Comcast Usage Meter

[TheVrolok]

Monthly bill is $195 (Cable&HSI).
Already used 120GB in the last 3 days.

What the hell do you do on the Internet?

 

[OCGuy]

Stop torrenting?

 

[dpearson]

I used to be on Wildblue satellite internet. $80/month for 1mbps and 12GB cap. The way they kept me from going over that limit was by crippling my download/upload speeds. I found out that if I downloaded a game on Steam, I wouldn't get to use the service for a month.

Fortunately 1.5 mbps DSL with a higher cap at $40/month (I guess the cap is higher...I haven't hit it yet) became available in my area. I'm pretty happy with it, I know it could be much faster for the price I'm paying, but I'm not complaining.

 

[Gunslinger08]

I haven't used anywhere close to my cap.

 

[alkemyst]

250gb is plenty. for those who claim that streaming hulu will kill you, hulu doesn't even use that much bandwidth. it's probably less than those 1gb 720p TV show rips too... and you'd have to download 250 of those to go over your limit. 250 hours of TV shows in a month. And clearly Hulu can go even longer. So all those march madness games you're streaming via ESPN? I doubt that'll really kill your limit. Even if you download 24, Lost, Fringe, and 3 other shows every week, I think you'll be more than fine.

Of course there are those who will continue to insist 250gb is such a small cap.

QFT...serial downloaders that just want to fill their TB drive array setup aren't typical users.

Those that run torrent type sites as well.

I understand it sucks since it's billed as 'unlimited', but bandwidth is a shared resource; abusers should pay accordingly.

Especially on DSL where uploading taxes the network...get some pimple-face looking at a 2:1 upload ratio and he will fuck your internet up.

 

[child of wonder]

QFT...serial downloaders that just want to fill their TB drive array setup aren't typical users.

Those that run torrent type sites as well.

I understand it sucks since it's billed as 'unlimited', but bandwidth is a shared resource; abusers should pay accordingly.

Especially on DSL where uploading taxes the network...get some pimple-face looking at a 2:1 upload ratio and he will fuck your internet up.

Wrong.

Having just signed up for Comcast less than a month ago (and now regretting it as I get my first bill with overinflated charges, cable modem rental fee even though I have my own, etc.) my wife and I decided to only get basic cable with our internet service and we've been using Playon to stream Hulu, Youtube, ESPN, Amazon, and other online streams to our TVs on demand. After 6 days I went online and checked our usage meter with Comcast and we had already used 32GB of our 250GB cap.

In a 31 day month, that puts us at 165GB out of our 250GB simply by watching a few TV shows a day (my wife stays home with the kids), internet surfing, and some online gaming on the Xbox360. Oh and our two Droids can connect to our WiFi when home as well. NO TORRENTS.

I'm an "abuser," right?

 

[TheVrolok]

Wrong.

Having just signed up for Comcast less than a month ago (and now regretting it as I get my first bill with overinflated charges, cable modem rental fee even though I have my own, etc.) my wife and I decided to only get basic cable with our internet service and we've been using Playon to stream Hulu, Youtube, ESPN, Amazon, and other online streams to our TVs on demand. After 6 days I went online and checked our usage meter with Comcast and we had already used 32GB of our 250GB cap.

In a 31 day month, that puts us at 165GB out of our 250GB simply by watching a few TV shows a day (my wife stays home with the kids), internet surfing, and some online gaming on the Xbox360. Oh and our two Droids can connect to our WiFi when home as well. NO TORRENTS.

I'm an "abuser," right?

There's no way you're just watching "a few TV shows a day" at 165GB per month. I watch a Netflix movie probably once every 2-3 days, watch EVERY Phillies game available on MLB.tv (that's 3 hours 5-6 times a week). I'm also a fairly big Hulu/YouTube/etc. junkie. I still usually stay just under 100GB monthly. I think you're either underestimating what you're DLing/watching or overestimating your usage somehow.

 

[alkemyst]

There's no way you're just watching "a few TV shows a day" at 165GB per month. I watch a Netflix movie probably once every 2-3 days, watch EVERY Phillies game available on MLB.tv (that's 3 hours 5-6 times a week). I'm also a fairly big Hulu/YouTube/etc. junkie. I still usually stay just under 100GB monthly. I think you're either underestimating what you're DLing/watching or overestimating your usage somehow.

He is probably 'downloading' everything he can...definitely an 'abuser' for the TOS.

More than likely eventually he will be redflagged and forced to a bandwidth use account.

Probably still be cheaper than full cable.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Monthly bill is $195 (Cable&HSI).
Already used 120GB in the last 3 days.

What the hell do you do on the Internet?

This...

1TB in a month?

 

[child of wonder]

He is probably 'downloading' everything he can...definitely an 'abuser' for the TOS.

More than likely eventually he will be redflagged and forced to a bandwidth use account.

Probably still be cheaper than full cable.

Wrong again.

We haven't downloaded any movies, TV shows, games, etc. The majority of our TV viewing is streamed (Family Guy, House, Daily Show, and more).

I know you so BADLY want me to be a naughty "abuser" but I'm not. I'm part of a growing segment of America who is sick of paying $50-$100 per month for cable TV when so much is available to stream legally online via Hulu and other sites.

Now, I will say that my DD-WRT router said I had used 20GB of combined upload and download bandwidth after those 6 days even though Comcast's usage meter said 32GB. But if I got a nasty call for going over the 250GB I doubt they would believe me if I said my own router reported an amount lower than their usage meter.

 

[TheVrolok]

Wrong again.

We haven't downloaded any movies, TV shows, games, etc. The majority of our TV viewing is streamed (Family Guy, House, Daily Show, and more).

I know you so BADLY want me to be a naughty "abuser" but I'm not. I'm part of a growing segment of America who is sick of paying $50-$100 per month for cable TV when so much is available to stream legally online via Hulu and other sites.

Now, I will say that my DD-WRT router said I had used 20GB of combined upload and download bandwidth after those 6 days even though Comcast's usage meter said 32GB. But if I got a nasty call for going over the 250GB I doubt they would believe me if I said my own router reported an amount lower than their usage meter.

Well you're not filesharing right? So you're upload should essentially be negligible compared to your downloading. There you go, though. 20, even 32GB per 6 days is 5GB a day, so that's 150GB per month. You're still 40% under the cap. If that's your normal usage, you'd really have to try hard to bust the cap. You also have to understand what the ISPs (and their advocates) mean by "abuser." They mean people who use a disproportionately large portion of bandwidth relative to the rest of the customers. All of us using >100GB are "abusers."

 

[child of wonder]

Well you're not filesharing right? So you're upload should essentially be negligible compared to your downloading. There you go, though. 20, even 32GB per 6 days is 5GB a day, so that's 150GB per month. You're still 40% under the cap. If that's your normal usage, you'd really have to try hard to bust the cap. You also have to understand what the ISPs (and their advocates) mean by "abuser." They mean people who use a disproportionately large portion of bandwidth relative to the rest of the customers. All of us using >100GB are "abusers."

Yeah, I'm still under the cap. I just get a chuckle out of people like spidey and alkemyst who assume that if you use a large amount of bandwidth for any reason, you're an "abuser" when, in reality, I'm simply forgoing cable TV and choosing to stream TV shows and am a part of a growing segment of the market that just wants an internet connection for all our video and audio entertainment delivery.

 

[TheVrolok]

Yeah, I'm still under the cap. I just get a chuckle out of people like spidey and alkemyst who assume that if you use a large amount of bandwidth for any reason, you're an "abuser" when, in reality, I'm simply forgoing cable TV and choosing to stream TV shows and am a part of a growing segment of the market that just wants an internet connection for all our video and audio entertainment delivery.

Yeah, but by forgoing cable TV and streaming you ARE an abuser. I don't like the way that ISPs are going to change plans to account for us, but I can understand it. The residential broadband Internet that has been provided to us for the last decade (and still today) is DIRT CHEAP for how much we use. It's unlike any other utility we consume. Water and electricity we pay for usage, but not for the Internet. I've loved it, but it's going to change the percentage of high usage users expands. Unfortunately, media delivery is also changing toward much higher usage.

 

[mrjminer]

There's no way you're just watching "a few TV shows a day" at 165GB per month. I watch a Netflix movie probably once every 2-3 days, watch EVERY Phillies game available on MLB.tv (that's 3 hours 5-6 times a week). I'm also a fairly big Hulu/YouTube/etc. junkie. I still usually stay just under 100GB monthly. I think you're either underestimating what you're DLing/watching or overestimating your usage somehow.

ORLY?!?!?!?

Maybe you should do some basic math. It's the only math I know, so let me do it for you since you seem incapable.

1. I don't have a job.
2. I on my computer, using the internet 90% of the time I am awake (preparing to start a web design business.
3. I typically stream 4-5 movies a day (or the equivalent duration in TV shows), standard definition (~2-3gb each) because I like to have something in the background while I work, or something to watch simultaneously.
4. Very, very rarely, one of the movies will be HD from Netflix (~3-4gb); I never look for them, just occasionally when I'm watching a movie I'll notice the HD in Silverlight.
5. I read a lot of news.
6. I visit a lot of coding websites.
7. I occasionally watch Hulu / Youtube if I don't feel like watching anything on Netflix.
8. I have about between 10-30 browser instances/tabs running at any given time to give you a better idea.

So, I'd estimate at least 10-11 GB/day, up to 20 GB / day depending on what I'm doing.
30x 10 = 300.
30x 20 = 600.

He could easily hit 165 GB watching just a few TV shows a day if they're HD with light browsing. Or if they're SD + heavier browsing/gaming.

You are wrong. I don't know what kind of compression MLB.tv uses, but obviously better compression or lower quality.

Additionally, Comcast is run by dickheads. The only reason they can make a claim that "99% of people don't use this much internetz!!!!" is because older people tend to use the internet less and the TV more (this forum is an exception to the general population since most people here do a lot more with technology and are more likely to stream everything). I'm 25 and I rarely watch the TV, but use the internet constantly.

PS: I'm one person. He's one person. You really think people who hit this cap are "abusers"? Add in more than one person and it takes far, far less to hit the cap.
PSS: I have Comcast and have never been notified of anything.

 

[TheVrolok]

... snip ...

.. I was talking about CoW, his usage is significantly less than your usage. Yes, someone who has no job and spends 8-10 hours streaming media from the Internet daily can probably hit the cap. Yes, you're also an abuser. I don't see your point at all? But you do have a lot of angst.

 

[child of wonder]

Yeah, but by forgoing cable TV and streaming you ARE an abuser. I don't like the way that ISPs are going to change plans to account for us, but I can understand it. The residential broadband Internet that has been provided to us for the last decade (and still today) is DIRT CHEAP for how much we use. It's unlike any other utility we consume. Water and electricity we pay for usage, but not for the Internet. I've loved it, but it's going to change the percentage of high usage users expands. Unfortunately, media delivery is also changing toward much higher usage.

The difference between data usage vs. water and electricity is that water and electricity are finite, physical substances. Data, on the other hand, is generated independently of the ISP -- the ISP deals in its delivery but the actual users of internet are the ones that generate that data in infinite quantities.

The issue is about the over subscription of the pipes that delivery the data. Imagine if your water company told you "well, we have been adding customers beyond what our infrastructure can support and now we can no longer accommodate demand. Therefore, we're going to place a limit on everyone's water usage and if you go over we shut off your water because you're a water abuser."

One could argue that, like Comcast, the water company would only be shutting off people who use an inordinate amount of water beyond the average household, but, unlike water, because data is an infinite resource and user generated, naturally, demand for it will increase over time. ISPs can either respond to this demand as a shift in the market or they can combat it, as Comcast and AT&T have chosen to do, and attempt to usurp what the market demands.

 

[TheVrolok]

The difference between data usage vs. water and electricity is that water and electricity are finite, physical substances. Data, on the other hand, is generated independently of the ISP -- the ISP deals in its delivery but the actual users of internet are the ones that generate that data in infinite quantities.

The issue is about the over subscription of the pipes that delivery the data. Imagine if your water company told you "well, we have been adding customers beyond what our infrastructure can support and now we can no longer accommodate demand. Therefore, we're going to place a limit on everyone's water usage and if you go over we shut off your water because you're a water abuser."

One could argue that, like Comcast, the water company would only be shutting off people who use an inordinate amount of water beyond the average household, but, unlike water, because data is an infinite resource and user generated, naturally, demand for it will increase over time. ISPs can either respond to this demand as a shift in the market or they can combat it, as Comcast and AT&T have chosen to do, and attempt to usurp what the market demands.

I agree mostly with your argument, and it's generally much of the logic I use when arguing against the new models coming from ISPs. However, data may be infinite, but bandwidth is not. Bandwidth is being abused, not data. Why cap the data then? Because it allows them to still provide the advertised burst speeds but, in the end, cuts down on bandwidth usage because you've run out of data - in theory.

 

[mrjminer]

.. I was talking about CoW, his usage is significantly less than your usage. Yes, someone who has no job and spends 8-10 hours streaming media from the Internet daily can probably hit the cap. Yes, you're also an abuser. I don't see your point at all? But you do have a lot of angst.

Shrug, my contract said "Unlimited."

I'm pretty sure you're the one with a lot of angst since you seem to think everyone with data usage higher than or approaching some artificial cap designed to hinder internet delivery systems in direct competition with Comcast (and others) are "abusers."

Also, even when I had a job I used just about this amount of data (-2 GB/day or so, I'm estimating). There's a lot you can do online in the 7-8 hours after work before bed

 

[TheVrolok]

Shrug, my contract said "Unlimited."

I'm pretty sure you're the one with a lot of angst since you seem to think everyone with data usage higher than or approaching some artificial cap designed to hinder internet delivery systems in direct competition with Comcast (and others) are "abusers."

It doesn't say unlimited. Just like the speed your advertised to get, doesn't have to be constant. You're not reading the fine print. Also, with your first two sentences you defined angst. Me? I'm not arguing that what we are doing is wrong, I don't even like the road ISPs are taking in light of the push toward digital distribution. I'm simply explaining the opposing (the ISPs) point of view using their terminology. People like us, who use a disproportionately high portion of bandwidth are abusers. That's not really up for debate, it's an "industry term." Perhaps you need to better your reading comprehension/contextual skills.

 

[spidey07]

It doesn't say unlimited. Just like the speed your advertised to get, doesn't have to be constant. You're not reading the fine print. Also, with your first two sentences you defined angst. Me? I'm not arguing that what we are doing is wrong, I don't even like the road ISPs are taking in light of the push toward digital distribution. I'm simply explaining the opposing (the ISPs) point of view using their terminology. People like us, who use a disproportionately high portion of bandwidth are abusers. That's not really up for debate, it's an "industry term." Perhaps you need to better your reading comprehension/contextual skills.

Abuser is the correct term. It means you are using much more capacity than you are paying for. As such an ISP is losing money on abusers. A 10 meg circuit where you get to load it up to 100% all day, everyday costs 1000s of dollars a month. Not the 49.99 price consumers are used to.

The water/power analogy is correct. It costs money to deliver that data and the more you use, the more it costs. Bandwidth costs money, the longer the distance and the higher the speed the costs go up exponentially.

But much kudos need to be given to comcast for having such an aggressive upgrade strategy to meet costumer demands with their huge docsis 3.0 rollout.

 

[child of wonder]

Abuser is the correct term. It means you are using much more capacity than you are paying for. As such an ISP is losing money on abusers. A 10 meg circuit where you get to load it up to 100% all day, everyday costs 1000s of dollars a month. Not the 49.99 price consumers are used to.

The water/power analogy is correct. It costs money to deliver that data and the more you use, the more it costs. Bandwidth costs money, the longer the distance and the higher the speed the costs go up exponentially.

But much kudos need to be given to comcast for having such an aggressive upgrade strategy to meet costumer demands with their huge docsis 3.0 rollout.

Spidey, you obviously work for Comcast (or are sleeping with the CEO) so given the upgrades you've been pimping is Comcast planning on using the enhanced bandwidth to increase the cap for internet users along with higher speeds or further saturating the last mile with more over subscription?

 

[TheVrolok]

Spidey, you obviously work for Comcast (or are sleeping with the CEO) so given the upgrades you've been pimping is Comcast planning on using the enhanced bandwidth to increase the cap for internet users along with higher speeds or further saturating the last mile with more over subscription?

I think he's saying the "enhanced bandwidth" is merely "catch up bandwidth."

 

[mrjminer]

It doesn't say unlimited. Just like the speed your advertised to get, doesn't have to be constant. You're not reading the fine print. Also, with your first two sentences you defined angst. Me? I'm not arguing that what we are doing is wrong, I don't even like the road ISPs are taking in light of the push toward digital distribution. I'm simply explaining the opposing (the ISPs) point of view using their terminology. People like us, who use a disproportionately high portion of bandwidth are abusers. That's not really up for debate, it's an "industry term." Perhaps you need to better your reading comprehension/contextual skills.

You're probably right, I doubt the contract says unlimited too (I can guarantee you it mentions nothing about any sort of "cap," though, as they didn't exist when this contract was enacted). Unfortunately for Comcast, I do nothing that would have been outlined in my original contract as abuse (0 torrents, 0 illegal activities), have always had a secure network, and have the original advertisement somewhere (which, I'm guessing you and the entire planet knows will say "unlimited") with the contract in my massive boxes of files and statements.

Perhaps I do have a bit of angst. I try to save it for the day Comcast attempts to disconnect me for "abusing" their network, if they're terrible service doesn't cause me to switch carriers before then

Abuser is the correct term. It means you are using much more capacity than you are paying for. As such an ISP is losing money on abusers. A 10 meg circuit where you get to load it up to 100% all day, everyday costs 1000s of dollars a month. Not the 49.99 price consumers are used to.

The water/power analogy is correct. It costs money to deliver that data and the more you use, the more it costs. Bandwidth costs money, the longer the distance and the higher the speed the costs go up exponentially.

But much kudos need to be given to comcast for having such an aggressive upgrade strategy to meet costumer demands with their huge docsis 3.0 rollout.

I'm sorry, I'd say "abuser" is the correct term of a company paying off politicians for the ability to fraudulently advertise service as "unlimited" when it is not. But they have a '*' by unlimited??!?!?!?!

Ok, I guess that makes anything in print allowed.

Comcast sucks balls. This is a fact.*

*=(Comcast may not actually suck balls).

 

[spidey07]

Spidey, you obviously work for Comcast (or are sleeping with the CEO) so given the upgrades you've been pimping is Comcast planning on using the enhanced bandwidth to increase the cap for internet users along with higher speeds or further saturating the last mile with more over subscription?

I don't work for comcast. I am a network architecht responsible for building these networks, I get called in on consulting gigs for big upgrades and planning strategy for providers and large enterprises.

Yes, the caps will be raised. The caps are based on profitability and overall subscriber usage. Remember the people that hit this are a very small percentage of subscribers but cause the most pain in terms of cost and performance. The 250 cap was based on current and projected traffic patterns including the 3.0 push.

Bandwidth/capacity is now under the two year mark when it doubles. So in just 24 months a providers network will have delivered roughly 2 times what it does today.

Oh, and last mile isn't the choke points. It's at the distribution to access layer - longer distances, much more expensive from an optics perspective to get more speed.

 

[TheVrolok]

You're probably right, I doubt the contract says unlimited too (I can guarantee you it mentions nothing about any sort of "cap," though, as they didn't exist when this contract was enacted). Unfortunately for Comcast, I do nothing that would have been outlined in my original contract as abuse (0 torrents, 0 illegal activities), have always had a secure network, and have the original advertisement somewhere (which, I'm guessing you and the entire planet knows will say "unlimited") with the contract in my massive boxes of files and statements.

Perhaps I do have a bit of angst. I try to save it for the day Comcast attempts to disconnect me for "abusing" their network, if they're terrible service doesn't cause me to switch carriers before then

I'm sure the word "unlimited" appears on an advertisement, but that really doesn't mean shit. I'm also going to bet that the fine print says that Comcast is allowed to make changes as necessary for whatever legalese reason they put in there. If the "unlimited" advertisement was actually part of a legally binding contract, don't you think you'd have seen a class-action suit since the implementation of the cap? Hell man, as long as you still can go ahead and use the 250 GB/month, you're allowed (for no additional charge).

It's funny, though, I hear nothing but terrible things about Comcast but I've had a wonderful experience over the last year and a half. Good service, and customer service was fantastic the 3-4 times I needed it. They even threw me a discount for some reason after one of the customer service bits.