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

[Aikouka]

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.

Historically, Comcast hasn't done much with their caps. They rolled out the original 250GB cap in 2008, and it still exists today in all non-metered areas. (To note, it isn't enforced.) So, Comcast has raised the cap by 50GB over the course of seven years, and back then, Comcast was just rolling out 50Mbps Internet as their highest tier. Now, Comcast has 500Mbps and 2Gbps Internet as their latest high-end tier.

It's also worth noting that the Internet was a completely different beast back in 2008 when they first implemented the 250GB cap. YouTube started in 2005, but started seeing its popularity rise around 2007-2008; however, the video quality wasn't even close to what we have today. YouTube was still using "240p" and had started messing with "360p" and 480p back in 2008. Netflix wasn't that big back in 2008 either. Their streaming existed at that point, but it was far more limited. In other words, we're consuming more content that has a higher data requirement.

I think it's also important to point out the inconsistencies in Comcast's valuation of their own data. The most egregious is probably their "discount" for low usage users. If you're willing to drop to a 5GB cap per month, you can receive a $5 discount on your bill. If you go over, it's $1 per GB. If you're subjected to the 300GB limit, it's $10 per 50GB when you go over. In other words, Comcast is first telling you that removing 295GB of your allotment is worth $5, but they'd turn around to sell you back the same 295GB at a price of $295! You can also look at the fact that the 300GB-limited users are paying 1/5 the price per GB.

Keep in mind that Comcast's VP of Technology even admitted that the 300GB cap was not a technical necessity, but a business decision (source). Let's be real... Comcast is a business. A business will attempt to make money in whatever way that their patrons are willing to sustain. If Comcast finds that they can implement this money-making feature with high retention factor, why wouldn't they do it? In my area, I have some options when it comes to an ISP, but the problem is... Comcast is still the best ISP out of them. I feel a bit dirty saying that, but it's true.

 

[dmcowen674]

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

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.

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?

They are just using the State of Georgia model that bandwidth costs 59 cents a second.

 

[nickqt]

Historically, Comcast hasn't done much with their caps. They rolled out the original 250GB cap in 2008, and it still exists today in all non-metered areas. (To note, it isn't enforced.) So, Comcast has raised the cap by 50GB over the course of seven years, and back then, Comcast was just rolling out 50Mbps Internet as their highest tier. Now, Comcast has 500Mbps and 2Gbps Internet as their latest high-end tier.

It's also worth noting that the Internet was a completely different beast back in 2008 when they first implemented the 250GB cap. YouTube started in 2005, but started seeing its popularity rise around 2007-2008; however, the video quality wasn't even close to what we have today. YouTube was still using "240p" and had started messing with "360p" and 480p back in 2008. Netflix wasn't that big back in 2008 either. Their streaming existed at that point, but it was far more limited. In other words, we're consuming more content that has a higher data requirement.

I think it's also important to point out the inconsistencies in Comcast's valuation of their own data. The most egregious is probably their "discount" for low usage users. If you're willing to drop to a 5GB cap per month, you can receive a $5 discount on your bill. If you go over, it's $1 per GB. If you're subjected to the 300GB limit, it's $10 per 50GB when you go over. In other words, Comcast is first telling you that removing 295GB of your allotment is worth $5, but they'd turn around to sell you back the same 295GB at a price of $295! You can also look at the fact that the 300GB-limited users are paying 1/5 the price per GB.

Keep in mind that Comcast's VP of Technology even admitted that the 300GB cap was not a technical necessity, but a business decision (source). Let's be real... Comcast is a business. A business will attempt to make money in whatever way that their patrons are willing to sustain. If Comcast finds that they can implement this money-making feature with high retention factor, why wouldn't they do it? In my area, I have some options when it comes to an ISP, but the problem is... Comcast is still the best ISP out of them. I feel a bit dirty saying that, but it's true.

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.

I live in Atlanta, where the 300gb cap is in effect. Even though I download quite a bit and stream from Netflix, I always averaged about 150-175gb/month.

Recently, I started streaming from Amazon prime on the regular. I didn't change the auto quality setting. Got a warning popup that I was nearing my limit 20 days into September.

We get 3 overages before we get charged $10 per 50gb that is automatically added on. Considering how much I pay for just the Blast! internet package (since cable is virtually worthless) their additional 50gb/$10 = 300gb/$60, which is actually cheaper than what I pay monthly just to have the Blast! 300gb cap. Hell, if I could just pay the 50gb/$10 a la carte, I would, as it'd make my monthly cable/internet bill about $30 - $40, instead of $90+ before taxes and fees.

 

[thomsbrain]

My household usage consists primarily of light webinar use by my wife and Tinkerbell cartoons by my toddler, plus evening show streams. No gaming, no torrents, no cloud drives, no wacky computer power-user stuff. We've blown past 300 GB/month a number of times. 300 GB is nothing when Netflix already streams 1080p/5.1. When 4K takes over, 300 GB a week will be nothing for a normal household of non-techies.

Comcast are just trying to penalize cord-cutters because they're butt-hurt over subscriber loss for their worthless TV service. But they're making a huge mistake if they try to turn the screws now, with public and political sentiment swinging towards Internet as a utility, not a service.

 

[Brian Stirling]

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.



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.

A data cap is an amount of data BUT it is also a data rate given the large number of people using the system. If the data cap is 250GB it is 250GB/month -- and that IS a rate.

But again, we're not talking about one individual user -- we're talking about the total usage by all users and WHEN they use there data. If data use was spread evenly throughout the day that would be one thing, but since most people get home from work/school and then fire up Netflix the usage is more heavily weighted towards evening usage in most cases.

It IS foolish to pretend that data use and bandwidth are two entirely different things. When a shit ton of people are loading up the system with video streaming and do so at the same time it should be of little surprise that the user experience is falling like a stone.

In summary, the more data is used the higher the cost to provide it. No, the per byte cost doesn't have to increase but the cost to deliver an increasing amount of data and to do so with an acceptable user experience does cost more.


Brian

 

[BxgJ]

A data cap is an amount of data BUT it is also a data rate given the large number of people using the system. If the data cap is 250GB it is 250GB/month -- and that IS a rate.

But again, we're not talking about one individual user -- we're talking about the total usage by all users and WHEN they use there data. If data use was spread evenly throughout the day that would be one thing, but since most people get home from work/school and then fire up Netflix the usage is more heavily weighted towards evening usage in most cases.

It IS foolish to pretend that data use and bandwidth are two entirely different things. When a shit ton of people are loading up the system with video streaming and do so at the same time it should be of little surprise that the user experience is falling like a stone.

In summary, the more data is used the higher the cost to provide it. No, the per byte cost doesn't have to increase but the cost to deliver an increasing amount of data and to do so with an acceptable user experience does cost more.


Brian

So a family that streams during evenings, but doesn't use much otherwise, seems to be a bigger burden on the network than someone that downloads lots of stuff at night? That person may use vastly more data but not burden the network.

The infrastructure cost to increase bandwidth during peak times is not a continuing cost associated with any individual's usage.

 

[Attic]

Do we really think that Comcast is doing this because of network saturation at peak times that they can not accommodate?

Rather it's pure exploitation IMO, how to best resolve Comcast's ability to exploit here?

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

Oh crap, yes I do watch their streaming stuff regularly. It's mostly not even HD yet, so it doesn't matter but yeah, I can see that being a problem in the future if they're going to 4K. Now I'm hoping we don't get this in my area.

 

[alcoholbob]

How do they square this with rising bandwith? I mean you can use your entire monthly cap in 8 hours or less on fiber optic. Imagine in 10 years, you could probably use up the cap in 2-3 hours lmao.

This is only 50GB higher than the 250GB "warning" cap Comcast put in place in 2007 and that was back when their service was doing maybe 3MB/s on a good day.

 

[Subyman]

I think I'd prefer if they charged by use instead of by speed. It makes sense that those who use the system more, pay more. Those that use the internet for entertainment would actually subsidize people who only need it for education/information. This could be a great way to open a low cost method for providing internet to poor people. Steam downloaders, streamers, and such would pay the lion's share, while those that need it for research would hardly pay anything.

Luxury use supports economic/academic use.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

How do they square this with rising bandwith? I mean you can use your entire monthly cap in 8 hours or less on fiber optic. Imagine in 10 years, you could probably use up the cap in 2-3 hours lmao.

This is only 50GB higher than the 250GB "warning" cap Comcast put in place in 2007 and that was back when their service was doing maybe 3MB/s on a good day.

Having access to more speed doesn't mean you have to download more. A movie on Netflix is the same size regardless of if you have 10 mbit or 100 mbit. It only really impacts you if you say "hell, I've got all this extra bandwidth, better start downloading a whole bunch of stuff I would not have previously downloaded."

That said, I do find it ridiculous that Comcast's cap has increased by 20% in the same time their average bandwidth has increased by 2,000%. Those numbers don't make sense together. At least give us like 500 GB.

 

[Aikouka]

I think I'd prefer if they charged by use instead of by speed. It makes sense that those who use the system more, pay more. Those that use the internet for entertainment would actually subsidize people who only need it for education/information. This could be a great way to open a low cost method for providing internet to poor people. Steam downloaders, streamers, and such would pay the lion's share, while those that need it for research would hardly pay anything.

Luxury use supports economic/academic use.

I don't think it's always that simple. In some cases, higher speed packages do use different resources. These resources can be hardware-based such as different connection devices (e.g. DOCSIS 3 instead of DOCSIS 2) or company resources (e.g. more channels for channel bonding). Also, there's the idea of the ISP not necessarily wanting everyone on the highest speed tier. Areas tend to be serviced by nodes, which usually receive far too much neglect, and they want to keep the usage within what the area can actually sustain. ...or they just include "...up to..." and tell people to pound sand (in a nice, corporate way) when they complain.

Also, I'm not really sure if I care for your whole "luxury use" concept. If I use the Internet for 1 hour for "real work" and so does a low-income family, but I also use it for 5 hours of "leisure", why am I "penalized"? How dare you tax my YouTube cat video watching! Anyway, there are existing implementations of this, but low-income families are provided with low-speed packages for a cheap price -- I think $10 a month?

 

[Brian Stirling]

So a family that streams during evenings, but doesn't use much otherwise, seems to be a bigger burden on the network than someone that downloads lots of stuff at night? That person may use vastly more data but not burden the network.

The infrastructure cost to increase bandwidth during peak times is not a continuing cost associated with any individual's usage.

The cost for the network is driven by the highest use times and at other times, when the network isn't being hammered as much, the cost is still there because the network is still there.

And, in contrast to what Esky says, the cost per byte is actually higher in off-peak times because the operating cost is fairly constant throughout the day so when less data is being transferred it actually cost more per byte during off peak than during peak periods.

The network owners/operators scale the network based on maximum ANTICIPATED demand and not on maximum possible demand but as data use continues to increase it has to cost more for the network. If the network costs increase and the number of users remain the same there is no way around the fact that those higher costs are going to be passed onto the users.

A metered system allows Comcast to charge light users less well charging heavy users more -- seems fair to me. Why should a light user be required to pay the same amount as someone that is a heavy user of Netflix or torrents?


Brian

 

[fskimospy]

I think I'd prefer if they charged by use instead of by speed. It makes sense that those who use the system more, pay more. Those that use the internet for entertainment would actually subsidize people who only need it for education/information. This could be a great way to open a low cost method for providing internet to poor people. Steam downloaders, streamers, and such would pay the lion's share, while those that need it for research would hardly pay anything.

Luxury use supports economic/academic use.

Why not have people pay for speed and priority instead?

The limited resource we are primarily trying to conserve is bandwidth during peak times. So why not structure your pricing and billing around that instead of some amount of data usage that may or may not be done during the times that really matter?

 

[Brian Stirling]

Oh crap, yes I do watch their streaming stuff regularly. It's mostly not even HD yet, so it doesn't matter but yeah, I can see that being a problem in the future if they're going to 4K. Now I'm hoping we don't get this in my area.

So you think regular HD video isn't an issue? Data use is growing faster than data capacity growth and when 4K video hits big time with data use being 3X or more of HD video you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know something has to give.

I live in an apartment and I've noticed my internet response drop a shitload in the last year or so. Around 8:30PM appears to be the worst and that would coincide with my neighbors streaming video.

If the network has to be scaled to handle peak periods how is it that some here think the cost is less at other times? Do you think they only have the full compliment of hardware/software during peak periods? If so, what do they do with the hardware/software during off-peak periods?


Brian

 

[BxgJ]

The cost for the network is driven by the highest use times and at other times, when the network isn't being hammered as much, the cost is still there because the network is still there.

And, in contrast to what Esky says, the cost per byte is actually higher in off-peak times because the operating cost is fairly constant throughout the day so when less data is being transferred it actually cost more per byte during off peak than during peak periods.

The network owners/operators scale the network based on maximum ANTICIPATED demand and not on maximum possible demand but as data use continues to increase it has to cost more for the network. If the network costs increase and the number of users remain the same there is no way around the fact that those higher costs are going to be passed onto the users.

A metered system allows Comcast to charge light users less well charging heavy users more -- seems fair to me. Why should a light user be required to pay the same amount as someone that is a heavy user of Netflix or torrents?


Brian

If the cost is fairly constant, it makes no sense to measure cost/byte. Taken to the extreme, if only one person used the isp for a night, and only sent one email, would the isp figure the cost/byte for that night to be some insanely high number?

Yes they do have to account for maximum anticipated demand, and as bandwidth is what is driving the cost up doesn't it make sense to bill for that? Besides, we are saying the cost is going up, has anyone looked into whether the cost/Mbps is going down? I did some looking, and according to what I saw it's been going down for years.

I have no problem with tiers, including very cheap ones for those who don't do much besides email.

 

[realibrad]

Why not have people pay for speed and priority instead?

The limited resource we are primarily trying to conserve is bandwidth during peak times. So why not structure your pricing and billing around that instead of some amount of data usage that may or may not be done during the times that really matter?

Because you will create a rich vs poor situation like every other thing. People don't like others having things better then what they have. How is it fair that poor people get stuck with lower speed an priority vs some rich person who get the best of everything?

 

[fskimospy]

So you think regular HD video isn't an issue? Data use is growing faster than data capacity growth and when 4K video hits big time with data use being 3X or more of HD video you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know something has to give.

I live in an apartment and I've noticed my internet response drop a shitload in the last year or so. Around 8:30PM appears to be the worst and that would coincide with my neighbors streaming video.

If the network has to be scaled to handle peak periods how is it that some here think the cost is less at other times? Do you think they only have the full compliment of hardware/software during peak periods? If so, what do they do with the hardware/software during off-peak periods?

Brian

I think you're missing the point, it's precisely because those costs are relatively constant that billing based on usage regardless of the time makes no sense. What makes far more sense is for people to pay based on guaranteed minimum/maximum speeds, which is basically how things work now.

Only need to check email? Pay for 20kb/s. Want to watch 4k movies? Pay for 100MB/s or whatever. That way people pay for the amount of network resources their usage actually demands.

Doesn't that make more sense?

 

[Nebor]

Because you will create a rich vs poor situation like every other thing. People don't like others having things better then what they have. How is it fair that poor people get stuck with lower speed an priority vs some rich person who get the best of everything?

Well, if it works well enough for "every other thing" it'll probably work for this as well.

 

[fskimospy]

Because you will create a rich vs poor situation like every other thing. People don't like others having things better then what they have. How is it fair that poor people get stuck with lower speed an priority vs some rich person who get the best of everything?

Well in the usage based case how come the rich get to use the internet however much they want while the poor can't? Isn't that the same thing?

I'm all for a national internet initiative for poor people who can't afford it similar to phone service.

 

[Dulanic]

One of the many many reasons I can't wait till I get local competition FINALLY. Of course I know the day we get the competition from a local fiber provider Comcast will drop their rates etc...

Comcast does this as a income source and that is the only reason. I don't mind them finding ways to increase profits when there is competition. My issue is in the large majority of residential areas, you usually have one true choice for broadband and as such the cable companies take advantage of that.

 

[BxgJ]

So you think regular HD video isn't an issue? Data use is growing faster than data capacity growth and when 4K video hits big time with data use being 3X or more of HD video you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know something has to give.

I live in an apartment and I've noticed my internet response drop a shitload in the last year or so. Around 8:30PM appears to be the worst and that would coincide with my neighbors streaming video.

If the network has to be scaled to handle peak periods how is it that some here think the cost is less at other times? Do you think they only have the full compliment of hardware/software during peak periods? If so, what do they do with the hardware/software during off-peak periods?


Brian

Yes this exactly. If the cost is constant, what makes it cost more for the isp? Usage at peak times. Bandwidth is driving the cost, not total data usage. If I use the internet only at night, and not at all during the day, it doesn't cost the isp much at all in new cost. The equipment is running anyway.

If anyone is worrying about those fringe cases, the ones who torrent 24/7, there is already a way to deal with them. Make them pay for business-class service.

Btw, I don't really oppose some sort of soft cap, if it's high enough. What I do oppose is an solely metered billing system. It ignores the infrastructure cost, which after accounting for peak bandwidth is more like a fixed cost.

 

[realibrad]

Well in the usage based case how come the rich get to use the internet however much they want while the poor can't? Isn't that the same thing?

I'm all for a national internet initiative for poor people who can't afford it similar to phone service.

Still going to create a 2 tiered system though. You will have one internet for poor people, and the premium internet for those who can afford the good stuff. This is the private vs public schools the of thing. In fact, there was an issue in the Bay area of CA that fits this example perfectly.

Google was paying to have buses pick up its people and bring them to work. These buses were new, clean, had wifi ect. People got upset and started protesting because google was creating 2 types of transportation. They were also "taking" money for a public system that really needed the money.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/how-private-buses-became-a-symbol-of-san-franciscos-divide/

REBECCA SOLNIT: Joe Google moves into the apartment from which Jose auto mechanic has been evicted, Jose auto mechanic is now going to move to Vallejo, and have a hellacious commute to the auto body shop in San Francisco. And no luxury bus with tinted windows and Wi-Fi on board is going to pull up at his new home in Vallejo to bring him to the office.

So, what you’re really doing is displacing the more vulnerable people.

SPENCER MICHELS: The buses have inspired a series of protests that, in turn, have sparked a lively debate on the merits of the high-tech boom taking place in the Bay Area, and its effects on residents.

One woman wearing high-tech Google Glass was attacked in a bar after refusing to take them off. Her glass recorded the incident. She said one of her assailants told her, “You guys are killing the city.”

At City Hall, Supervisor Scott Wiener is amazed at the hostility that some San Franciscans have shown to what he sees as an influx of new jobs for the area, workers with money to spend, and new development.

 

[BxgJ]

Still going to create a 2 tiered system though. You will have one internet for poor people, and the premium internet for those who can afford the good stuff. This is the private vs public schools the of thing. In fact, there was an issue in the Bay area of CA that fits this example perfectly.

Google was paying to have buses pick up its people and bring them to work. These buses were new, clean, had wifi ect. People got upset and started protesting because google was creating 2 types of transportation. They were also "taking" money for a public system that really needed the money.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/how-private-buses-became-a-symbol-of-san-franciscos-divide/

If both create a two-tiered system, and you want to avoid that, how would you do so?

 

[fskimospy]

Still going to create a 2 tiered system though. You will have one internet for poor people, and the premium internet for those who can afford the good stuff. This is the private vs public schools the of thing. In fact, there was an issue in the Bay area of CA that fits this example perfectly.

Google was paying to have buses pick up its people and bring them to work. These buses were new, clean, had wifi ect. People got upset and started protesting because google was creating 2 types of transportation. They were also "taking" money for a public system that really needed the money.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/how-private-buses-became-a-symbol-of-san-franciscos-divide/

Yeah but why is that a problem? We have a multi-tiered system now and I don't see anyone complaining about a 'premium internet'. (or at least not many people)

Set up a basic standard for everyone and those who can afford better get better. Sounds good to me?