Comcast charging for Netflix usage

[boomerang]

Didn't take all that long for this thread to sync up with its destiny. I think the holiday season probably delayed it a bit though.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Did you read what you posted? They have the 250GB limit yet when it came time to get their 98% number they had to move the goal post to 300GB.

That and many more are dropping TV and streaming. I have not had cable in a good decade. I am more IT savvy so making it work is easier to me and most here, Burt now with Roku's, amazon TV, etc... any body can plug it in and go. And even with the low rate of those only streaming they had to move to 300GB to make their case even though they have 250GB limits.

And those numbers will not stay put. As the younger "on demand" generation gets older, the demand for streaming is only going to grow. I think they (ISP's like Comcast) are trying to set a precedent now to corner the market later.

 

[MrDudeMan]

How dare someone consume an unlimited resource to their hearts content after buying an unlimited plan! Bandwidth isn't a sack of potatoes that everyone can only take a few each until it is all gone forever. Me using a lot of bandwidth shouldn't impact you in any way, if companies actually had to compete and update their infrastructure after 1990.

Yes, how dare you. I don't care why they're doing it or any of the reasons behind it. The data cap is extremely reasonable and it only impedes people who use WAY, WAY more bandwidth than the average user. Those people pay more with every other type of service, so internet isn't different.

So do you work for Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, or AT&T?

Nice ass pull. 99% is a crock of shit (especially for ones like AT&T DSL which has a 150GB cap). Stream a single HD movie a night for a month and you'll eat 90GB pretty easily, so for a family you could easily use up your cap. Not to mention other things like buying digital goods (movies, games which are getting to be 20-50GB in size).

Considering they're selling "unlimited" service I don't know how you can defend it. Not only that but they also lie out their asses constantly, they advertise about all the improvements they make and how their network is so fast and stellar, yet they then blackmail companies and tell the FCC they're so congested they can't manage and can't afford to upgrade their network (unless, say, Netflix pays them). And yet somehow they've been paying out more to their shareholders than ever.

lol.. an ass pull would have happened had I not provided two links. I love when people can't read. Comcast said 98% of its users are between 20 and 25 GB - a statement which you may or may not believe, but enough people don't give a shit so the model is staying. Verizon quoted similar numbers when I called to ask about getting FIOS service.

I'm not defending it as much as I'm saying you're already being charged this way for basically everything else. Right or wrong, the minority opinion isn't going to get them to budge.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Did you read what you posted? They have the 250GB limit yet when it came time to get their 98% number they had to move the goal post to 300GB.

That and many more are dropping TV and streaming. I have not had cable in a good decade. I am more IT savvy so making it work is easier to me and most here, But now with Roku's, amazon TV, etc... anybody can plug it in and go. And even with the low rate of those only streaming they had to move to 300GB to make their case even though they have 250GB limits.

Then on top of that you link ask the question...

What is the average usage of people on your network today?

Yet their answer was the "median monthly data usage", not average.

2013: To put 300GB in context, our median customer’s data use is about 16 to 18GB per month.

2014: XFINITY Internet customers' median monthly data usage is 20 - 25 GB per month.

Edit: removed sarcasm as it was I who misread. Corrected downstream...

 

[Pulsar]

So do you work for Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, or AT&T?

Nice ass pull. 99% is a crock of shit (especially for ones like AT&T DSL which has a 150GB cap). Stream a single HD movie a night for a month and you'll eat 90GB pretty easily, so for a family you could easily use up your cap. Not to mention other things like buying digital goods (movies, games which are getting to be 20-50GB in size).

Considering they're selling "unlimited" service I don't know how you can defend it. Not only that but they also lie out their asses constantly, they advertise about all the improvements they make and how their network is so fast and stellar, yet they then blackmail companies and tell the FCC they're so congested they can't manage and can't afford to upgrade their network (unless, say, Netflix pays them). And yet somehow they've been paying out more to their shareholders than ever.

The same thought ran through my head. Yeah, a handfull use more than most. You know what that's called? A normal fucking distribution. As in normal. Everyday. Statiscally expected, and should be planned for. Meet my little friend.... the bell curve.

Any time I hear ISP's starting talking about 1% of the users using the majority of the bandwidth, I think to myself, "Self?" (that's me talking) "Either these guys are the most horrible, idiotic, foolish business planners ever and don't understand even basic statistics.... or they're very clever liars in the way that they present their data".

And then my self says "I'm hungry. Get me lunch and stop looking at statistical distributions. We did that in college and it's boring as hell".

That said, we're on a tech site. I'm not surprised people here use substantially more (300 = 12 X mean). I'd wager you're going to have different bell curves based on age. Right now, more than half the population is over 40, and many many of them don't use the internet much but are hooked up to it. That horribly skews their numbers. Averages are nice but they don't tell the story.

 

[steppinthrax]

Really? When you attach a new modem to their network you get pushed to a page to register the device. I've done it twice in the past year at two residences. One had no active Comcast account associated with it at the time and the other did. In the latter case I was moving from their modem to my modem.

I don't know what happened to cause it. I just know I had bought a motorola surfboard modem about 3 years ago. I installed it a reg it. When I go to the comcast page I get a message indicating they have trouble finding my equipment. I think it's a mess up on their part that might no be reproducible in other circumstances. I'm going to keep my mouth shut about it with comcast though.

 

[Jimzz]

Yes, how dare you. I don't care why they're doing it or any of the reasons behind it. The data cap is extremely reasonable and it only impedes people who use WAY, WAY more bandwidth than the average user. Those people pay more with every other type of service, so internet isn't different.



lol.. an ass pull would have happened had I not provided two links. I love when people can't read. Comcast said 98% of its users are between 20 and 25 GB - a statement which you may or may not believe, but enough people don't give a shit so the model is staying. Verizon quoted similar numbers when I called to ask about getting FIOS service.

I'm not defending it as much as I'm saying you're already being charged this way for basically everything else. Right or wrong, the minority opinion isn't going to get them to budge.

No they did not. They said the "median monthly data usage is 20 - 25 GB per month" not 98% of users.

 

[MrDudeMan]

And those numbers will not stay put. As the younger "on demand" generation gets older, the demand for streaming is only going to grow. I think they (ISP's like Comcast) are trying to set a precedent now to corner the market later.

That's true, but the cap obviously isn't fixed because they've already moved it once. If the cap starts to impose on the majority of their users, people will switch services. It's really pretty fucking simple. Yeah yeah, some people don't have a choice, but tons of people do and they'll exercise it when pushed against a wall. I'm not saying I love caps, but they've set it way higher than most of their users need, which is reasonable. If they set the cap at 50 GB, they'd be imposing an extra fee on as much as 30% of their users, which wouldn't fly. Pissing off 2% is irrelevant because most of them will probably just pay the extra fee anyway.

Continue to be pissed off and yell at me for pointing out the obvious reason this cap is in existence AND not causing their customers to flee. It doesn't impact me at all if you're butthurt about this.

 

[drebo]

If you're using more of something than 99% of the other people who use it, you deserve to pay more.

So why doesn't that apply to welfare and other government services, then?

By your logic, welfare queens should pay the MOST taxes.

 

[MrDudeMan]

No they did not. They said the "median monthly data usage is 20 - 25 GB per month" not 98% of users.

Sorry - you're right. That doesn't really change anything, though, because 98% are under 300 GB and 50% are under 25 GB.

 

[darkswordsman17]

It's actually kind of disgusting how much TV people watch. I haven't owned a TV in 7 years and I'm better off as a result.

It's kinda disgusting that you think that's the only thing that people could possibly be using the bandwidth for. But even then, oh, and what's this, most of those companies are also selling TV service? Hmm, yeah no conflict of interest for them to be trying to cap people or video streaming services (like Netflix).

Oh and did we forget to mention they claim they don't have bandwidth caps at all?
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Still-Pretending-They-Dont-Have-Data-Caps-130217

Or how about them finally admitting they don't have actual issues with congestion (which is why they had been claiming was why they need to be able to implement bandwidth caps):

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...ion-is-not-a-problem-impose-data-caps-anyway/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion.shtml

 

[Jimzz]

I take it you don't do well on standardized testing.

2013: To put 300GB in context, our median customer’s data use is about 16 to 18GB per month.

2014: XFINITY Internet customers' median monthly data usage is 20 - 25 GB per month.

YOU misunderstood his statement about the 250 GB cap. The above two statements are all you need to read to understand typical usage for a home user.

Re: your edit - do you know what median means?

Hahaha... apparently you do not know what median means.
Median is not a average, its the middle number of the data.

So whats the median of this data set...

1000
1000
900
800
700
25
25
25
25
25
25

and whats the average? Which one makes Comcast look better and which one did they use?

 

[MrDudeMan]

So why doesn't that apply to welfare and other government services, then?

By your logic, welfare queens should pay the MOST taxes.

Are you really comparing a social program/subsidized paycheck with an opt-in utility?

 

[MrDudeMan]

Hahaha... apparently you do not know what median means.
Median is not a average, its the middle number of the data.

So whats the median of this data set...

1000
1000
900
800
700
25
25
25
25
25
25

and whats the average?

I apologized for misreading in the last post, but this doesn't prove your point. You've biased the data set in a way that does not reflect reality.

 

[Jimzz]

I apologized for misreading in the last post, but this doesn't prove your point. You've biased the data set in a way that does not reflect reality.

Then show me where Comcast has posted their real average numbers? There's a reason they keep using median numbers when people keep asking average.
All the fluff you have been posting has been just that, fluff.

 

[ch33zw1z]

That's true, but the cap obviously isn't fixed because they've already moved it once. If the cap starts to impose on the majority of their users, people will switch services. It's really pretty fucking simple. Yeah yeah, some people don't have a choice, but tons of people do and they'll exercise it when pushed against a wall. I'm not saying I love caps, but they've set it way higher than most of their users need, which is reasonable. If they set the cap at 50 GB, they'd be imposing an extra fee on as much as 30% of their users, which wouldn't fly. Pissing off 2% is irrelevant because most of them will probably just pay the extra fee anyway.

Continue to be pissed off and yell at me for pointing out the obvious reason this cap is in existence AND not causing their customers to flee. It doesn't impact me at all if you're butthurt about this.

More than "some people" don't have a choice.

So you're cool with it because it doesn't directly affect you, and you have other ISP's to choose from. Thanks for you input.

 

[MrDudeMan]

It's kinda disgusting that you think that's the only thing that people could possibly be using the bandwidth for. But even then, oh, and what's this, most of those companies are also selling TV service? Hmm, yeah no conflict of interest for them to be trying to cap people or video streaming services (like Netflix).

Please show me where I said I think everyone is only using the internet to watch TV. What I said was I think it's disgusting how much TV people watch, which, by the way, is a significant cause of obesity - sitting still. Funny how that works...

Oh and did we forget to mention they claim they don't have bandwidth caps at all?
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Still-Pretending-They-Dont-Have-Data-Caps-130217

Or how about them finally admitting they don't have actual issues with congestion (which is why they had been claiming was why they need to be able to implement bandwidth caps):

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...ion-is-not-a-problem-impose-data-caps-anyway/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion.shtml

Don't use their service. That's your right, but it's not going to change anything because most of their customers aren't impeded. Politicians will do whatever is in their best interest. None of us really have a say in it anyway.

 

[drebo]

Are you really comparing a social program/subsidized paycheck with an opt-in utility?

According to some, mostly on the left, Internet is a primal life necessity.

 

[smackababy]

Yes, how dare you. I don't care why they're doing it or any of the reasons behind it. The data cap is extremely reasonable and it only impedes people who use WAY, WAY more bandwidth than the average user. Those people pay more with every other type of service, so internet isn't different.



lol.. an ass pull would have happened had I not provided two links. I love when people can't read. Comcast said 98% of its users are between 20 and 25 GB - a statement which you may or may not believe, but enough people don't give a shit so the model is staying. Verizon quoted similar numbers when I called to ask about getting FIOS service.

I'm not defending it as much as I'm saying you're already being charged this way for basically everything else. Right or wrong, the minority opinion isn't going to get them to budge.

Taking Verizon's word on anything is just stupid. I was at a conference and the CEO stated we needed data caps because the average DVD streamed was around 4gbs and we'd run out of bandwidth. A, that is wrong and B, we won't "run out".

And, using a median value, rather than an average, is beyond stupid. It doesn't cost them more money to send 25GB over their network than it costs them to 250GB over their network. They a simply looking for a way to both get more money from users that actually use the internet and delay updating their infrastructure to what the rest of the modern world has.

If Verizon has 5 internet users with usage of 1, 8, 10, 20, 25, 150, 180, 215, 827, would a cap of 25 be anywhere close to average? But, it is the median! Even if we remove the outliers (grandma and torrent boy), it still isn't anywhere close to satisfying the needs of half their users. If I buy a SINGLE Xbox One game per month, I use 50GB if I do nothing else.

 

[MrDudeMan]

More than "some people" don't have a choice.

So you're cool with it because it doesn't directly affect you, and you have other ISP's to choose from. Thanks for you input.

I actually only have two choices and I would have gone with comcast if their price was lower, but it wasn't, so I didn't. I had comcast at my last house and I didn't have a choice, but I still wasn't crying about it.

I don't care about it, but not because it doesn't impact me. It makes sense for them to do it, so they're going to do it and nothing you say will change that. Having an internet connection isn't a right.

 

[KeithP]

This works seriously? Does the modem automatically pick up the internet signal? I would think that you have to register for it to work. I'm going to try this.

Good luck with that. It isn't working that way in my case. I am guessing there is something else going on.

Decided to add something on the caps...

Comcast has caps for high bandwidth users because they are desperately trying to preserve their business model. They know that a very high percentage of people going over their caps are people that are getting all or part of their video streaming needs met some place other than Comcast and that costs them money.

It really is that simple. [opps... spelling correction ]

The solution is to open up the last mile to competitors and separate carriage from content. ISPs and content creators should not be allowed under the same corporate umbrella.

Unfortunately what should happen and what will happen are two very different things.

-KeithP

 

[Engineer]

Didn't take all that long for this thread to sync up with its destiny. I think the holiday season probably delayed it a bit though.

Yep!

Merry Christmas! :biggrin:

 

[MrDudeMan]

Taking Verizon's word on anything is just stupid. I was at a conference and the CEO stated we needed data caps because the average DVD streamed was around 4gbs and we'd run out of bandwidth. A, that is wrong and B, we won't "run out".

And, using a median value, rather than an average, is beyond stupid. It doesn't cost them more money to send 25GB over their network than it costs them to 250GB over their network. They a simply looking for a way to both get more money from users that actually use the internet and delay updating their infrastructure to what the rest of the modern world has.

If Verizon has 5 internet users with usage of 1, 8, 10, 20, 25, 150, 180, 215, 827, would a cap of 25 be anywhere close to average? But, it is the median! Even if we remove the outliers (grandma and torrent boy), it still isn't anywhere close to satisfying the needs of half their users. If I buy a SINGLE Xbox One game per month, I use 50GB if I do nothing else.

Even your biased data set proves why their cap is fine. Everyone is under it except one guy. If the cap was 25 GB, I would be right there with you, but it's not. It works for almost everyone, which is why they did it. Torrent boy can pay more if he wants to use more. He's also using more electricity and paying more for that!

With a real data set, 50% of people have to be at or below the median of 25 GB. Usage patterns are generally modeled by normal distributions, which means the median is going to be close to the average. That puts 3 standard deviations below 200 GB, which encompasses > 96% of their user base.

 

[smackababy]

I actually only have two choices and I would have gone with comcast if their price was lower, but it wasn't, so I didn't. I had comcast at my last house and I didn't have a choice, but I still wasn't crying about it.

I don't care about it, but not because it doesn't impact me. It makes sense for them to do it, so they're going to do it and nothing you say will change that. Having an internet connection isn't a right.

How many people under the age of 35 live in your household? I am going to guess that it isn't a lot. Having an internet connection isn't a right, nor is driving a car, but you certainly improve your quality of life with both.

I mean, I get it, you don't use a lot of bandwidth. Some of us do. I work from home on occasion and that can use a lot of bandwidth. I, and my GF whom lives with me, use streaming services for the majority of our entertainment consumption, be it music or movies / shows. I also buy games digitally. I use internet services to contact people (Skype, etc). And, hitting 250GB is easy. That is with 2 adults in a house. Let's throw in some kids and see exactly how much data I use.

I mean, I agree that it is hard to hit 1000GB without doing something nefarious, but that isn't the problem of the ISPs (or, it shouldn't be, if they weren't attempting to sell us TV services...). My bandwidth usage should be impacting other people's, and from their own admission, it isn't.

 

[master_shake_]

http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/

verizon is and will always be the problem.

His explanation for Netflix’s on-screen congestion messages contains a nice little diagram. The diagram shows a lovely uncongested Verizon network, conveniently color-coded in green. It shows a network that has lots of unused capacity at the most busy time of the day. Think about that for a moment: Lots of unused capacity. So point number one is that Verizon has freely admitted that is has the ability to deliver lots of Netflix streams to broadband customers requesting them, at no extra cost. But, for some reason, Verizon has decided that it prefers not to deliver these streams, even though its subscribers have paid it to do so.

Verizon has confirmed that everything between that router in their network and their subscribers is uncongested – in fact has plenty of capacity sitting there waiting to be used. Above, I confirmed exactly the same thing for the Level 3 network. So in fact, we could fix this congestion in about five minutes simply by connecting up more 10Gbps ports on those routers. Simple. Something we’ve been asking Verizon to do for many, many months, and something other providers regularly do in similar circumstances. But Verizon has refused. So Verizon, not Level 3 or Netflix, causes the congestion. Why is that? Maybe they can’t afford a new port card because they’ve run out – even though these cards are very cheap, just a few thousand dollars for each 10 Gbps card which could support 5,000 streams or more. If that’s the case, we’ll buy one for them. Maybe they can’t afford the small piece of cable between our two ports. If that’s the case, we’ll provide it. Heck, we’ll even install it.

But, here’s the other interesting thing also shown in the Verizon diagram. This congestion only takes place between Verizon and network providers chosen by Netflix. The providers that Netflix does not use do not experience the same problem. Why is that? Could it be that Verizon does not want its customers to actually use the higher-speed services it sells to them? Could it be that Verizon wants to extract a pound of flesh from its competitors, using the monopoly it has over the only connection to its end-users to raise its competitors’ costs?