higher.
Also, breaking the service into speed tiers could increase the number of users per line (lowering the cost per user) by offering economy tiers (lets say a 768k/384k at $25) for the email and browsing only users.
So even a worst case view shows huge profits (as verified by comcast's finical reports).

Things also get far more ISP friendly when you transition to OC192 lines as well. These numbers are a bit harder to find, but form what I gather, are the most common backbone.