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

[byusinger84]

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.

Agreed. It's not the same as a utility. Power, water, gas, etc. Those are commodities that are limited. The internet is nothing more than a connection to move your data from one place to another and back again. As someone else pointed out, it's not like there are people out there slaving away in a "bits and data" mine trying to get us that precious data. I just looked at my usage on Comcast the past three months. I do not torrent or illegally download, so this makes this number even more staggering. Between online HD (some even 4K content), Steam, Origin, Xbox, PS4, downloads, I've used about 500 GB-700 GB a month. I'm probably in their "8%" group though I'm not doing anything most people won't be doing anyway at some point. Data caps are ok, to me, if it prevents REAL abuse so it doesn't affect everyone. But they have to be realistic and high. I have 10 gigs of data on my phone and I rarely break 2, so I'm not a crazy user just a real 21st century consumer of data and content. Just my two cents.

 

[kbrickley]

The practice of charging for speed and usage has always bother me.

If you are paying for a speed, it is assumed that you will get that speed 24/7. So when a cap is also placed on you .... you aren't really getting what you paid for, when it comes to speed. As the cap prevents you from using your connection, 24/7, with the speed you were sold. The cap should actually be the speed if it was in use 24/7.

There are unlimited offerings available in many locations if that is what you want ... however, some technologies don't currently allow a direct peer to peer style connection (which is the only way to guarantee a fixed speed) so there are only a limited number of providers who can guarantee a consistent data speed 24x7 (the shared connections give faster speeds when the load is low and slower speeds when the load is high ... during the day my Comcast exceeds my rated plan speed, while at night it is slower usually)

Except for Enterprise customers there are few customers who are guaranteed a consistent speed and uptime (and those customers usually pay a premium for that privilege) ... we certainly need more tiers including some unlimited ones, but it is not realistic to expect a cheap and fast and unlimited connection (something needs to give on one of those three)

 

[britjh22]

I just love all the people saying "the market will do this, the market will do that, prices will eventually bear out throught THE ALL MIGHTY MARKET". You had an Econ 101 class, we get it, REAL impressive. Comcast and the other massive ISP's have done a bang up job with influencing our politicians to create local monopolies. The market isn't going to do shit in many places because Comcast & Co have removed the "market" from the equation.

 

[kbrickley]

I just love all the people saying "the market will do this, the market will do that, prices will eventually bear out throught THE ALL MIGHTY MARKET". You had an Econ 101 class, we get it, REAL impressive. Comcast and the other massive ISP's have done a bang up job with influencing our politicians to create local monopolies. The market isn't going to do shit in many places because Comcast & Co have removed the "market" from the equation.

Although companies, like Comcast and Time Warner, might have local monopolies we have no companies with a national monopoly ... as such they are still bound by some level of market forces ... in many locations there are 2-3 competing services ... we have lots of companies with monopolies that don't have caps (that is still a market choice) and even Comcast has only dabbled with them over the last 5 years ... the wireless market a decade ago had minute based plans and tiered calling rates (night and weekends, etc), while today they have none of that except for bargain basement plans ... times change and companies change with them or they become Blackberry, Radio Shack, and Kodak

 

[Grimlaking]

I said this when they were talking data caps. We have all of the tools to charge for bandwidth use the same way we charge for power use. We can track it do the home router by bit use if we so choose. there is no reason not to charge for that data use from a financial standpoint. The only case is for those people who want to pay for a higher cap to avoid going over. Trust me after the cell phone debacle with the grandfathered unlimited data plans that abound... nobody is going to do that again.

We are 5-10 years from everyone charging an access/speed fee then charging you per KB. Our real hope is a company that monetizes content over delivery like Google. If they can continue to roll out gigabit or your community can offer unlimited gigiabit plus connections you will be set. Otherwise.. be prepared to pay per gigabyte.

And with the new IEEE standards that's 1000mb not 1024.

 

[Lith1um]

Brian L Roberts, Comcast CEO

Annual Cash Compensation: $18,760,000.00

CEO to Median Employee Pay Ratio: 370:1

Annual Company Profit: $4,160.00 Million Dollars

Pardon me if my compassion is lacking for the elitist prick and his greedy ass company.

 

[Grimlaking]

Every municipality in comcast's service area should be actively moving to establish their own service provider. I have a guy in my training class today that has one such in his community and he is getting 500MBPS + speeds. So over 1300megabit! that is awesome.

 

[WangChung]

Every municipality in comcast's service area should be actively moving to establish their own service provider. I have a guy in my training class today that has one such in his community and he is getting 500MBPS + speeds. So over 1300megabit! that is awesome.

The problem is, Comcast has bribed, excuse me, "donated" to enough State election campaigns that States have made municipal or other types of competing ISPs illegal. Basically, they made regional monopolies legal in their State. A lot of places would love to have alternative ISPs, but the local governing bodies will basically sue you on Comcast's or TWC's behalf to stop you. On top of that, Comcast and TWC will sue you themselves with BS frivolous "patent infringement" or "permit violation" suits just to make you burn cash until you go broke.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

 

[kbrickley]

The problem is, Comcast has bribed, excuse me, "donated" to enough State election campaigns that States have made municipal or other types of competing ISPs illegal. Basically, they made regional monopolies legal in their State. A lot of places would love to have alternative ISPs, but the local governing bodies will basically sue you on Comcast's or TWC's behalf to stop you. On top of that, Comcast and TWC will sue you themselves with BS frivolous "patent infringement" or "permit violation" suits just to make you burn cash until you go broke.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

On the other side of this equation we have very few utilities that are city owned any more ... even water (which is more of a necessity than the internet) is being privatized in many cities due to the costs ... with a drive towards smaller government there are many citizens (not just the state guys) that oppose city government owned enterprises ... that said, if there is a significant mandate in a location (70% want it) and they make a reasonable accommodation for the folks opposed I feel that local utilities should be the choice of the municipality (as long as they are totally self sufficient)

 

[xorbe]

It's just not the same service model as electricity. Bandwidth is not created and delivered.

 

[FalconSS]

yeah, I pay my electric transmission company a set fee every month. It doesnt change based on how much electricity I use. I pay the power generation company for that. So the analogy doesnt really hold up.

If I used your analogy, I would only be paying you 20 cents or so a month for data transfer, since im paying $8/month for netflix "content generation". (based on my last electric bill)

 

[Krab]

Being in one of these 'trial' areas and having no other option. I detest Comcast and would enjoy punching their CEO in the face. It's legal and open corruption that this shitbag personally profits from.

 

[kbrickley]

It's just not the same service model as electricity. Bandwidth is not created and delivered.

It is essentially the land line phone model and those were always usage based as well ... perhaps if we charged for internet usage similar to what we did for phones originally ... maximum price at peak usage times (nights and weekends) and reduced rates at lower usage times (weekdays) ... the flat fee internet model works for a company like Google because they have an alternate revenue stream they are enabling with internet access

 

[xorbe]

It is essentially the land line phone model and those were always usage based as well ... perhaps if we charged for internet usage similar to what we did for phones originally ... maximum price at peak usage times (nights and weekends) and reduced rates at lower usage times (weekdays) ... the flat fee internet model works for a company like Google because they have an alternate revenue stream they are enabling with internet access

Only if landlines had been offered in low, medium, high, ultra, and extreme quality, where top level was $100/mo whether you made a call or not.

 

[Stiler]

The problem is, Comcast has bribed, excuse me, "donated" to enough State election campaigns that States have made municipal or other types of competing ISPs illegal. Basically, they made regional monopolies legal in their State. A lot of places would love to have alternative ISPs, but the local governing bodies will basically sue you on Comcast's or TWC's behalf to stop you. On top of that, Comcast and TWC will sue you themselves with BS frivolous "patent infringement" or "permit violation" suits just to make you burn cash until you go broke.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

That has already been challenged (and won) in some areas.

Like Chattanooga's EPB, they went to court and won and are allowed to service their area with their own local grid, 1gb internet for like 89 a month or something, with NO CAP.

Which baffles me as to why comcast implemented their cap in tihe Chattanooga area, as it will drive people to EPB internet.

 

[Kalabalana]

Comcast is disgusting.
If they charged based on usage they would lose income (unless they really upped their price gouging).
Pretending the opposite is propaganda, dirty tactics, scummy.

Stay away from Comcast if possible.

 

[ElBerryKM13]

Can't wait until they get more competition and have to give their users more for less money. This is what happens when you are monopoly on most markets.

 

[/usr/sbin]

But they're charging you monthly as well, charge either by usage or by time, this is getting ridiculous they want you to pay for everything twice.

E.G. $0.10/GB OR $50/month NOT BOTH.

http://lowendbox.com/blog/flipperhost-28year-256mb-openvz-vps-and-more-in-la-texas-and-atlanta/

I can transfer 3 Terabytes for $2.33 per month, yet Comcast wants $10 per 50 GB? I'd call them price gougers, but I wouldn't want to insult those that take advantage of people during natural disasters by grouping them up with Comcast.

 

[J So]

Right now Comcast is the only possible option for me. The other is ADSL and that wouldn't cut it. I work from home giving WebEx presentations all day long, my phone line for work is voip and then there's just the usage from my family streaming videos to both of our TVs and tablets. I use 500-600 Gigs a month. I'm going to have to shell out the extra $35.00 a month for unlimited.

 

[invi[tus]

I work for an ISP and I must say the stupidity and or ignorance in this thread is beyond even what I can imagine. Bandwidth costs are much more than just equipment costs. And I'm not talking about the issue of refusing to upgrade DSL areas by the older big dinosaur cable/phone companies. Everybody wants gigabit connections at dial-up prices. I'd explain it further but there are already too many ISP experts in this thread.

Sounds like you have never worked for a Tier 1 provider, if you had, then you would
understand peering contracts, and how they greatly reduce bandwidth costs in general
for all major providers, since over 90% of data traverses for free, and only costs when
the data is forced to cross a network with which the company has no peering agreement.

This brings the average cost down to around 1 cent per gigabyte by total volume.

(note: that number excludes hardware / line maintenance )

Bandwidth costs really only become a factor in secondary or tertiary providers.
To my knowledge comcast is not among either of those lists.