Comcast CEO: “The More You Use, The More You Pay”

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Dear freeloading Comcast customers, the more internet you use, the more you have to pay. Duh.

"If you turn on the air conditioning at 60 versus 72, you consume more electricity," he said. "The same is true for [data] usage, so I think the same for a wireless device — the more bits you use, the more you pay."

The problem with the electricity analogy above is that your electricity bill is entirely based on usage. You only pay for what you use. Broadband and cable providers charge you a monthly fee even if you don't use the service all month. On top of that, now they want to double dip you for exceeding your ridiculously small data cap.
 

scojer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
7,711
A lot of stupid people will cock their heads and say: "That makes sense."
 

Shmee

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 12, 2014
Messages
1,148
Well, you do pay for the electrical hookup every month even if you aren't using any electricity. It is very minimal though.
 

spaceman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
14,856
So this is why I will not live in a comcast area. Ever. My goodness.

Hail Cox!!!

Wait a sec. That sounds wrong?
 

Fanattic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
199
A lot of stupid people will cock their heads and say: "That makes sense."

Yep and they won't realize it only makes sense if the provider isn't charging you also for a bandwidth tiers. You can do 1 or the other but both is ridiculous.
 

Darunion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,146
I see what they are getting at but it is a bit more than that.

The problem is they don't have the bandwidth available to have every user using it at its potential. They know this and the only way to avoid this situation as much as possible is to curb data usage so people will use less. This is a result of them selling usage based on an average artificially created by limits or fees for 'excessive' usage. The electric infrastructure is similarly in the same situation, but it is a lot less likely to have high usage other than super hot days or super bowl games etc etc where commonly it is a high electricity day. Electric companies deal with it a bit better IMO.

The problem is that the feeling is that they charge too much for what is used, maybe they do maybe they don't. I would need to see more real numbers of wear and tear of equipment in relation to load placed on them. Also the costs of expanding to accommodate.

I just feel it isn't a simple thing we as a customer are in a position to decide how they should best run their businesses. Ultimately they are charging what the market will allow, and as long as you keep paying your bill, you provide that data to them that shows it is allowable prices.
 

Fanattic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
199
So this is why I will not live in a comcast area. Ever. My goodness.

Hail Cox!!!

Wait a sec. That sounds wrong?

The reality is if Comcast is allowed to get away with it TWC, Cox, and whoever else will likely follow suit. Since there is no real competition in the cable internet market there is no reason not to join in the profits. They won't lose customers because we have no choice but to pay.
 

Supermr2

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
132
I see what they are getting at but it is a bit more than that.

The problem is they don't have the bandwidth available to have every user using it at its potential. They know this and the only way to avoid this situation as much as possible is to curb data usage so people will use less. This is a result of them selling usage based on an average artificially created by limits or fees for 'excessive' usage. The electric infrastructure is similarly in the same situation, but it is a lot less likely to have high usage other than super hot days or super bowl games etc etc where commonly it is a high electricity day. Electric companies deal with it a bit better IMO.

The problem is that the feeling is that they charge too much for what is used, maybe they do maybe they don't. I would need to see more real numbers of wear and tear of equipment in relation to load placed on them. Also the costs of expanding to accommodate.

I just feel it isn't a simple thing we as a customer are in a position to decide how they should best run their businesses. Ultimately they are charging what the market will allow, and as long as you keep paying your bill, you provide that data to them that shows it is allowable prices.

Which is all fine and dandy except that they continually try mergers to stop any and all competition. When they can't merge they try data limits to stifle rivals (I'm looking at data caps in relation to Netflix). I can't wait for the day wireless phone has the capacity of large data and we can tell the cable providers to suck it.
 

Fanattic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
199
I see what they are getting at but it is a bit more than that.

The problem is they don't have the bandwidth available to have every user using it at its potential. They know this and the only way to avoid this situation as much as possible is to curb data usage so people will use less. This is a result of them selling usage based on an average artificially created by limits or fees for 'excessive' usage. The electric infrastructure is similarly in the same situation, but it is a lot less likely to have high usage other than super hot days or super bowl games etc etc where commonly it is a high electricity day. Electric companies deal with it a bit better IMO.

The problem is that the feeling is that they charge too much for what is used, maybe they do maybe they don't. I would need to see more real numbers of wear and tear of equipment in relation to load placed on them. Also the costs of expanding to accommodate.

I just feel it isn't a simple thing we as a customer are in a position to decide how they should best run their businesses. Ultimately they are charging what the market will allow, and as long as you keep paying your bill, you provide that data to them that shows it is allowable prices.

There have been multiple leaks outlining how this is a business decision and not a technical one. Meaning they aren't over burdened at all. They can charge what they want because we have no options. If your power company tripled your rates would you stop paying? The internet is a necessity in the modern world. Many jobs require you have an internet connection at home for a remote connection in. It's being treated like a driver's license. No license, no job, no ability to remote in from home, no job. Cancelling service ie "Voting with your wallet" simply is not an option.
 

Darunion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,146
There have been multiple leaks outlining how this is a business decision and not a technical one. Meaning they aren't over burdened at all. They can charge what they want because we have no options. If your power company tripled your rates would you stop paying? The internet is a necessity in the modern world. Many jobs require you have an internet connection at home for a remote connection in. It's being treated like a driver's license. No license, no job, no ability to remote in from home, no job. Cancelling service ie "Voting with your wallet" simply is not an option.

I see your point, but there is plenty of options. You don't need several TB of monthly usage for work, if you do then you need work to pay for it (similarly to using your car for massive travel). The big data users are torrents and video streaming, neither of which screams 'necessity' to me.
 

Etherton

Will Bang for Poof
Joined
Aug 7, 2006
Messages
6,997
F you Comcast! Enjoy your current monopoly. Someday, distant or near, you'll look back on the good ole' days.
 

Seventyfive

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
1,347
Thank God I don't live in a Comcast area and on top of that my city is getting Google Fiber soon.

And I'll just post this pre-emptively before this inevitably turns into a political conversation about nationalizing the internet and how we can trust the government more than we can trust comcast:

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts has donated $76,000 to Democrats since 2006, compared to $13,500 in contributions to Republicans. He’s golfed with Obama on Martha’s Vineyard, served on the president’s Jobs Council, and appeared at a number of White House meetings on business and technology.

But his fundraising efforts were dwarfed by head Comcast lobbyist David Cohen, a Democratic bundler who raised $1.44 million for the president’s reelection campaign in 2011 and 2012, and $2.22 million since 2007, according to internal documents obtained by the New York Times.

In 2011, Cohen hosted a DNC fundraiser attended by Obama at his home in Philadelphia. During the event, the president thanked him and his wife for “just being such great friends for so many years.”

Throughout the 2012 cycle, Comcast employees donated more than $465,000 to the Democratic National Committee, more than $300,000 to the president’s reelection campaign, and $178,050 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, according to Center for Responsive Politics data.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,810
A lot of stupid people will cock their heads and say: "That makes sense."

vhzln.jpg


It's simple people. If this.

1561_straight_ethernet.jpg


Gets used more, it doesn't cost Comcast more. Comcast doesn't generate the internet like how power companies generate power. It takes real resources and money to make power. It takes more wires to make a faster connection. When the connection is saturated you get more of these.

ethernet-cables-plugged-into-an-internet-switch.jpg


By making it look like a limited resource, Comcast can charge you money for it. It's networking 101.
 

kbrickley

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
7,514
Probably a better analogy would be phones ... phones used to charge more to call during the day (even though the same lines were used at peak calling times and discount times) ... phones used to limit minutes on mobile lines (now they are unlimited ... although data is now limited) ... I view this as a temporary measure while the market transitions to new media consumption techniques and high speed/high consumption data ... I see nothing wrong with a tiered approach that allows higher consumption/speed for a higher price (and I think that is where the market will ultimately settle)
 

Ehren8879

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
4,402
I think paying for data usage makes sense if:

1. You pay a low flat fee for general connectivity (electric service has this)
2. Everyone has the same level of service. Gigabit or better.

Still internet will, by and large, remain a shared utility (TDM) so brown outs are always possible during times of peak demand.

Then internet service truly becomes a utility.
 

Kor

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,175
Yeah damnit, it costs money to dig up fresh bits out of the data mines. There's only enough 1's and 0's to go around and they should be treated like the preciously commodities that they are or we'll run out.
 

Ehren8879

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
4,402
vhzln.jpg


It's simple people. If this.


Gets used more, it doesn't cost Comcast more. Comcast doesn't generate the internet like how power companies generate power. It takes real resources and money to make power. It takes more wires to make a faster connection. When the connection is saturated you get more of these.


By making it look like a limited resource, Comcast can charge you money for it. It's networking 101.


No, there's real cost in infrastructure, licensing and support for that equipment. That's like saying if the world is 100% powered by solar then power should be free because it doesn't cost anything to generate the power.

Regardless of the cost of the fuel, it costs more to deliver more in both energy and internet.
 

Fanattic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
199
I see your point, but there is plenty of options. You don't need several TB of monthly usage for work, if you do then you need work to pay for it (similarly to using your car for massive travel). The big data users are torrents and video streaming, neither of which screams 'necessity' to me.

Corporations own the world at this point you can ask them to pay for your internet but a shocking number won't even provide healthcare any more. There is no way they'd pay for internet or cell service. I can eat through that 300gb cap with roughly 24 hours of streaming content. That's absolutely ridiculous. The other option is paying them $35 for "no cap". There is not a single person that thinks that fee is anything other than Comcast trying to recoup money from people canceling their television service. So instead of improving their TV service/business model they've decided they'll just squeeze their internet customers instead.
 

StoleMyOwnCar

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
2,238
Usage-based caps make no sense at all. They don't own any of the data traveling through their pipes. It's a replicable, unlimited resource that is owned solely by the content creator. You pay them to set up pipes that allow it to travel to you.

This is just a BS monetization platform.
 

toast0

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,350
Usage based billing is fine, if they would do it the way commercial metered connections are billed.

a) a reasonable connection fee / fee for the max burstable bandwidth
b) pay for 95th percentile usage

In some countries, you also pay different rates depending on the network destination (trans-oceanic data costs more), but I don't think that's really a factor for the US, most traffic is going locally.

So if you use less, you pay less, and if you use more you pay more, etc. Also, can I get some more upstream please?
 

Darunion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,146
Usage based billing is fine, if they would do it the way commercial metered connections are billed.

a) a reasonable connection fee / fee for the max burstable bandwidth
b) pay for 95th percentile usage

In some countries, you also pay different rates depending on the network destination (trans-oceanic data costs more), but I don't think that's really a factor for the US, most traffic is going locally.

So if you use less, you pay less, and if you use more you pay more, etc. Also, can I get some more upstream please?

This is my biggest problem. Why is my upload sooooooo damn small? Really makes hosting games tons of fun. smh
 

CaptNumbNutz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
22,658
No, there's real cost in infrastructure, licensing and support for that equipment. That's like saying if the world is 100% powered by solar then power should be free because it doesn't cost anything to generate the power.

Regardless of the cost of the fuel, it costs more to deliver more in both energy and internet.

I get it. You use more you should pay more.

The problem is this...there are some people that use so little they should be paying substantially less, and they don't get a chance to. The ISP's sold us for years that x amount paid got you unlimited access which implies the data itself is so insanely cheap even factoring in all their infrastructure costs. If this weren't the case, Comcast wouldn't have become one of the most massive companies in the US in such short time and be able to pull off multi-billion dollar buyouts/mergers. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that there are so few competitors racing to the bottom of the price tier.

Basically, everything is still insanely overpriced. The current price should be their unlimited tier and if they are going to charge by the gigabyte they need cheaper tiers. They shouldn't be taking the once unlimited tier, capping it, then building the price upward from there. Meter if you want Comcast, but your product is not worth as much as you think.
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
Then switch to a small connection fee and a reasonable (cost + a small profit) fee per 100GB of data.

The problem with this is that most people would be paying a lot less. We don't do much streaming or downloading games, so it's rare we use more than 150GB/month. Even though I remote into work quite often, I have a terminal server setup and that doesn't generate much traffic.

I'm sure I could drop this number by being more aggressive in blocking ads and imbedded videos.
 

Stiler

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
10,538
I already pay more for faster speed, on top of that if you use less electricity you pay less.

Whereas with the internet if you use less you don't pay any less (unless you count their "use lelss then 5 gb and get 5 dollars off." Which is absurd and about NO ONE will use that few gb that actualyl makes use of netflix/youtube/gaming.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,810
No, there's real cost in infrastructure, licensing and support for that equipment. That's like saying if the world is 100% powered by solar then power should be free because it doesn't cost anything to generate the power.
Maintaining Infrastructure is cheap. Expanding infrastructure is expensive. The problem Cable ISPs have is that, why expand it? It's like shooting yourself in the foot for no reason. Better infrastructure means more bandwidth means no reason to charge for internet, means getting paid less. But this problem exists because Cable companies have no competition, cause if they did the only way to keep their business was to expand their infrastructure.

As a person who lives in an area with FIOS and Cable choices, I don't deal with data caps or a "pay as you use setup".
Regardless of the cost of the fuel, it costs more to deliver more in both energy and internet.
Yet China and Korea have no data caps and 100x faster internet speeds while in the states we're debating if data should be unlimited. Yet ISPs like Comcast were given grants that they pocketed but were suppose to expand their infrastructure.
 

kbrickley

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
7,514
Usage-based caps make no sense at all. They don't own any of the data traveling through their pipes. It's a replicable, unlimited resource that is owned solely by the content creator. You pay them to set up pipes that allow it to travel to you.

This is just a BS monetization platform.

Depends on how you look at it ... although the data you receive is an unlimited supply, the pipes it travels through are not infinite ... right now the companies get around it through a combination of unguaranteed speed and data caps ... if they had to guarantee maximum speed for all users at 100% consumption the infrastructure cost would be enormous (since I work for a company that provides infrastructure components I would love it ... big bonus ... since I am a consumer I would hate it ... as infrastructure costs are included in my bill) ... we ultimately need to find a balance of reasonable speeds and reasonable data tiers at reasonable costs (I think the market will eventually end up there but it isn't reasonable to assume the market can start there everywhere)
 

Lunas

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 22, 2001
Messages
9,965
Probably a better analogy would be phones ... phones used to charge more to call during the day (even though the same lines were used at peak calling times and discount times) ... phones used to limit minutes on mobile lines (now they are unlimited ... although data is now limited) ... I view this as a temporary measure while the market transitions to new media consumption techniques and high speed/high consumption data ... I see nothing wrong with a tiered approach that allows higher consumption/speed for a higher price (and I think that is where the market will ultimately settle)

Except internet used to be unlimited and now it is not due to profit mongers like Comcast. Who are loosing cable subs by the droves all that ad money and TV subsidy draining down. They are looking for ways to pad the bottom line to make up for the losses...

The question is what happens when say Google fiber rolls out unlimited to all and Comcast has all the subscribers drop them.
 

Fanattic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
199
Except internet used to be unlimited and now it is not due to profit mongers like Comcast. Who are loosing cable subs by the droves all that ad money and TV subsidy draining down. They are looking for ways to pad the bottom line to make up for the losses...

The question is what happens when say Google fiber rolls out unlimited to all and Comcast has all the subscribers drop them.

That's decades away from happening. Comcast is preparing for this eventual drought by price gouging us now.
 

collegeboy69us

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
5,256
I have no problem with paying for what I use... I have a problem with them adding 1000% profit on top of it and not giving me a choice of who I do business with.

They actually think people don't pay attention to other parts of the world, europe and asia that have super cheap plans, unlimited everything, and no bullshit. They are only getting away with it so far because there are no other options.

I pay 45/month for Time Warner and I get 120Mbit down, zero caps.... I'm a happy customer. Fuck anyone who tries to charge me more for less.
 

Gweenz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
1,216
Yet ISPs like Comcast were given grants that they pocketed but were suppose to expand their infrastructure.

Understatement of the century right there. They were given hundreds of billions in grants and tax breaks to build infrastructure but never did it. Now they are dragging their heels on infrastructure because as others have pointed out, why would they upgrade? No competition, so why not just enjoy massive profits on old infrastructure, and when it eventually crumbles, pass that onto the consumer. Crank up the propaganda teams to confuse the consumer on issues like net neutrality and the "need" for data caps. When did it become ok to declare war on your customers?
 

bman212121

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
1,815
And if your default thermostat cost is based upon 72 degrees, if I set my thermostat at 76 degrees I use less electricity so it costs me less!

If you want to charge $10 per 50GB you go over 300GB, where is my $10 credit for every 50GB I save under 300GB?

Like everyone said if there is usage billing the connection fee should be separate from any data costs. At the very least if you're allotted data or minutes a lot of companies gave you roll over data / minutes. Use only 250GB one month, you should be able to use 350GB the next month without getting hit with a fee. You're paying for that data whether you're able to use it or not, if it were a power bill you'd have a credit for your next bill since you overpaid.
 

Gweenz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
1,216
If you want to charge $10 per 50GB you go over 300GB, where is my $10 credit for every 50GB I save under 300GB?

The implication of use-based pricing means that people who use more pay more, people who use less pay less. We all know that is bullshit. If you were paying $50 before, but don't use a lot of data, you'll still be paying $50. If you are a heavy user, you will be paying more than the $50 you were paying for before. So the end result is that Comcast doesn't spend a dime on infrastructure, serves out the same amount of bandwidth as before, and makes more money. That's capitalism, baby!
 

Tweak42

Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
609
I really really want the follow up to that quote to be "use less, pay less". Alas that's never gonna happen if the cable monopolies have their way.

Actually with the correct network tech it should fair to charge MORE for prime time use, and LESS for off hours. I wasn't that long ago that wireless carriers had free nights and weekends minutes so why not same for bandwidth?
 

Amaroth

Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
673
This is what happens when a service provider is also a content provider. Lets not forget their streaming service doesn't count towards the data cap. Lets not forget internal documents and employee statements undermine their claims. They sell a 200mbs tier but cap you at 300gb. They do this to prevent cord cutting. Plain and simple. Look at the zip codes they are targeting for trials. Look at what % Netflix makes up for all Internet traffic. The last couple of years I have been over the 300gb cap every single month with multiple people in the house streaming, or downloading games, etc... Comcast sees $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ with 4k video streaming coming.

If I hear another person tell me to switch to a different provider I very may well commit myself to prevent me from doing harm to others. With a little research you can look at city and county laws. Look at teleco/cable/utility rights and access. It is a monopoly created by your own governments. I have to choices, Windstream which was grandfathered in and can't offer competing speeds or Comcast.
 

percydaman

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 26, 2011
Messages
294
This is what happens when companies need to show profit growth. Through a long time and alot of baby steps, you get to a place where you can't even recognize where you started. That's how people lose sight and become out of touch.
 
Top