Comcast Dramatically Expanding Internet Usage Caps

I just don't get how they can have the same cap off number since 2006 or 2007. Files get larger and more people stream so keeping that same 250 to 300 gigabytes seems insane.
 
On Cox's Ultimate package here, and I can live with my cap: 2TB. I figure if I ever hit that cap, I'm doing something wrong. This is caps done right, as even though I am capped, I don't see very many many hitting it.
 
dceremuga said:
Funny that Charter just dumped data caps... But I think they put a big emergency brake on speeds. I never use to get buffering when watching ESPN. Now I can't watch it in the evenings.
Click to expand...
I have no speed issues with Charter. I usually get about 130 down and 4 up, even at peek times. I pay for 100 down and 4 up.

I feel for people who have shitty ISPs with data caps.
 
[21CW]killerofall;1041953674 said:
I have no speed issues with Charter. I usually get about 130 down and 4 up, even at peek times. I pay for 100 down and 4 up.

I feel for people who have shitty ISPs with data caps.
Click to expand...

I feel even more for people that put themselves into the position of having data caps and shitty service.
 
SparkedFire said:
I moved to Comcast Business about a year ago. I knew this was coming. I pay more, but the customer service is night and day plus I have a dedicated IP.
Click to expand...

I thought about it, was about to sign the contract. Didn't want a contract and hated the idea of giving that company more of my money.
 
"Note: Enforcement of the 250GB data consumption threshold is currently suspended."

Still good here!
 
Silentbob343 said:
I thought about it, was about to sign the contract. Didn't want a contract and hated the idea of giving that company more of my money.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I went safe with a 1 year contract. You can modify your plan any time in the contact and it doesn't extend. The customer service is amazing, or at least here in Central Florida.
 
Comcast wants to bring cable cuter's away from Cable TV and into Cable Internet apparently.

Like anything else, the more you try to drive up costs, the more competition will stick their ugly head up and say "That's a good opportunity!"

We cut the cable cord ~3 years ago... and Comcast has a monopoly on the area as far as Cable goes.
 
bboynitrous said:
I just don't get how they can have the same cap off number since 2006 or 2007. Files get larger and more people stream so keeping that same 250 to 300 gigabytes seems insane.
Click to expand...

Cell phone companies are setting a great example for them. Wireless caps almost never rise over time, and the elimination of unlimited data plans was a smashing success. Now most people feel special because their phone company allows them to have ~10 gigs/month or some similar minuscule amount. Obviously wireless and wired internet are not the same, but nonetheless, the execs at Comcast probably feel like idiots for not jumping on that bandwagon sooner.
 
Cyraxx said:
Comcast wants to bring cable cuter's away from Cable TV and into Cable Internet apparently.

Like anything else, the more you try to drive up costs, the more competition will stick their ugly head up and say "That's a good opportunity!"

We cut the cable cord ~3 years ago... and Comcast has a monopoly on the area as far as Cable goes.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that doesn't work if you live in many (most?) apartments. I know whenever I've been in an apartment, my choices were generally 1 or 2 carriers and the 2nd carrier was always DSL. If you're in a house, you may have a choice between 2 carriers
 
GotNoRice said:
Cell phone companies are setting a great example for them. Wireless caps almost never rise over time, and the elimination of unlimited data plans was a smashing success. Now most people feel special because their phone company allows them to have ~10 gigs/month or some similar minuscule amount. Obviously wireless and wired internet are not the same, but nonetheless, the execs at Comcast probably feel like idiots for not jumping on that bandwagon sooner.
Click to expand...

Most people don't use 2GB/month. Most unlimited plans were implemented when nobody was using 2GB/month. When Android and iPhone came around, data usage skyrocketed.
Back then, you could get a cellular modem and usage was expensive (far more than these data buckets you're referring to). I have unlimited, but I rarely go over 2.5 GB...of course I also use wifi whenever possible, because it's generally faster.

Wireless and cable are not comparable. There is a limitation on bandwidth on cell towers. The limitations on cable are not similar. Even then, if they upped the data to 500 GB, it wouldn't be bad. 300 isn't enough...esp not if you download software updates, watch netflix and so on.
 
it's ok, people are starting to enjoy sodomy on this side of the atlantic.
 
Good thing we solved net neutrality with monopoly entrenching regulation instead of with competition. Whew dodged a bullet there.
 
I can't imagine having to be careful how much internet I use, it's just absurd. I guess I take my uncapped 50/30 fibre connection for granted.
 
SparkedFire said:
I moved to Comcast Business about a year ago. I knew this was coming. I pay more, but the customer service is night and day plus I have a dedicated IP.
Click to expand...

This is what comcast wants you to do to have a "normal" internet connection.

The big downside with Comcast Biz outside of pricing is they STILL haven't started handing out static IPV6 blocks.

I think my 50/10 (benches at 60/12) service with a routed /29 is about $150/mo. I also have a "test" cablemodem as I'm in their ipv6 trial which (although they never told me the speed) benches at 120/20 or so. I have a single dynamic ip (ipv4) or a /56 (ipv6).

Any site that has ipv6 connectivity naturally gets routed over the faster connection.
 
This is bullshit, I might be able to handle 750GB limit but going over 300gb some months is easy. I hate comcast, its 110/20, but cap sucks.
 
bman212121 said:
The funny part about this is that people basically predicted this 7 years ago already. Back when they were randomly disconnecting people because they were using too much data, then finally decided to put a number behind it. That number was 250GB. The top tier of the time was 8mbit downloads. Fast forward to today and the top tier is 150 - 250 mbps depending upon the area. So in all that time they were gracious to raise the cap by 50GB (20%) even though the speed increase is around 20 - 30x. I'd say everyone was spot on back then saying they will just throw out a number and never increase it, so that eventually they can start charging for more.
Click to expand...

My cap is 250 and I use it up fast with netflix and Prime.
 
lower netflix quality to SD and it goes a long way.
SD looks okay, even in my 50inch TV.
Gotta check if I can adjust Hulu.
 
Uvaman said:
lower netflix quality to SD and it goes a long way.
SD looks okay, even in my 50inch TV.
Gotta check if I can adjust Hulu.
Click to expand...

Do you really find the cap reasonable? It's pathetic that monopolies such as comcast are able to get away with this bullshit. For the last 6 years I was happy using 100mb connection and now suddenly they want to cap me? I hit that cap in 10 days. The only reason they're doing this is because they're profits have been lowering due to loss of cable subscribers and its pissing them off. So they tried to extort Netflix but the US blocked it so now they're extorting their customers. It's fucking bullshit.
 
I love Kansas City. Not only did Google dramastically increase internet speeds, but they created competition. I have uVerse Gigapower with 1gig up and down, and U200 TV for 120 plus tax. No caps.
 
Uvaman said:
lower netflix quality to SD and it goes a long way.
SD looks okay, even in my 50inch TV.
Gotta check if I can adjust Hulu.
Click to expand...

It does not look ok on SD, you are just blind or have a shit tv. Furthermore I shouldn't have to lower the quality of my streaming video. This is a hard wife connection, not cellular. Just because you are ok getting screwed over, doesn't mean everyone else should be.
 
Lowering the quality is a bad solution. People should complain to the FCC and bring up Net Neutrality. This is nothing more than a money grab because of a monopoly.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
It does not look ok on SD, you are just blind or have a shit tv. Furthermore I shouldn't have to lower the quality of my streaming video. This is a hard wife connection, not cellular. Just because you are ok getting screwed over, doesn't mean everyone else should be.
Click to expand...

I feel like you react the same way I do when HD video lowers the quality to adapt to available bandwidth. My first reaction is "who the f*** is downloading while I am watching a movie?!" lol

I agree this is for sure not the answer, lets just say everyone is okay with going to SD, once 95% of their customer base is under another bar as far as bandwidth goes, they can shrink the cap even more. The best response to this is if possible move to a new provider or call and complain, enough of these calls at least is something. Silence is consent on the business world.
 
Darunion said:
I feel like you react the same way I do when HD video lowers the quality to adapt to available bandwidth. My first reaction is "who the f*** is downloading while I am watching a movie?!" lol

I agree this is for sure not the answer, lets just say everyone is okay with going to SD, once 95% of their customer base is under another bar as far as bandwidth goes, they can shrink the cap even more. The best response to this is if possible move to a new provider or call and complain, enough of these calls at least is something. Silence is consent on the business world.
Click to expand...
I do indeed! Fortunately I was able to resolve it here by just getting the highest speed package. Now it wasn't too noticeable on the 30" tv's, but the 52" it was absolutely noticeable.
 
nilepez said:
Most people don't use 2GB/month. Most unlimited plans were implemented when nobody was using 2GB/month. When Android and iPhone came around, data usage skyrocketed.
Click to expand...

Just the same, essentially all wired ISPs were "unlimited" also back before bittorrent, streaming, massive windows updates, and auto-play video ads on every website. Back then I doubt most used more than 2GB/month on wired either.

nilepez said:
Wireless and cable are not comparable. There is a limitation on bandwidth on cell towers. The limitations on cable are not similar.
Click to expand...
GotNoRice said:
Obviously wireless and wired internet are not the same
Click to expand...

Yes, as I mentioned in my first reply, they are not the same. My point was that wireless ISPs have conditioned people to believe that 10-20GB/month is a lot of data, and to be content if that limit never rises over time. Again, no one is saying wired and wireless are the same, but for someone who has been conditioned into believing ~10GB/month is a lot of data, Comcast probably sounds very generous offering ~300GB, and anyone asking for more probably looks greedy in their eyes. Given how ignorant most people are when it comes to data usage, I fully expect to see commercials from wired ISPs soon actually bragging about their caps, "You get 250 entire GIGABYTES!!! Sign up now and we will extend that to 300 GIGABYTES! OMG what will you do with all that DATA?!?"

nilepez said:
Even then, if they upped the data to 500 GB, it wouldn't be bad. 300 isn't enough...esp not if you download software updates, watch netflix and so on.
Click to expand...

Eh, speak for yourself. I got kicked off Comcast Residential back in 2008 for using ~800GB/month. My usage has probably quadrupled since then, at least.
 
Can't wait until Chattanooga's fiber expands out.

So tired of having 0 competition in my area, literally choices are crappy slow DSL or cable, that's it.

In this day and age there is no reason for data caps.

They one and only reason for them is simple, greed and money.
 
jpm100 said:
Good thing we solved net neutrality with monopoly entrenching regulation instead of with competition. Whew dodged a bullet there.
Click to expand...

I'm sure giving the monopolies more leeway would've solved it.

It's not like we have Europe's market where net neutrality is not needed cause you can just pick from a hundred providers in your town. :rolleyes:
 
They state 300GB is good for 117 HD movies....What I want to know is what sort of super compressed ugly ass HD are they looking at? As far as I am concerned, that's only about 10-15 movies worth of data, assuming you do nothing else.
 
Wierdo said:
I'm sure giving the monopolies more leeway would've solved it.
Click to expand...

Actually he is right, ISPs were already redulated under Title I, they are now Title II, you know, the same very helpful regulation that not only allowed the Ma Bell monopoly, but actively enforced it. The only thing it will bring about is more regulatory capture, nothing more.
 
I pay for the unlimited and intentionally run my line full bore when not in use (at work, sleeping, etc.). I have a foreign vps with a 20 tb month data allotment. I rarely hit 5 tb on it. I'd estimate that it cost them a penny per GB xfered. I could hit 3 tb easily. If they made me pay for unlimited to get around a bullshit cap I'd try to make them lose money on the deal.
 
canna said:
I pay for the unlimited and intentionally run my line full bore when not in use (at work, sleeping, etc.). I have a foreign vps with a 20 tb month data allotment. I rarely hit 5 tb on it. I'd estimate that it cost them a penny per GB xfered. I could hit 3 tb easily. If they made me pay for unlimited to get around a bullshit cap I'd try to make them lose money on the deal.
Click to expand...

If I had to pay for the unlimited....

Typo fix in first line..
 
I wonder how long these ridiculous caps will remain in place here in Atlanta, which began this summer. In a house with three grad students, we usually hit 350-450gb a month. However, I did see this beautiful sight outside our house the other day:

Looks like Google is setting up infrastructure in my neighborhood according to the install techs. Summer 2016 can't come soon enough :(
 
grimble said:
I wonder how long these ridiculous caps will remain in place here in Atlanta, which began this summer. In a house with three grad students, we usually hit 350-450gb a month. However, I did see this beautiful sight outside our house the other day:

Looks like Google is setting up infrastructure in my neighborhood according to the install techs. Summer 2016 can't come soon enough :(
Click to expand...

Those caps started out last year in the Atlanta market.
 
american internet is so backwards, feel for you guys,

Uk has unlimited broadband across most major isp's with throttling and fair usage policies illegal if the its sold as "true unlimited".

Also our isp's havent been trying to blackmail netflix either.
 
Wierdo said:
I'm sure giving the monopolies more leeway would've solved it.

It's not like we have Europe's market where net neutrality is not needed cause you can just pick from a hundred providers in your town. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Actually they have several providers competing for the same homes in most of Europe which puts our market to shame and Especially S. Korea where the best value for service exists. The more you know.

And Regulations are inherently anti-upstart / little guy. Because the Cost burden is disproportionate. And many 'regulatory' situations encourage incest with regulators which encourages entrenchment, either flat out corruption or 'we know' provider XYZ so we'll permit a license or approval or bid for ABC while some unknown gets no consideration. All these things are pro-monopoly.
 
jpm100 said:
Actually they have several providers competing for the same homes in most of Europe which puts our market to shame and Especially S. Korea where the best value for service exists. The more you know.

And Regulations are inherently anti-upstart / little guy. Because the Cost burden is disproportionate. And many 'regulatory' situations encourage incest with regulators which encourages entrenchment, either flat out corruption or 'we know' provider XYZ so we'll permit a license or approval or bid for ABC while some unknown gets no consideration. All these things are pro-monopoly.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the government install the infrastructure in Europe and then allow different companies to bid for the usage ... that model is unlikely to work here since we have never had that model anywhere except water (and most cities are selling their water infrastructure to private companies to reduce their costs)

One of the other big gaps to changing the model is Federalism ... right now the internet infrastructure at the local level is a city and/or state government function, not the feds ... if we could get more states to adopt a system similar to electricity in Texas (one company owns the wire and separate and independent companies provide the power) we might get some improvement, but that is up to each of the 50 States and numerous cities/counties to decide ... no way to force the change without violating the constitution
 
jpm100 said:
Actually they have several providers competing for the same homes in most of Europe which puts our market to shame and Especially S. Korea where the best value for service exists. The more you know.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was my point, we don't have that choice. On this I'm in agreement. If we did then yes, why would we need net neutrality when you can just pick another ISP?

And Regulations are inherently anti-upstart / little guy. Because the Cost burden is disproportionate. And many 'regulatory' situations encourage incest with regulators which encourages entrenchment, either flat out corruption or 'we know' provider XYZ so we'll permit a license or approval or bid for ABC while some unknown gets no consideration. All these things are pro-monopoly.
Click to expand...

Well, see... FCC went for a half measure - bandage on a gash - because the ideal alternative, mandating line sharing/local loop unbundling was politically impossible I guess.

If we wake up tomorrow to find google and/or municipalities offering 1gb fiber to almost every home for fifty bucks then net neutrality would be pointless, actual competition would take care of the problem.

Lets be realistic here: It will be a very long time before we have a free market in broadband, it's not reasonable to expect every home to have ten cable lines, each costing a trillion dollars to maintain.

In Europe they just have ISPs share one line to offer their services, ala DSL back in the day. Down here that would be "ooo infrastructure is socialism" so good luck with that.

So.... net neutrality is all we get that's pro-consumer, everything else u gotta beg with a tin cup at Comcrap's doorstep I'm afraid.

It's pretty sad. But... better than nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top