Comcast targeting abuse - go after the abuser, not the protocol

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: spidey07
It's an unlimited service with an acceptible use policy. Part of that policy is "abuse". It's an open ended clause that you signed up for and agreed to.

Business connections have no such clause and you're free to fill it all day, every day. But you are also paying for such a service.

It is amazing the sense of entitlement residential users have regarding their 20-50 dollar connection. Perhaps the phone and cable companies should charge us the truer cost of that line which typically falls more in line with a business connection.

Want to have our cake and eat it too is seems.

Yeah, it's like people don't really understand just how expensive bandwidth and operating a network can be. Entitlement mentality FTL.

And for competition? There's a ton of competition out there and the reason residential ISPs offer the speeds they can is by massive over subscription, this is why the cost is so low. So if another ISP wants to offer a better service then they will. But they will be bound by the same price constraints as others as bandwidth is a commodity and it's price is pretty flat for any ISP.

 

[Evadman]

I pay for unlimited, it says so right on my bill.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would hope that the cable companies/ISPs would be smart enough to look at their own business units before they do something so asinine as get rid of "all you can eat" model internet service.

They only have to look at how phone companies are dying off because of users switching to VOIP/digital phone service where they can make unlimited local/long distance calling and see that it is what drove the customers into their laps and if they try to pull this AOL pay/hr. crap they will only cripple their revenue stream.

Residential phone service is getting slammed by cell providers more than VOIP service. I read an article a couple of weeks ago that talked about the % of people(especially the 20 something crowd) that has dropped residential service and only use cell phones. It is into the double digits now and in that age demographic nearly 30%.

edit: btw I am part of that crowd. Age 30, with a wife who is 29 and we both have cell phones and no residential hardline phone service.

That comparison is apples and oranges imo until somebody offers wireless internet at the bandwidths and latency of cable and telco.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would hope that the cable companies/ISPs would be smart enough to look at their own business units before they do something so asinine as get rid of "all you can eat" model internet service.

They only have to look at how phone companies are dying off because of users switching to VOIP/digital phone service where they can make unlimited local/long distance calling and see that it is what drove the customers into their laps and if they try to pull this AOL pay/hr. crap they will only cripple their revenue stream.

Residential phone service is getting slammed by cell providers more than VOIP service. I read an article a couple of weeks ago that talked about the % of people(especially the 20 something crowd) that has dropped residential service and only use cell phones. It is into the double digits now and in that age demographic nearly 30%.

That comparison is apples and oranges imo until somebody offers wireless internet at the bandwidths and latency of cable and telco.

It is not that far off. Think about where we were 20 years ago then think about where we could be 20 years from now? You know what they say, "Time flies".

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would hope that the cable companies/ISPs would be smart enough to look at their own business units before they do something so asinine as get rid of "all you can eat" model internet service.

They only have to look at how phone companies are dying off because of users switching to VOIP/digital phone service where they can make unlimited local/long distance calling and see that it is what drove the customers into their laps and if they try to pull this AOL pay/hr. crap they will only cripple their revenue stream.

Residential phone service is getting slammed by cell providers more than VOIP service. I read an article a couple of weeks ago that talked about the % of people(especially the 20 something crowd) that has dropped residential service and only use cell phones. It is into the double digits now and in that age demographic nearly 30%.

That comparison is apples and oranges imo until somebody offers wireless internet at the bandwidths and latency of cable and telco.

It is not that far off. Think about where we were 20 years ago then think about where we could be 20 years from now? You know what they say, "Time flies".

Until that happens the described scenario isnt happening. Anybody tried to do anything other than cruise the internet on their 3G cards or phone? Even cruising the internet is painful imo. Huge latency.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

LOL at ISP's. Call the waaahmbulance.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would hope that the cable companies/ISPs would be smart enough to look at their own business units before they do something so asinine as get rid of "all you can eat" model internet service.

They only have to look at how phone companies are dying off because of users switching to VOIP/digital phone service where they can make unlimited local/long distance calling and see that it is what drove the customers into their laps and if they try to pull this AOL pay/hr. crap they will only cripple their revenue stream.

Residential phone service is getting slammed by cell providers more than VOIP service. I read an article a couple of weeks ago that talked about the % of people(especially the 20 something crowd) that has dropped residential service and only use cell phones. It is into the double digits now and in that age demographic nearly 30%.

That comparison is apples and oranges imo until somebody offers wireless internet at the bandwidths and latency of cable and telco.

It is not that far off. Think about where we were 20 years ago then think about where we could be 20 years from now? You know what they say, "Time flies".

Until that happens the described scenario isnt happening. Anybody tried to do anything other than cruise the internet on their 3G cards or phone? Even cruising the internet is painful imo. Huge latency.

Probably not, but during those years Comcast's competition will be rising just as it has so much over the past year alone. I believe that competition will keep them in check long enough for the next big thing to come along. The all you can eat model is not going away. At best, they will introduce a model which limits the really major bandwidth hogs. It's difficult to limit it too much since there are some really bandwidth hungry features out there that tons of people use quite a bit such as streaming video and music legally. I just don't think they can limit it enough to really make a big difference without harming a lot of legit customers who use a lot of bandwidth but do not pirate.

 

[scttgrd]

Not this B.S. again. Oh no people actually use the conection they paid for? There will always be users who consume more bandwidth. Maybe do some of those upgrades instead of paying out those executive bonuses and pocketing the billion dollar tax breaks to improve broadband penetration.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: scttgrd
Not this B.S. again. Oh no people actually use the conection they paid for? There will always be users who consume more bandwidth. Maybe do some of those upgrades instead of paying out those executive bonuses and pocketing the billion dollar tax breaks to improve broadband penetration.

They arent truely paying for it though, that is what people need to realize. Call your cable provider and inquire about a business class connection and you will get a better idea of the "true" cost of the line you are leasing.

 

[jersiq]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: her209
If the ISPs don't have the bandwidth then why are they allowed to advertise it?

:evil::laugh:

Because the word "unlimited" sounds impressive when you use it in a commercial!

I've seen this before, and I am not trying to be an ass, but browsing the Comcast site I don't see "Unlimited" I shopped for service in my area and here was my teaser:

Get on the fast track...fast! With Comcast High-Speed Internet, you'll enjoy the most amazing online experience. Powered by Comcast's advanced fiber-optic network, you'll love the thrill of blazing-fast speeds. Speeds way faster than DSL from the phone company! * And with Comcast's innovative PowerBoost® technology, activities like downloading videos, movies, music and games or uploading photos go even faster.

Plus, you?ll enjoy over $300 of valuable features included with your subscription at no additional charge. Like the highly-acclaimed McAfee® Security Suite ($120 value) and the Comcast Toolbar, a comprehensive set of security tools to help protect your family when online. You'll also get the Universal Address Book powered by Plaxo®, Rhapsody Radio PLUS®, Photoshow Deluxe 4.0 and much more!

So just select the plan that suits your needs, add it to your cart, and start enjoying the best Internet experience available. Happy shopping!

Now I am not saying that those teasers don't exist, and if anyone finds a relevant one please point me in that direction.

I would rather they just use QoS on the customers who do download an exorbitant amount of data. In fact they could even do that during the busy hours only. As long as they informed the customer and only implemented it at the time of a renewal, I see no problem with that.

 

[scttgrd]

A business line is for companies that use it in a for profit enterprise. More users, bandwidth and more of an uptime gaurantee.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Sorry, but I having trouble taking them serious considering how long it took them to admit they were shaping BT traffic.

If they really plan to shift their focus to high-bandwidth users, though, thumbs up to them. You work for Comcast, don't you? Do you happen to know how much bandwidth those top 2% typically use? I've heard people mention they use hundreds of gigabytes of bandwidth per month on residential connections, which is absolutely ridiculous IMO.

Put two or three internet-oriented people on a residential connection, and 100 GB a month will be no surprise, even if they only download legal stuff. Watch one Netflix Watch-It-Now movie a night (the service is unlimited, and in fact most accounts support multiple streams at the same time), and you're half way there already. Throw in gaming, sending video or audio to friends or project partners, and 100 GB is easy. When my band was recording our last album, we sent Pro Tools projects to each other to monitor progress during the recording process. Those projects could top 10 GB per SONG.

And bear in mind that uploads are already throttled across the board. Someone downloading songs off of iTunes uses 20-30 times the instant bandwidth of someone uploading, regardless of what they upload.

 

[gar3555]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: spidey07
It's an unlimited service with an acceptible use policy. Part of that policy is "abuse". It's an open ended clause that you signed up for and agreed to.

Business connections have no such clause and you're free to fill it all day, every day. But you are also paying for such a service.

It is amazing the sense of entitlement residential users have regarding their 20-50 dollar connection. Perhaps the phone and cable companies should charge us the truer cost of that line which typically falls more in line with a business connection.

Want to have our cake and eat it too is seems.

Yeah, it's like people don't really understand just how expensive bandwidth and operating a network can be. Entitlement mentality FTL.

And for competition? There's a ton of competition out there and the reason residential ISPs offer the speeds they can is by massive over subscription, this is why the cost is so low. So if another ISP wants to offer a better service then they will. But they will be bound by the same price constraints as others as bandwidth is a commodity and it's price is pretty flat for any ISP.

I don't think we have it cheap for fast internet here in the states:

Text

 

[scttgrd]

They want to have thier cake and eat it too, advertise the fastest speeds yet limit bandwidth. Complain it's too expensive to wire rural areas despite billions of subsidies to do so.

 

[Fingolfin269]

For all those talking about capping bandwidth, how would this affect other services? Let's say I play games online 24/7 and download some songs from itunes from time to time. How much bandwidth would that eat on top of general web surfing? Or do we think they would cap bandwidth for specific protocals, i.e. torrents/newsgroups?

 

[scttgrd]

The real problem is they don't want competition for services they provide or plan to provide. They want you to use thier services, all of them. I get to pay a premium for internet because I don't subscribe to TV or VOIP. I can't even get the top tier speeds unless i get everything from them. Sorry, the cable companies can cry me a river.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
And bear in mind that uploads are already throttled across the board. Someone downloading songs off of iTunes uses 20-30 times the instant bandwidth of someone uploading, regardless of what they upload.

Uploads aren't "throttled," it's an asymmetric connection.

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
For all those talking about capping bandwidth, how would this affect other services? Let's say I play games online 24/7 and download some songs from itunes from time to time. How much bandwidth would that eat on top of general web surfing? Or do we think they would cap bandwidth for specific protocals, i.e. torrents/newsgroups?

Games don't send/receive that much data, they just need low latency. Halo 3 saves the game data that is needed to replay a multiplayer game, and it's maybe ~5 MB for an average game. Even if the actual data going in and out of a single player's connection is 5 times that, you're not going to be a 100 GB/month user from playing online games.

 

[rsd]

Funny how people talk about charging more/throttling the heavy users, yet there is no mention of a refund to the infrequent/low bandwidth users. Interesting!

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
For all those talking about capping bandwidth, how would this affect other services? Let's say I play games online 24/7 and download some songs from itunes from time to time. How much bandwidth would that eat on top of general web surfing? Or do we think they would cap bandwidth for specific protocals, i.e. torrents/newsgroups?

Playing games and surfing takes next to nothing in terms of bandwith. I play games all the time - ALL the time - and I barely use 5gb total per month. Hundreds of gb per month means you need to get off the fucking computer and have a life.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
For all those talking about capping bandwidth, how would this affect other services? Let's say I play games online 24/7 and download some songs from itunes from time to time. How much bandwidth would that eat on top of general web surfing? Or do we think they would cap bandwidth for specific protocals, i.e. torrents/newsgroups?

Playing games and surfing takes next to nothing in terms of bandwith. I play games all the time - ALL the time - and I barely use 5gb total per month. Hundreds of gb per month means you need to get off the fucking computer and have a life.

What about the people streaming radio music through their computer most of the day and also making regular use of sites like YouTube? Then toss in a second computer which is regularly being used by online gaming. After that, toss in another family member playing on XBL a lot. It adds up quick.

 

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: rsd
Funny how people talk about charging more/throttling the heavy users, yet there is no mention of a refund to the infrequent/low bandwidth users. Interesting!

I already suggested that above.

For example, say a cable internet connection is $50 per month.

Change the pricing structure so that a bandwidth limited connection of 50GB per month is $40 and an unlimited is $70. Don't make fees for exceeding the bandwidth cap, simply limit the user's speed to 512k/128k until the new month begins.

Most people will take the limited connection while some will take the unlimited. Over time, however, many will switch as more and more services become available online.

 

[sdifox]

hopefully p4p will solve this issue

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: scttgrd
Not this B.S. again. Oh no people actually use the conection they paid for? There will always be users who consume more bandwidth. Maybe do some of those upgrades instead of paying out those executive bonuses and pocketing the billion dollar tax breaks to improve broadband penetration.

They arent truely paying for it though, that is what people need to realize. Call your cable provider and inquire about a business class connection and you will get a better idea of the "true" cost of the line you are leasing.

Again, what a load of BS. It's not up to me to figure out what the 'real' pricing should be, it's up to them to figure out what the real pricing is, then communicate and advertise their deals accordingly so consumers can compare. They are trying to skirt that by advertising unlimited rates (for competition reasons), while not actually offering ulimited use. You can't have your cake and eat it too, either you offer unlimited, or you don't. You can't offer unlimited and then whine when someone actually uses more bandwith than some secret limit you set.

I have no problems with them setting some sort of limit to weed out the "high bandwidth users" and make them pay more, but don't feed me this tripe about anyone "abusing" the system if you have not disclosed what those limits are. Set a limit - fine. Make those going above the limit pay more - fine.... but for the consumer to make an educated choice you must disclose those limits in your advertising. That way everyone is clear on what they are getting and paying for.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: rsd
Funny how people talk about charging more/throttling the heavy users, yet there is no mention of a refund to the infrequent/low bandwidth users. Interesting!

They should put themselves on a cheaper plan.

 

[George P Burdell]

My beef with Comcast, apart from their third-world customer service, is that they advertise UNLIMITED internet while not delivering on that promise. How about being a little truthful and saying something like "The first xxx GB is free, after which we charge your ass."