Comcast to start charging fees based on how much you download...

[s0me0nesmind1]

Thought the ISP world wouldn't turn into the mobile data world?

Think again

Comcast internet pricing
Comcast (CMCSA) is planning to implement a new data pricing trial in 14 states. Starting today customers will be charged additional fees for using more than 300 gigabytes of data per month. Will a pricing scheme that has become ubiquitous in mobile work in the home?

http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/comcast-broadband-pricing-wireless

Honestly, I saw this coming a mile away.

I also think part of this will be the end result of making internet a public utility. You pay water by the gallon used. Why not by the MB used?

 

[fskimospy]

Thought the ISP world wouldn't turn into the mobile data world?

Think again

http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/comcast-broadband-pricing-wireless

Honestly, I saw this coming a mile away.

Comcast has been doing this for years, I think at least since about 2012 or so. This article from last year said they planned to push this everywhere within 5 years.

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...-for-all-customers-in-5-years-could-be-500gb/

I also think part of this will be the end result of making internet a public utility. You pay water by the gallon used. Why not by the MB used?

That doesn't make any sense. Why would imposing common carrier restrictions make ISPs implement data caps, especially considering Comcast was already implementing data caps before any common carrier regulations were made? They will try to do it because it makes them more money.

Also, comparing data usage to water doesn't make any sense. Water is a physical object that can be possessed, and the amount that it costs to provide someone with water is related to the amount of water they order. Data doesn't work like that. The costs to transmit 1MB or 1TB of data is approximately the same as the cost of creating the connection is the primary cost driver, not how much data you push over it.

 

[mizzou]

Comcast has been doing this for years, I think at least since about 2012 or so. This article from last year said they planned to push this everywhere within 5 years.

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...-for-all-customers-in-5-years-could-be-500gb/



That doesn't make any sense. Why would imposing common carrier restrictions make ISPs implement data caps, especially considering Comcast was already implementing data caps before any common carrier regulations were made? They will try to do it because it makes them more money.

Also, comparing data usage to water doesn't make any sense. Water is a physical object that can be possessed, and the amount that it costs to provide someone with water is related to the amount of water they order. Data doesn't work like that. The costs to transmit 1MB or 1TB of data is approximately the same as the cost of creating the connection is the primary cost driver, not how much data you push over it.

Electricity can be measured just like water, and you don't necessarily possess it like a physical object. Your use of electricity puts strain on an entire system, so you are billed at the level you strain it.

Can you go into more detail about your explanation of the bolded sentence above?

 

[Genx87]

These companies get monopolies. I think they should be regulated as such these caps are ridiculous. That said there is a cost with every bit sent over the network. But let them make a case for rate increases based on demand\expansion like any other utility. Or change how we build out our networks in this country.

 

[Sonikku]

They want to act like a monopoly but they don't want to be regulated like one. For once I would be glad I'm pigeon holed into time warner rather than comcast, but considering how much these two thugs match notes and collude with each other for maximum gain, I bet I can expect something similar in just a matter of time.

 

[senseamp]

We need municipal broadband accountable to the people.

 

[BxgJ]

Comcast has been doing this for years, I think at least since about 2012 or so. This article from last year said they planned to push this everywhere within 5 years.

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...-for-all-customers-in-5-years-could-be-500gb/



That doesn't make any sense. Why would imposing common carrier restrictions make ISPs implement data caps, especially considering Comcast was already implementing data caps before any common carrier regulations were made? They will try to do it because it makes them more money.

Also, comparing data usage to water doesn't make any sense. Water is a physical object that can be possessed, and the amount that it costs to provide someone with water is related to the amount of water they order. Data doesn't work like that. The costs to transmit 1MB or 1TB of data is approximately the same as the cost of creating the connection is the primary cost driver, not how much data you push over it.

This. Sooooo much this. :thumbsup:

 

[soulcougher73]

Glad my little town has Suddenlink. Not that they dont have a data cap, but at least im not helping feed the monopolies.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Comcast has been doing this for years, I think at least since about 2012 or so. This article from last year said they planned to push this everywhere within 5 years.

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...-for-all-customers-in-5-years-could-be-500gb/



That doesn't make any sense. Why would imposing common carrier restrictions make ISPs implement data caps, especially considering Comcast was already implementing data caps before any common carrier regulations were made? They will try to do it because it makes them more money.

Also, comparing data usage to water doesn't make any sense. Water is a physical object that can be possessed, and the amount that it costs to provide someone with water is related to the amount of water they order. Data doesn't work like that. The costs to transmit 1MB or 1TB of data is approximately the same as the cost of creating the connection is the primary cost driver, not how much data you push over it.

Um, no...

While it's true that to send 1TB versus 1MB might be the same or nearly the same if nothing else were to be considered when you take into account the fact that others are also using the same pipe and in order to provide an acceptable user experience the infrastructure must scale with the demand. So, increase demand and cost goes up.

Also, the idea that this doesn't count because it isn't a physical thing is precisely the same inane arguments made by proponents of file sharing (ie piracy).


Brian

 

[BxgJ]

Electricity can be measured just like water, and you don't necessarily possess it like a physical object. Your use of electricity puts strain on an entire system, so you are billed at the level you strain it.

Can you go into more detail about your explanation of the bolded sentence above?

To generate electricity you have to dig for coal, natural gas, etc, then transport it as well.

 

[Double Trouble]

They will try to do it because it makes them more money.

Exactly, companies ultimately do things to make more money. Comcast has determined that they will make more money with the tiers.

Also, comparing data usage to water doesn't make any sense. Water is a physical object that can be possessed, and the amount that it costs to provide someone with water is related to the amount of water they order. Data doesn't work like that. The costs to transmit 1MB or 1TB of data is approximately the same as the cost of creating the connection is the primary cost driver, not how much data you push over it.

Agree and disagree. True, the analogy to water is not a good one. While the incremental cost of pushing more data through the pipes is near zero, the infrastructure needed to accommodate 50 people pushing 1 TB instead of 50 people pushing 1 MB is significantly different. The more you use, the more bandwidth capacity is needed.

The analogy to electricity is a better fit than the analogy to water, but still not perfect.

My beef with this crap is that the ISP's have local monopolies. If there was a free market with competition, then implement whatever pricing system you want and let the consumers decide what they want.... but as long as they have local monopolies, ISP's should be regulated and treated like public utilities.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I have no problem with people who use more of the network being charged more, but the prices currently make no sense. They can be artificially inflated thousands of times over what they're actually "worth" because these companies have de facto monopolies in so many markets.

 

[fskimospy]

Um, no...

While it's true that to send 1TB versus 1MB might be the same or nearly the same if nothing else were to be considered when you take into account the fact that others are also using the same pipe and in order to provide an acceptable user experience the infrastructure must scale with the demand. So, increase demand and cost goes up.

Data caps do not take into consideration who else might be using the pipe, only the amount of data transmitted. The points you bring up are better for arguing that people should pay for a guaranteed amount of speed, which is of course what we do now.

Also, the idea that this doesn't count because it isn't a physical thing is precisely the same inane arguments made by proponents of file sharing (ie piracy).

Brian

I didn't argue that it didn't count because it wasn't physical, I said it didn't count because the transmission cost is basically the same no matter how much data you send.

The fact that you aren't taking a physical object is also an important argument when discussing piracy and should absolutely not be ignored or dismissed as inane, but it's an entirely different discussion.

 

[senseamp]

Meh, I'll just switch to U-verse.

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly, companies ultimately do things to make more money. Comcast has determined that they will make more money with the tiers.

Agree and disagree. True, the analogy to water is not a good one. While the incremental cost of pushing more data through the pipes is near zero, the infrastructure needed to accommodate 50 people pushing 1 TB instead of 50 people pushing 1 MB is significantly different. The more you use, the more bandwidth capacity is needed.

The analogy to electricity is a better fit than the analogy to water, but still not perfect.

As I said above, you need more bandwidth so long as you're shooting for a set speed. Technically you don't need any more infrastructure to push 50TB or 1MB, but people might not like their service much.

My beef with this crap is that the ISP's have local monopolies. If there was a free market with competition, then implement whatever pricing system you want and let the consumers decide what they want.... but as long as they have local monopolies, ISP's should be regulated and treated like public utilities.

I 100% agree. Our current system combines the free market pursuit of profits with a government sanctioned de facto monopoly. It is only rational for these companies to abuse their monopolies to soak the customers, so I don't exactly blame them for being evil. If we aren't going to put competition into the market then we need to prevent these companies from exploiting their customers.

 

[woolfe9998]

I have Comcast and we still don't have this in my area. That said, 300gb is pretty generous. I'm not that worried about it unless the threshold goes down well below that.

 

[Genx87]

With increases in speed 300GB is easily attainable. We just had the 100Mbps service roll out in our area. With more streaming and less cable this is imo an attempt to force people to not use Comcasts competitors like netflix or amazon. Especially as these services start rolling out 4k content. ~5-7GB an hour wont take long to eat through 300GB.

 

[fskimospy]

I have Comcast and we still don't have this in my area. That said, 300gb is pretty generous. I'm not that worried about it unless the threshold goes down well below that.

Do you watch Netflix much? They are eventually going to start steaming most things at 4K resolution, which will eat up a 300GB data cap in fairly short order. Sure, maybe Comcast will keep increasing their caps, but to me the more likely scenario is that they use them as a vehicle to get more money out of their customers.

 

[senseamp]

Yep, the issue is not where the cap is put. Eventually it will become the norm, unless technological progress and Moore's law stops. 4K, VR, etc, eventually you'll be using whatever the cap is. And it means that tech companies in other countries with more competitive broadband will have an advantage in new tech.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I have Comcast and we still don't have this in my area. That said, 300gb is pretty generous. I'm not that worried about it unless the threshold goes down well below that.

300 GB isn't bad, but as more and more people start streaming HD feeds through Netflix or Hulu or other sources, you can eat up a lot of bandwidth really quickly. If you estimate about 2 GB per hour for HD content, that's 5 hours of streaming a day (which is a lot by my standards, but not everyone's). And Netflix can be double that or more. So it's not hard to imagine people running up against 300 GB; certainly not when the limit was 250 GB 5 years ago. My speed has gone up 10-fold in that time, but I only get an extra 50 GB per month? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

 

[cubby1223]

This stupid debate again? *sigh* There is nothing inherently evil with an ISP charging per gigabyte versus a flat monthly fee.

I, for one, absolutely do believe someone who only checks email once every day *should* pay less than someone who streams a hundred gigabytes every single day.

 

[maddogchen]

My old ISP already does that. It had a 300 GB cap and I had to put in a check in my router that would warn me if I approached 260 GB in a month because I went over it a couple of times.

 

[cubby1223]

Meh, I'll just switch to U-verse.

Seriously? You're going to move from an arbitrarily limit to a hard limit? That's your great plan to thwart the powers that be?

Go right ahead and switch!

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

They want to act like a monopoly but they don't want to be regulated like one. For once I would be glad I'm pigeon holed into time warner rather than comcast, but considering how much these two thugs match notes and collude with each other for maximum gain, I bet I can expect something similar in just a matter of time.

Sounds just like Airports though - which is fully regulated by government, yet somehow monopolistic actions still fly free.

"Ok, we take this airport so we can jack up rates with the lack of competition. You take this airport and we won't mess with you, so you can jack up your rates there"

 

[VirtualLarry]

This stupid debate again? *sigh* There is nothing inherently evil with an ISP charging per gigabyte versus a flat monthly fee.

I, for one, absolutely do believe someone who only checks email once every day *should* pay less than someone who streams a hundred gigabytes every single day.

I don't have a problem with that either... SO LONG AS... it's "fair". Meaning, that the price floor is a minimum monthly cost of something on the order of $5. NOT that ISP charge a price floor equal to what they used to charge for "unlimited" internet, and then charge data overages ON TOP OF THAT. Now that's horseshit.

If I only NEF on forums, and don't file-share, then I would expect to pay SIGNIFICANTLY LESS every month, than I currently do.

Granted, I have FIOS, and I share Linux ISOs using my NAS. I think, that for usages like mine, I would still hope that ISPs would offer "unlimited" plans, at certain best-effort speeds.

IOW, I would be for metered billing, if pricing accurately reflected usage, which I believe for the majority of broadband ISP customers, would result in LESS revenue, not more.