Comcast 1TB Internet Cap Is Becoming A Reality

Ripping this off from ReadingTheAir on another forum:

Comcast's data cap policy is a flawed consumer control measure against those who would go without cable and a direct action against companies that have actually innovated over the past decade rather than sit pretty on a monopoly.

Hopefully there is competition in your area and you can leave Comcast and go to another provider in addition to calling the FCC.
 
Hopefully there is competition in your area and you can leave Comcast and go to another provider in addition to calling the FCC.
Only options in my area are AT&T and Comcast, and they price matched each other. Probably better for them to divide the spoils at high fees, than to get into a price war.
 
I just checked our usage with Cox and we keep going over, but they are increasing the cap from 700GB to 1TB.

cox-data-usage-10-2016.jpg
 
Cox just bumped mine up too. Nice of them but still not going to be enough eventually.
 
Time to create a device similar to a 'kill-a-watt' that monitors/tracks the amount of data passing through it and make sure its accuracy is verified by a 3rd party. Now you have legitimate proof that your ISP is screwing you with their false overages, and I have like 1000$ extra for inventing such an amazing device :p
 
Time to invent a device similar to a 'kill-a-watt' except it goes in between your router and modem that does nothing but accurately measures the data passing through it. Make sure its accuracy is verified by a 3rd party. Now you have legitimate proof that your ISP is screwing you, and I have like 1000$ extra for inventing such an amazing device :p

Pretty sure most routers can measure usage. Certainly if you toss a linux rom on it, it will. Might not be exactly how they measure it, but it's close enough
 
According to Netflix's streaming calculator...

4 hours of netflix HD on 1 device 30 days > 360GB
8 hours of netflix HD on 1 device 30 days > 720GB
4 hours of 4K over 30 days on 1 device > 800GB
8 hours of 4K over 30 days on 1 device > 1.6TB

The real bandwith consuming service is VUDU UHD, which is also the highest quality streaming service available. (don't confuse quality with convenience)
UHD movies from VUDU consume up to 18GB per viewing hour!
8 hours of 4K (UHD) over 30 days on 1 device is > 4.2TB

And how many people have that kind of time to watch 8 hours of top-quality 4k video every day for a month? And can also actually get the 40mbps SUSTAINED bandwidth that requires, even during prime time (when you will be watching)?

Assuming all that is true, and you can afford a 4k TV large enough to see the difference, you can probably afford to pay for all that bandwidth you're hogging. They only put a $50 premium on unlimited.

For everyone else, the 1TB cap is more than enough. They've been raising the cap on a regular basis as speeds have increased, so it's not like this will never increase.

But no, the cable operators owe you nothing, and they're not making tons of money on broadband-to-the-home. That''s the wireless operators and cable providers who are rolling in the dough.
 
Last edited:
And how many people have that kind of time to watch 8 hours of top-quality 4k video every day for a month? And can also actually get the 40mbps SUSTAINED bandwidth that requires, even during prime time (when you will be watching)?
This is something that should become the norm, but the market is not going to adopt such technology if consumers are incentivized to be frugal with their data. They may have a sweet 4K TV, but if they have "data anxiety" induced by the ISPs, they may resort to regressing technologically and ordering BluRays instead, or, as the ISPs hope, getting their TV and movies directly from the ISP via a TV/Movie package which doesn't count towards their data cap.

People don't even have to hit their caps, they can just get a warning now and then from the ISP being "helpful" telling them that they are at 50% of their data cap, now 60% of their data cap, and suddenly people's mindsets change and they start viewing the internet like some non-renewable resource they have to conserve carefully.

That's the entire point with these systems, and its not about 1TB of data, its about having data caps. Once people accept that data caps are normal, then you start negotiating how big that data cap is, and certainly whether or not you would ever increase it, as what would the incentive be?

Data caps are essentially the nail in the coffin for net neutrality, if the public accepts it, and way that Comcast and the others can continue to sell you $200 TV/movie packages separately from your internet service, when the future is to kill that and allow agnostic internet connections where people can pay HBO directly WITHOUT the Comcast middle-man and get the services they want from the source.
But no, the cable operators owe you nothing, and they're not making tons of money on broadband-to-the-home. That''s the wireless operators and cable providers who are rolling in the dough.
We are the people, and we get what we want, which is how the world is supposed to work. If we, as a society, are fed up with the cable monopolies and anticompetitive practices, then we have a right and in fact duty to bust the monopolies and perhaps even turn internet into a service just like electricity, water, and gas.

The Comcast CEO has a net worth of around $2 billion... the rest of the board are wealthy as hell too, so give me a break on this "not rolling in dough". Brian Roberts received total compensation of $40.8 million last year alone, over forty MILLION in one year. Think about that for a moment, that is coming out of our wallets, and we have a right to be pissed about it. A brain surgeon, who saves lives and requires immense education and training, makes between $400-600K a year. But Brian Roberts, your Comcast CEO, is making not twice that at a million, not three times that at 1.5 million, not four times that at 2 million.... this is just getting exhausting if we were to count all the way up to his $40 million in compensation.

Its a racket, and we chumps pay out the nose because we have no choice.

But we do have the ability to get mad, and demand CHANGE!

Or, like you suggest, you can grab a big old warm stick of butter, squish it in your fingers real good, bend over a table, and spread that all nice around on your backside for Brian Roberts and tell him, "Daddy, I'm ready for you, and my wallet is on the table, mess me up fam!"
 
Pretty sure most routers can measure usage. Certainly if you toss a linux rom on it, it will. Might not be exactly how they measure it, but it's close enough

Yea, I run pfsense so I already have access to the data. This would be for non-technical users and would guarantee the accuracy of the reading on your router if it measures BW.
 
Look a 300GB data caps would have been fine back around 2005. I have more of an issue with how slow comcast was to raise the cap. I also live somewhere, where my choice is comcast (which tops out at 500Mbps) or Verizon DSL which tops out at 3Mbps (at my location). In effect there is real no competition here.

I don't believe that unlimited pipes is the right solution. It is a solution, but I believe it'll be an expensive solution.

I do think that infrastructure providers SHOULD be regulated like a utility AND forced to allow CLECs to use and resell their infrastructure from the CO to the home. But they SHOULD ALSO be allowed to capitalize on infrastructure investments.

Ex... Comcast...lays down new cable. They should have 100% exclusive rights to that cable for the first 3 years. Then they should be forced to allow others to use their infrastructure.


Other than the exclusive clause, this is exactly how it used to be before they deregulated all the ISPs and all the competition died out.
 
This is something that should become the norm, but the market is not going to adopt such technology if consumers are incentivized to be frugal with their data. They may have a sweet 4K TV, but if they have "data anxiety" induced by the ISPs, they may resort to regressing technologically and ordering BluRays instead, or, as the ISPs hope, getting their TV and movies directly from the ISP via a TV/Movie package which doesn't count towards their data cap.

People don't even have to hit their caps, they can just get a warning now and then from the ISP being "helpful" telling them that they are at 50% of their data cap, now 60% of their data cap, and suddenly people's mindsets change and they start viewing the internet like some non-renewable resource they have to conserve carefully.

That's the entire point with these systems, and its not about 1TB of data, its about having data caps. Once people accept that data caps are normal, then you start negotiating how big that data cap is, and certainly whether or not you would ever increase it, as what would the incentive be?

Data caps are essentially the nail in the coffin for net neutrality, if the public accepts it, and way that Comcast and the others can continue to sell you $200 TV/movie packages separately from your internet service, when the future is to kill that and allow agnostic internet connections where people can pay HBO directly WITHOUT the Comcast middle-man and get the services they want from the source.

We are the people, and we get what we want, which is how the world is supposed to work. If we, as a society, are fed up with the cable monopolies and anticompetitive practices, then we have a right and in fact duty to bust the monopolies and perhaps even turn internet into a service just like electricity, water, and gas.

The Comcast CEO has a net worth of around $2 billion... the rest of the board are wealthy as hell too, so give me a break on this "not rolling in dough". Brian Roberts received total compensation of $40.8 million last year alone, over forty MILLION in one year. Think about that for a moment, that is coming out of our wallets, and we have a right to be pissed about it. A brain surgeon, who saves lives and requires immense education and training, makes between $400-600K a year. But Brian Roberts, your Comcast CEO, is making not twice that at a million, not three times that at 1.5 million, not four times that at 2 million.... this is just getting exhausting if we were to count all the way up to his $40 million in compensation.

Its a racket, and we chumps pay out the nose because we have no choice.

But we do have the ability to get mad, and demand CHANGE!

Or, like you suggest, you can grab a big old warm stick of butter, squish it in your fingers real good, bend over a table, and spread that all nice around on your backside for Brian Roberts and tell him, "Daddy, I'm ready for you, and my wallet is on the table, mess me up fam!"
But he's got a point. Few people will watch 4 hours of netfix/day and fewer still will watch 4hrs of 4K netflix/day.

What's more, most of their content isn't available in 4K.

I'm sure there are some that need more than 1TB, but they're the exception to the rule. Nevertheless, I'm happy to have unlimited data :D
 
But he's got a point. Few people will watch 4 hours of netfix/day and fewer still will watch 4hrs of 4K netflix/day.
Sorry, diarrhea of the mouth on my part, but to summarize my point... its not about 1TB. That doesn't matter.

Its about the future.

1) There is no guarantee Comcast will increase 1TB limit in the future, and in fact they may do the opposite if there is no backlash and people get used to the concept of data caps

2) Once people understand that data caps are totally normal, they can start toying with other ideas like tiered data plans or paying by the gigabyte like cellular providers.

This tiered internet is not only far more lucrative, as they can start to pretend that the internet is a finite valuable resource that they own, but they can discourage people from using too much data so they won't have to make any future investments in infrastructure, and can push their own streaming services which do not count towards your internet ration.

They can also completely kill net neutrality by partnering with "preferred providers" that won't count towards your data cap. So if Microsoft pays them, then using the Microsoft store for game and video streaming won't use up your data, but if Netflix doesn't pay them then you may get helpful "warnings" popping up that you're at 70% of your internet ration for the month and many users that will be afraid to get too close to 100% and pay overages will not use more than 75% and start telling their kids to stop using up all of the internet and the like.

Now Comcast isn't just a gateway to the internet, they essentially own it by being able to charge content providers for preferred access to you the customer, while trying to force their own services on you, and hitting many people with lucrative overage fees that the consumer won't really be able to dispute if they are even valid as they will have to take Comcast's word for it.

tl;dr: Comcast is trying to sell you the IDEA of an "internet ration", and that's BAD.
 
Last edited:
Geez, just how much Kool-Aid one has to drink to defend a shitty natural monopoly like Comcast. I'm so glad my FttH network are built, managed and regulated by the government while the ISPs are competing to being just dumb data providers.
 
But he's got a point. Few people will watch 4 hours of netfix/day and fewer still will watch 4hrs of 4K netflix/day.

What's more, most of their content isn't available in 4K.

I'm sure there are some that need more than 1TB, but they're the exception to the rule. Nevertheless, I'm happy to have unlimited data :D

The average working American watches about 2.8 hours of TV per day.

American Time Use Survey Summary

Other sources put it at over 5 hours

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/media/nielsen-survey-media-viewing.html?_r=0

Take the "norm" of 2 adults and 2 children per household and you're over 8 hours (also, take into account that children watch more than 2.8 hours). Hell, even with the average number of people per household at 2.54, still puts you over 7 hours per day. And thats JUST VIDEO! So, you can just barely make it if the only thing use the internet for is watching two TV shows a night.


It amazes me how people are willing to defend this bullshit.
 
Sorry, diarrhea of the mouth on my part, but to summarize my point... its not about 1TB. That doesn't matter.

Its about the future.

1) There is no guarantee Comcast will increase 1TB limit in the future, and in fact they may do the opposite if there is no backlash and people get used to the concept of data caps

2) Once people understand that data caps are totally normal, they can start toying with other ideas like tiered data plans or paying by the gigabyte like cellular providers.

This tiered internet is not only far more lucrative, as they can start to pretend that the internet is a finite valuable resource that they own, but they can discourage people from using too much data so they won't have to make any future investments in infrastructure, and can push their own streaming services which do not count towards your internet ration.

They can also completely kill net neutrality by partnering with "preferred providers" that won't count towards your data cap. So if Microsoft pays them, then using the Microsoft store for game and video streaming won't use up your data, but if Netflix doesn't pay them then you may get helpful "warnings" popping up that you're at 70% of your internet ration for the month and many users that will be afraid to get too close to 100% and pay overages will not use more than 75% and start telling their kids to stop using up all of the internet and the like.

Now Comcast isn't just a gateway to the internet, they essentially own it by being able to charge content providers for preferred access to you the customer, while trying to force their own services on you, and hitting many people with lucrative overage fees that the consumer won't really be able to dispute if they are even valid as they will have to take Comcast's word for it.

tl;dr: Comcast is trying to sell you the IDEA of an "internet ration", and that's BAD.

I get that, but AT&T already does this (even if it's not enforced in some areas) and Comcast has been doing this for years in many places. At one point I had a 250GB limit and you can look on here and I'm sure I argued it was enough, and it was. Later it was upped to 300 and most of the time it was enough, but it was close (that was about 1.5 years ago).
I think they'll up it as needed. They also have an unlimited plan available, though I think it's pretty pricey at an additional $50/month.

What I dislike is the lack of choice. I happen to be lucky that TWC/Charter/whatever they're called is my ISP and they have no caps. It's a bit more than what I paid at Comcast, but there are no caps. If I had a choice, I might go with Comcast if the price and speed was right. I'd have to look at my usage (which right now I don't).

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they'll up it if the average home needs 2TB/month, but make no mistake, I'm not Comcast fan nor do I like data caps, unless the data costs significantly less than other carriers. If I could, I'd get municipal fiber. Both Lafayette, LA and Chattanooga have nice packages available. Lafayette has cheaper packages (60x60 for $50), but Gigabit is cheaper in Chatta.

Home Internet Services | EPB
LUS Fiber - Package & Pricing Guide
 
Last edited:
The average working American watches about 2.8 hours of TV per day.

American Time Use Survey Summary

Other sources put it at over 5 hours

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/media/nielsen-survey-media-viewing.html?_r=0

Take the "norm" of 2 adults and 2 children per household and you're over 8 hours (also, take into account that children watch more than 2.8 hours). Hell, even with the average number of people per household at 2.54, still puts you over 7 hours per day. And thats JUST VIDEO! So, you can just barely make it if the only thing use the internet for is watching two TV shows a night.


It amazes me how people are willing to defend this bullshit.
So in your world, this family just watches Netflix all day and all of it is in 4k (despite the limited content)? I'm not defending Comcast, but unless you show me the typical family is using 1TB of data/month, then I don't see a problem with this level. Last time I checked, AT&T has a 1TB cap for GIGABIT fiber! AFAIC, every person should work towards municipal fiber. It gives you choice and it dramatically pushes down prices.
 
Our cap for ATT was 600 MB for the last few months but luckily they raised it to 1 TB this month as the Gears of War 4 Microsoft Store fiasco took nearly 600 GB alone and I still do not have the game installed.

I think 1 TB is pretty damn small with the size of games as last year I used around 1 TB several months before ATT started to enforce a cap.
 
At one point I had a 250GB limit
They did have a 250gb limit in Houston, but there was massive backlash, and protests were mounting to the point that people were contacting their representatives to get involved. Comcast, fearing the backlash was too great, decided to drop the idea of a cap in this market, until now when they're testing the waters with 1TB.

Like I said, the amount doesn't matter, its that they are trying to sell the IDEA of capped internet first. Then they can later push tiered internet, and kill net neutrality by offering partner programs where using services from partners doesn't count towards either your internet ration or your data charges if they switch to a per-gigabyte charge or tiered charge.

AT&T and Comcast don't really compete with one another in Houston at least. Every change Comcast has made has been followed in suit by AT&T, and Comcast arguing for their acquisition of TimeWarner blatantly let slip that its not a problem because they already don't compete with Time Warner.

When you have so few players in many markets, I think they are doing the same thing we saw with LCDs in the early 2000s, where they had deals not to compete with one another in order to keep prices high, as it was more profitable for everyone. It was finally discovered, and they got huge fines, and now we have LCD prices falling through the floor, and its hurting the bottom line of all the big players. Clearly collusion is often a better strategy for the 1% that run these mega-corporations.
 
But he's got a point. Few people will watch 4 hours of netfix/day and fewer still will watch 4hrs of 4K netflix/day.

Not really it's called a straw man argument and it's the same damn argument that doesn't hold water longer than a year or two. At this point it's almost a meme. 4K TV's can now be had for the same price as 1080p TV's only a year ago. It's only a matter of a year or so before all content is recorded at 4K levels. Hell YouTube has quite a bit of 4K content already. All movie trailers are now released in 4K. It's just stupid to pretend like 4K is way off in the distance when we have 4K content today and that's before we get to games. The average game now is 40GB's or so and that's just 1 (all of my recent ones have been above that though). That's only 25 games downloaded and you would be above the cap....provided you didn't watch any movies....or bought internet appliances or did anything that would increase usage.

successful-libraries-in-uncertain-times-4-638.jpg


It was a stupid argument then and it still is today. Regardless if Gates said it or not It's just badly thought out. Essentially the person who makes this argument is saying that, "because I lack the ability to think about what could happen to me in the future everyone should be a dumbass like me." Sorry I'm not boarding the Titanic today but feel free. I hear it's unsinkable.
 
Last edited:
Comcast just wants the top 1% to pay their fair share.

Now tell me...how many of you support that when it's coming from a politician's mouth, but don't like it in this context?
 
Comcast just wants the top 1% to pay their fair share.

Now tell me...how many of you support that when it's coming from a politician's mouth, but don't like it in this context?

Exactly how does this analogy work? An increase of a tax rate on the top 1% does not equate to a company increasing the cost of their product for everyone who uses it. We don't have large groups of people entering the 1% within the United States. Since the 1TB cap is static, it is guaranteed that the use of more bandwidth year over year will increase as content becomes larger in size and and that every year more and more people in larger numbers will get closer to the current 1TB bracket of users.
 
So in your world, this family just watches Netflix all day and all of it is in 4k (despite the limited content)? I'm not defending Comcast, but unless you show me the typical family is using 1TB of data/month, then I don't see a problem with this level. Last time I checked, AT&T has a 1TB cap for GIGABIT fiber! AFAIC, every person should work towards municipal fiber. It gives you choice and it dramatically pushes down prices.

How did you get "watches TV all day" from "2.8 hours per day"?
 
Not really it's called a straw man argument and it's the same damn argument that doesn't hold water longer than a year or two. At this point it's almost a meme. 4K TV's can now be had for the same price as 1080p TV's only a year ago. It's only a matter of a year or so before all content is recorded at 4K levels. Hell YouTube has quite a bit of 4K content already. All movie trailers are now released in 4K. It's just stupid to pretend like 4K is way off in the distance when we have 4K content today and that's before we get to games. The average game now is 40GB's or so and that's just 1 (all of my recent ones have been above that though). That's only 25 games downloaded and you would be above the cap....provided you didn't watch any movies....or bought internet appliances or did anything that would increase usage.

successful-libraries-in-uncertain-times-4-638.jpg


It was a stupid argument then and it still is today. Regardless if Gates said it or not It's just badly thought out. Essentially the person who makes this argument is saying that, "because I lack the ability to think about what could happen to me in the future everyone should be a dumbass like me." Sorry I'm not boarding the Titanic today but feel free. I hear it's unsinkable.

MEME: Dumb analogy.
1. Who cares about DOS? It was designed for what they needed at the time and it was fine for roughly 10 years.
2. When it wasn't fine, they modified DOS to handle more ram
3. There's nothing that prevents an ISP from increasing the CAP.

Maybe we should get rid of all internet until we can get a decent speeds not less than 500 Terabytes/second. We may not need it today, but someday we will. Why are they limiting us.

As for you 4K argument, I never said a thing about the price of TVs. Right now, the amount of 4K content on Netflix is limited. You're not going to spend 4hr/day watching 4k content, because you'd run out content within a few months (assuming you only watched 4k content). The fact that most don't have 4K TVs further reduces the issue at this time.

As for games, I didn't realize people were dropping a grand/month on games.
 
MEME: Dumb analogy.
1. Who cares about DOS? It was designed for what they needed at the time and it was fine for roughly 10 years.
2. When it wasn't fine, they modified DOS to handle more ram
3. There's nothing that prevents an ISP from increasing the CAP.

Meme: an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation. (This obviously doesn't sound like your definition at all.)

1. Way to miss the point but I really don't think you did.
2.You obviously aren't old enough or maybe you lack the experience to remember the bullshit stuff gamers had to do to get games to run for precisely this limitation during that time like uninstalling DOSSHELL, removing drivers, etc. It was a damn nightmare. I had special boot disks everywhere. It took a couple of years to fix the problem. It was not solved overnight.
3. Sure there is. It's called money. Maybe you have heard of what it can do to people. Unless you think Comcast is just going to automatically increase the cap once people have no choice thus avoiding the point of putting in a cap in first place. So what you are telling me is that they are going to put in a cap that's not a cap so that they don't make any money for instituting it in the first place?!?!

giphy.gif


Maybe we should get rid of all internet until we can get a decent speeds not less than 500 Terabytes/second. We may not need it today, but someday we will. Why are they limiting us.
Naw I'd rather not speak in hyperbole (aka make up scenarios that aren't realistic) and would rather stick to facts like 4k content is becoming more and more available today and that reality will cause many people to blow past that cap sooner rather than later.

As for you 4K argument, I never said a thing about the price of TVs. Right now, the amount of 4K content on Netflix is limited. You're not going to spend 4hr/day watching 4k content, because you'd run out content within a few months (assuming you only watched 4k content). The fact that most don't have 4K TVs further reduces the issue at this time.

tumblr_n9qj3et6tm1smcbm7o1_400.gif

You're right within your dimension. However, the point is that adoption of more 4K TV's increases the likelyhood of more 4K content. You know like you alluded to in your last sentence? In addition to that Netflix isn't the only one producing 4K content. There's also this other small company called Amazon that's been doing it since 2014. I'm assuming you didn't notice this. Then there's YouTube another really small company that also has a crap ton of 4K content. Every month it's more likely to view more 4K content not less. When 1080 TV's came out this did not spur the mass production of 720p content.

As for games, I didn't realize people were dropping a grand/month on games.
....and I didn't realize that people only consumed 4K content through gaming....maybe someone should have made the point that Steam wasn't the only portal of 4K content. o_O
 
Last edited:
Filed my FCC statement.....


INTERNET DATA CAP (COMCAST) OR ANY ISP.
  • 024c9eef0ea548bc466ff716412dacf4

    MNKyDethToday at 23:15
    Data caps are a way of limiting our freedom on the internet. It hurts the general public in that it limits us the users from obtaining and doing things we want in our lives. If internet has become a utility it needs to start being treated like one. One that we as consumers have access to without limit. Comcast set a data cap in my area recently where as before I did not have one. Once I hit the cap I will be charged more. So my only option is to go to a slower speed internet so I can try to slow myself down from actually hitting the cap. This is moving backwards, not forwards.
    Just because I use alternatives to watch TV or movies like Netflix or other sites online and do not pay for cable tv. I have not paid for cable tv since around 2003 - 2005 by the way. My only outlet is the internet. So if I stream movies and music and I upload video's to youtube and stream my video games to twitch.tv I will plow through the 1TB limit without even trying. Having a data cap it would be better off for me to move to Russia where there are no data caps. I mean seriously... Why are we so far behind in infrastructure and competition in the ISP/Data internet scheme of things?
    Now, because there are data caps, what you doing to stop any and all traffic going over the IP address to my home except the data traffic I approve of? Microsoft windows 10 now forces people to update. You can only set a 12hr period where it will not forcibly update and reboot your computer. The spam emails that get downloaded into my mail client? How come you havn't stopped the spam if the data is going to count against me? I didn't approve it, nor do I approve any webcrawlers, port sniffers, or even Comcast itself from pinging my modem and using "my" so called limited data. Why should I pay for all that if I am limited?
    Get on the horse FCC, stop these criminals from destroying what we have in America.
 
How did you get "watches TV all day" from "2.8 hours per day"?
4hours/day of 4k video is 800gb. Most people are not going to spend all evening watching 4k video
Meme: an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation. (This obviously doesn't sound like your definition at all.)

1. Way to miss the point but I really don't think you did.
2.You obviously aren't old enough or maybe you lack the experience to remember the bullshit stuff gamers had to do to get games to run for precisely this limitation during that time like uninstalling DOSSHELL, removing drivers, etc. It was a damn nightmare. I had special boot disks everywhere. It took a couple of years to fix the problem. It was not solved overnight.
3. Sure there is. It's called money. Maybe you have heard of what it can do to people. Unless you think Comcast is just going to automatically increase the cap once people have no choice thus avoiding the point of putting in a cap in first place. So what you are telling me is that they are going to put in a cap that's not a cap so that they don't make any money for instituting it in the first place?!?!
1/2. I was there. I did it. It wasn't that hard. What's more, it wasn't that necessary until the 90s, which was roughly 10 years later. I think 640 was fine in the early days. As I recall, you needed QEMM to do it, though maybe Dos 5 removed that requirement...don't remember anymore.

Naw I'd rather not speak in hyperbole (aka make up scenarios that aren't realistic) and would rather stick to facts like 4k content is becoming more and more available today and that reality will cause many people to blow past that cap sooner rather than later.
And yet you expected them to engineer DOS to handle tons of ram, when the average PC came with 64KB.


You're right within your dimension. However, the point is that adoption of more 4K TV's increases the likelyhood of more 4K content. You know like you alluded to in your last sentence? In addition to that Netflix isn't the only one producing 4K content. There's also this other small company called Amazon that's been doing it since 2014. I'm assuming you didn't notice this. Then there's YouTube another really small company that also has a crap ton of 4K content. Every month it's more likely to view more 4K content not less. When 1080 TV's came out this did not spur the mass production of 720p content.

They've already gone from 250GB to 300GB to 1TB in the span of roughly 3 years. So yes, they may do just that. If not, then I'll join you in bitching (even though they're not my ISP)
 
Exactly how does this analogy work? An increase of a tax rate on the top 1% does not equate to a company increasing the cost of their product for everyone who uses it. We don't have large groups of people entering the 1% within the United States. Since the 1TB cap is static, it is guaranteed that the use of more bandwidth year over year will increase as content becomes larger in size and and that every year more and more people in larger numbers will get closer to the current 1TB bracket of users.

No, while his analogy might be off slightly it is nowhere near as off as you are saying there. Lets start with your first statement. You aren't comparing a higher tax on 1% vs a price increase for everyone. You are comparing a tax increase on the 1% instead of 100% of people vs a price increase on the top 1% users vs 100% of users.

Also you say that 1TB is static however they have just changed that from 300GB to 1TB, so it doesn't seem to be static. Now I know it isn't smart to every assume they will be intelligent about anything, but that limit should increase over time as usage increases based on what is normal for the 99%.
 
Why should I pay for limited bandwidth when there are ads I don't want to see. Why should I pay for limited bandwidth when I download my emails and I download spam? Why should I pay for limited bandwidth when someone can send data to my modem in the form of pings, port sniffing, etc?

Why should I pay for limited bandwidth when whatever passes to my modem is not 100% approved content by me? They are now using my valuable resource and if I am forced to have limited internet then the someone, namely the US Govt of some sort needs to stop all non-100% approved traffic over my part of the network to my modem that I pay for. If places like Comcast want to do something like this with data caps then the someone needs to step up and make it so all of our content is 100% approved and anything that is not does not count against us.

The TCP packet overhead, I don't approve of that any more since it uses my bandwidth, someone better make a better protocol that doesn't have overhead. It absolutely blows my mind that anyone would condone or approve of a data cap of any sort.

Hey, you just bought that fancy new car for $50,000. Now you are out driving around but you are only allowed to drive 100 miles or better yet we'll raise how many miles you are allowed to drive to 1,000. See how good we are to let you drive your new car even more miles than before? Whatever, anyone that supports this kind of stuff needs to wake the hell up.
 
No, while his analogy might be off slightly it is nowhere near as off as you are saying there. Lets start with your first statement. You aren't comparing a higher tax on 1% vs a price increase for everyone. You are comparing a tax increase on the 1% instead of 100% of people vs a price increase on the top 1% users vs 100% of users.
Um you just need to rethink this. I can't tell if you are trying to communicate or deliver a poem.

Also you say that 1TB is static however they have just changed that from 300GB to 1TB, so it doesn't seem to be static. Now I know it isn't smart to every assume they will be intelligent about anything, but that limit should increase over time as usage increases based on what is normal for the 99%.
Any number that doesn't adjust automatically to a certain variable is a static number. The fact that someone can manually change the number doesn't mean it's not static.
 
I think the nail has been hit on the head multiple times and this thread skirts around the issue.

The problem is a lack of competition and choice.

If we have an alternate choice to Comcast...we can exercise that right and switch.

Unlimited verse limited bandwidth isn't the problem. Not having competition is the problem.

MNKyDeth's FCC complaint is exactly how you get bad laws. Great, the FCC spends a million dollars of tax money on investigations and meetings, votes and changes the rules and Comcast is forced to provide unlimited datacaps. Comcast complies by raise all service fees +$50.

How did we win? Did this change give you a choice on where to take your business? Do you have an alternative other than not paying?

:confused:
 
1/2. I was there. I did it. It wasn't that hard. What's more, it wasn't that necessary until the 90s, which was roughly 10 years later. I think 640 was fine in the early days. As I recall, you needed QEMM to do it, though maybe Dos 5 removed that requirement...don't remember anymore.

Huh? it was a problem up until the the early 90's. It wasn't really an issue for non-gamers since the most an average user would need to operate a computer was a keyboard and later a mouse. However, if you wanted decent VGA output and sound beyond bleeps and bloops then you needed video card and sound card. The drivers for these often wanted to be loaded into conventional memory and some games wanted a chunk of it too before using extended memory. Gamers ran into this problem often. It was not easy because different games had different requirements.

And yet you expected them to engineer DOS to handle tons of ram, when the average PC came with 64KB.

You mean like how we do today? IT now is far more observant of what will happen in the future. That's why that meme exists and that's why it's perplexing to hear people not recognize that by making arguments that some arbitrary number is fine for the distant future when obviously that's not the case.

They've already gone from 250GB to 300GB to 1TB in the span of roughly 3 years. So yes, they may do just that. If not, then I'll join you in bitching (even though they're not my ISP)
Works for me. :)
 
I think the nail has been hit on the head multiple times and this thread skirts around the issue.

The problem is a lack of competition and choice.

If we have an alternate choice to Comcast...we can exercise that right and switch.
We used to have choices.... then Comcast and Verizon bought them all up. And apparently the government doesn't like to enforce anti trust laws anymore, so here we are. Gotta love regulatory capture.
 
We used to have choices.... then Comcast and Verizon bought them all up. And apparently the government doesn't like to enforce anti trust laws anymore, so here we are. Gotta love regulatory capture.

This was the outcome of deregulation in the late 90s. I already posted this and probably sound like a broken record but this is exactly why infrastructure providers need to be regulated. AND if we regulate them they need to retain an incentive to invest in infrastructure. --> see my previous post (2 posts back) for details on how I think this should be done.
 
But.... but.... Net Neutrality was going to fix everything, lol. People are so stupid. Maybe now people will do some research and see government regulation for what it is.

Guess what, free market works. Bandwidth costs money. Do you think Comcast has a fucking free internet well in the ground that they suck data from and send it out to people? Do people ever stop to think that maybe some people need to be capped? 1TB is totally reasonable, and I would definitely expect it to grow as users' data needs grow. If the gubment stepped in and made water free for a particular city, do you really think you could just leave the tap on all day and walk away without a bill/fine?

No one fucking thinks in this country. Those screaming for the government regulations are simply not thinking of the consequences of asking them to step in. Your precious government is packed full of career politicians who have helped their corrupt friends in business stay in power by regulating who can put up towers and run new lines in the ground, yet you somehow expect them to come in an tell big, bad Comcast to give you more data than the next guy for the same price?

Here's the hard truth. If you use more than 1TB of data, you are getting more than people who are not. Maybe you enjoy your videos in higher res, or play more online games, or download/stream more music. Internet is not air.... it's not free. If you are going to use more data than 99% of the user base, you SHOULD pay more. Stop your damn whining.
 
But.... but.... Net Neutrality was going to fix everything, lol. People are so stupid. Maybe now people will do some research and see government regulation for what it is.

Guess what, free market works. Bandwidth costs money. Do you think Comcast has a fucking free internet well in the ground that they suck data from and send it out to people? Do people ever stop to think that maybe some people need to be capped? 1TB is totally reasonable, and I would definitely expect it to grow as users' data needs grow. If the gubment stepped in and made water free for a particular city, do you really think you could just leave the tap on all day and walk away without a bill/fine?

No one fucking thinks in this country. Those screaming for the government regulations are simply not thinking of the consequences of asking them to step in. Your precious government is packed full of career politicians who have helped their corrupt friends in business stay in power by regulating who can put up towers and run new lines in the ground, yet you somehow expect them to come in an tell big, bad Comcast to give you more data than the next guy for the same price?

Here's the hard truth. If you use more than 1TB of data, you are getting more than people who are not. Maybe you enjoy your videos in higher res, or play more online games, or download/stream more music. Internet is not air.... it's not free. If you are going to use more data than 99% of the user base, you SHOULD pay more. Stop your damn whining.


Man so much is wrong with this.. Not even going to bother dissecting it all....A couple things.

1- Bandwidth does not cost money like you make it seem... The internet is not a finite resource like water. Once you are at capacity, you upgrade infrastructure and increase the amount of bandwidth available. Anyone that works in networking understands this, and anyone selling networks as a product, knows data flowing is only going to increase. So no matter what, infrastructure will have to be upgraded eventually, and the costs for the upgrades should already be included into the cost of the service.

2- Free market is what got us here in the first place. A company keeps growing and buying out all the competition until they have a monopoly. Not working out real well for us now is it.... This is why we need regulation, to avoid the situation we are already in. We are the ones getting screwed while these poor ISP laugh their way to the bank with our money. Then they introduce caps to avoid infrastructure upgrades because when you are that big, your only concern is generating more revenue each year to make the share holders happy. Fuck the customer, they don't have any other choice/options anyway...

3- That's not the hard truth. They don't get to sell packages based on speed, then go whoops, we are too fucking stupid to plan our infrastructure properly so we are going to cap your data. If they want to do that, they should sell buckets of data, not speed tiers. If you sell a line capable of going 10Mb/s, I better be able to run it at 10Mb/s non stop. If not, then don't see a service packaged like that. Again, this isn't finite like wireless, where they truly do have a limit due to frequencies available for use. Just because you live by yourself and don't use 1TB, doesn't mean a family of 8 people don't. Especially with how many people are cutting the cord, which is the real actual fucking issue here....


The content providers are also the larger content creators... So it's in their best interests to do anything possible to stifle any competition with things like data caps, package deals where cable+tv is cheaper than cable, not counting their content/streaming services against the data cap.... All of this thanks to your dear 'free market' and lack of evil job killing regulations.... Maybe you need to actually go to China and see what no regulations gets you, because it's absolutely nothing like what you claim.
 
So my area is now on the 1TB plan. Thankfully my router has the ability to monitor traffic. I've set it to shut off the Internet once I hit the limit.

The whole cap thing is a scam. Comcast has a Flexible Data Option (FDO) available for their entry level Internet plans. If you do not exceed 5GB per month, they give you a $5 credit towards your bill. But if you exceed 5GB, you do not get the credit and pay $1 per GB over 5GB. However, if you choose not to opt into the FDO you get 1TB per month. If you go over you pay $10 for 50GB. So it's $1 per GB in the FDO but $10 per 50GB without the FDO and you get 995GB more data. They are seriously just pulling dollar amounts out of their asses.

Comcast is saying "People who use more, pay more, and people who use less pay less". Unfortunately for the consumer, those who use more pay WAY more and those who use less (basically not using it at all) pay only a little bit less. Sounds like a scam to me.

If Comcast TRULY meant what they said about using more paying more using less paying less, they would be better off just charging people like $5 for every 50GB of data they use. That way grandmas pays almost nothing for Internet and I still pay the about same.
 
Last edited:
Man so much is wrong with this.. Not even going to bother dissecting it all....A couple things.

1- Bandwidth does not cost money like you make it seem... The internet is not a finite resource like water. Once you are at capacity, you upgrade infrastructure and increase the amount of bandwidth available. Anyone that works in networking understands this, and anyone selling networks as a product, knows data flowing is only going to increase. So no matter what, infrastructure will have to be upgraded eventually, and the costs for the upgrades should already be included into the cost of the service.
I truly do not mean to ask, are you ignorant? I make my living in IT and communications. You might want to do a tracert from your Comcast node to a server on Facebook, if you honestly think data is free. When Comcast customers max out the leased backbone they have provisioned to them (leased, not owned), then need to renegotiate and provision more. Do you really think that shit is free? If so, I can't help you.

2- Free market is what got us here in the first place. A company keeps growing and buying out all the competition until they have a monopoly. Not working out real well for us now is it.... This is why we need regulation, to avoid the situation we are already in. We are the ones getting screwed while these poor ISP laugh their way to the bank with our money. Then they introduce caps to avoid infrastructure upgrades because when you are that big, your only concern is generating more revenue each year to make the share holders happy. Fuck the customer, they don't have any other choice/options anyway...

3- That's not the hard truth. They don't get to sell packages based on speed, then go whoops, we are too fucking stupid to plan our infrastructure properly so we are going to cap your data. If they want to do that, they should sell buckets of data, not speed tiers. If you sell a line capable of going 10Mb/s, I better be able to run it at 10Mb/s non stop. If not, then don't see a service packaged like that. Again, this isn't finite like wireless, where they truly do have a limit due to frequencies available for use. Just because you live by yourself and don't use 1TB, doesn't mean a family of 8 people don't. Especially with how many people are cutting the cord, which is the real actual fucking issue here....


The content providers are also the larger content creators... So it's in their best interests to do anything possible to stifle any competition with things like data caps, package deals where cable+tv is cheaper than cable, not counting their content/streaming services against the data cap.... All of this thanks to your dear 'free market' and lack of evil job killing regulations.... Maybe you need to actually go to China and see what no regulations gets you, because it's absolutely nothing like what you claim.[/QUOTE]
Man so much is wrong with this.. Not even going to bother dissecting it all....A couple things.

1- Bandwidth does not cost money like you make it seem... The internet is not a finite resource like water. Once you are at capacity, you upgrade infrastructure and increase the amount of bandwidth available. Anyone that works in networking understands this, and anyone selling networks as a product, knows data flowing is only going to increase. So no matter what, infrastructure will have to be upgraded eventually, and the costs for the upgrades should already be included into the cost of the service.

2- Free market is what got us here in the first place. A company keeps growing and buying out all the competition until they have a monopoly. Not working out real well for us now is it.... This is why we need regulation, to avoid the situation we are already in. We are the ones getting screwed while these poor ISP laugh their way to the bank with our money. Then they introduce caps to avoid infrastructure upgrades because when you are that big, your only concern is generating more revenue each year to make the share holders happy. Fuck the customer, they don't have any other choice/options anyway...
I'm not sure where you went to school, but I think you may have been asleep in micro and macro economics portion. Americans enjoy everything we have for one reason... freedom. It doesn't matter what you are measuring... what we have in our lives, whether tangible (internet, food, or a house), or intangible (freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc), freedom got us there. You are not entitled to anything that you have not earned or paid for yourself, not the least being, as much fucking internet bandwidth as you want to use. The only thing you are *entitled* to are the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. You don't like the price you pay for internet, don't pay it. It's a commodity, not a necessity. Let's get down to brass tacks... what you are asking for the government to do is take from someone else and give it to you at a free or discounted rate. You are asking government to FORCE a company to give you service for more than you are willing to pay for it, like you would fucking die without it. Sure, I like gaming, watching movies, or listening to music... but I am willing to pay for the bandwidth I use. What are you going to ask for next? Classic Homes to give you an unlimited size house for the same price as a 500 sq ft one? Or how about a 1000HP car for the cost of a 200HP one? I think if you follow your thinking to its logical conclusion (and/or take some economics courses), you'll find the flaw in your train of thought. You want socialism? Move to Venezula. I hear it's nice this time of year.

3- That's not the hard truth. They don't get to sell packages based on speed, then go whoops, we are too fucking stupid to plan our infrastructure properly so we are going to cap your data. If they want to do that, they should sell buckets of data, not speed tiers. If you sell a line capable of going 10Mb/s, I better be able to run it at 10Mb/s non stop. If not, then don't see a service packaged like that. Again, this isn't finite like wireless, where they truly do have a limit due to frequencies available for use. Just because you live by yourself and don't use 1TB, doesn't mean a family of 8 people don't. Especially with how many people are cutting the cord, which is the real actual fucking issue here....
Oooh, bolded oversized font... you just made me unlearn all the sound economic theory I've learned in the past in favor of your grandiose sense of entitlement. Suck it up and keep your bandwidth usage under 1TB, you freaking hog. Either that, or pay some more for what you are actually using. You want a fast car? You pay for it. You want a big house? You pay for it. You want to eat steak every night vs ramen noodles? You fucking pay for it. Stop asking the government to step and give you shit you haven't earned or paid for. Free market sets the pricing. This is not Obamacare... if you don't like it, you don't have to pay for it. Therein lies your power as a customer. Guess what? If enough people stop paying for this shit, prices will go down. It's a magical thing called "supply and demand". Learn how it works, and a whole lot more will come into focus for you. If you apply your desire to "uncap" your internet, why in the hell should it not apply to more fundamental things... things you actually need, like food, water, etc? If that's the way you think, again, go find a socialist country. I'm sure they'll welcome you with open arms and justly reward you for your hard work and enterprise.

The content providers are also the larger content creators... So it's in their best interests to do anything possible to stifle any competition with things like data caps, package deals where cable+tv is cheaper than cable, not counting their content/streaming services against the data cap.... All of this thanks to your dear 'free market' and lack of evil job killing regulations.... Maybe you need to actually go to China and see what no regulations gets you, because it's absolutely nothing like what you claim.
Comcast doesn't create content, they provide access to the medium you consume it on... just as Universal Studios does not sell internet connectivity. You are putting way too many things into this pot you call "content".
 
Man so much is wrong with this.. Not even going to bother dissecting it all....A couple things.

1- Bandwidth does not cost money like you make it seem... The internet is not a finite resource like water. Once you are at capacity, you upgrade infrastructure and increase the amount of bandwidth available. Anyone that works in networking understands this, and anyone selling networks as a product, knows data flowing is only going to increase. So no matter what, infrastructure will have to be upgraded eventually, and the costs for the upgrades should already be included into the cost of the service.

2- Free market is what got us here in the first place. A company keeps growing and buying out all the competition until they have a monopoly. Not working out real well for us now is it.... This is why we need regulation, to avoid the situation we are already in. We are the ones getting screwed while these poor ISP laugh their way to the bank with our money. Then they introduce caps to avoid infrastructure upgrades because when you are that big, your only concern is generating more revenue each year to make the share holders happy. Fuck the customer, they don't have any other choice/options anyway...

3- That's not the hard truth. They don't get to sell packages based on speed, then go whoops, we are too fucking stupid to plan our infrastructure properly so we are going to cap your data. If they want to do that, they should sell buckets of data, not speed tiers. If you sell a line capable of going 10Mb/s, I better be able to run it at 10Mb/s non stop. If not, then don't see a service packaged like that. Again, this isn't finite like wireless, where they truly do have a limit due to frequencies available for use. Just because you live by yourself and don't use 1TB, doesn't mean a family of 8 people don't. Especially with how many people are cutting the cord, which is the real actual fucking issue here....


The content providers are also the larger content creators... So it's in their best interests to do anything possible to stifle any competition with things like data caps, package deals where cable+tv is cheaper than cable, not counting their content/streaming services against the data cap.... All of this thanks to your dear 'free market' and lack of evil job killing regulations.... Maybe you need to actually go to China and see what no regulations gets you, because it's absolutely nothing like what you claim.


Ummm...

I now work for an ISP.

The infrastructure providers need to be regulated. Data connectivity providers do not.

Aka.... Road Owners should be regulated, the guy who sells you cars and provides you with taxi service shouldn't be.


Building out hundreds of miles of infrastructure costs lots of money. Money that small service providers don't have.

You need to be able to choose between 2-3 video, internet and phone providers all on the same cable lines.
You need to be able to choose between 2-3 video. internet and phone providers all on the same fiber lines
You need to be able to choose between 2-3 video, internet and phone providers all on the same cell towers/freq

If you can do these things you have choice and competition. If you can't there is no invisible hand, you've got a monopoly.

There's a damn good reason Bell Telephone was broken up into multiple companies, and Comcast needs to be broken up for the same reasons.
 
Back
Top