Comcast Low Data Caps Hurt Competing Video Providers

SparkedFire said:
Actually it will be 10Gbps per channel. Most likely 1Gbps per customer.
Click to expand...

He isn't too far off though. When Google Fiber was first rolled out that was cable's response, 300Mbps. They also started sending people door to door to sway people to switch back.

That was some years back so you'd like to think they would try to achieve some kind of speed parity.
 
XvMMvX said:
Did you guys really think a bunch of bureaucrats circle jerking you about net neutrality was going to change anything?

Until they decide that content and ISP together is a conflict of interest then NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

That or they do like they do for the power lines in some places. One company owns the lines but CANNOT deliver the electricity.
Click to expand...

"Money is free speech, and corporations are people, my friend."

/End Sarcasm
 
Silentbob343 said:
While I can understand the sentiment the simple fact is bandwidth != data usage.

If I use 500GB on my current connection with my current usage then switching to a faster provider will not cause me to use more data.

They also have a max overcharge of $30 which you could look at as an additional $30 a month for unlimited. Unless of course they penalize you in some other way, i.e. disconnects or throttling.
Click to expand...

I understand that bandwidth != data usage, but when you're selling a 1gbit/sec service with a monthly data cap, it doesn't make sense that the service is capped at 2 hours of full use (based on my back of the envelope math). Sure, it's currently unlikely that a standard user will exceed that number, it's something that will be creeped up on over time.

The problem that I have with caps is that they're not placed on residential networks as a means for managing the network, but rather a means for extracting more dollars out of users. Residential networks are typically designed for peak delivery times (i.e. prime time) and the incremental cost of delivering data when the network is not at peak utilization is more or less zero. If they were truly concerned about being "fair" to all users (as they imply that heavy users cost everyone more, when really, peak usage is just as much the fault of the normal level users), then the focus should be on mitigating the peak usage of the network as that's where their additional infrastructure costs come into play.
 
Climber said:
HD OTA = Free
Netflix = $8.00
Amazon = $8.00
Hulu= $8.00
Sling TV = $20.00

$44.00 Vs $125 doesn't equal viable?
Click to expand...

Add a zero to your side if you want to watch sports other than football...
 
kbrickley said:
I wouldn't care about caps if an unlimited tier were offered ... I suspect that is what Comcast and the other non-wireless providers will do is provide an unlimited tier at a higher price eventually
Click to expand...

They already do, it's called Comcast Business. I was on Comcast Residential back in 2008, before it was called XFinity, and before they had any published caps (enforced or not). Some company tool called me up trying to bully and threaten me about the fact that I had used 800GB the previous month. He even gave me the whole "There is no plan that we offer that would allow you to continue your current usage". Fortunately the person I got on the phone when I called Comcast Business had a different perspective on the issue and was happy to have us as a customer. We were even able to continue using our current cablemodem, and setup was quick since we we already had everything setup from being a residential customer. Speeds tend to be slower per tier than residential / XFinity, but there are basically no caps. I have heard of some getting a phone call if they use like 5+ TB several months in a row but that's it. It's nice to be able to download multiple individual torrents that are like ~500GB each with no worry about data usage :)
 
haste. said:
Add a zero to your side if you want to watch sports other than football...
Click to expand...

There are ways to stream sports that would be another $10 a month. To your point if you get every streaming option out there often times you would be better served, in some ways, simply getting cable/Dish/DirecTV.

David_Schroth said:
I understand that bandwidth != data usage, but when you're selling a 1gbit/sec service with a monthly data cap, it doesn't make sense that the service is capped at 2 hours of full use (based on my back of the envelope math). Sure, it's currently unlikely that a standard user will exceed that number, it's something that will be creeped up on over time.

The problem that I have with caps is that they're not placed on residential networks as a means for managing the network, but rather a means for extracting more dollars out of users. Residential networks are typically designed for peak delivery times (i.e. prime time) and the incremental cost of delivering data when the network is not at peak utilization is more or less zero. If they were truly concerned about being "fair" to all users (as they imply that heavy users cost everyone more, when really, peak usage is just as much the fault of the normal level users), then the focus should be on mitigating the peak usage of the network as that's where their additional infrastructure costs come into play.
Click to expand...
I agree, we are on the same side of this issue. I have made the same exact comments when comcast attempts to push their high speeds, ie "so I can hit a cap faster, gee thanks".

At least with 1TB I would be far less likely to hit the cap even with 1Gbps. To the point you alluded to; yes, as soon as 4k streaming is mainstream 1TB will no longer be sufficient. Even with H.265 there is still an increase in bandwidth needed due to the large jump in resolution.

Yes, providers shouldn't advertise speeds/capabilities unless their network infrastructure can handle it. Infrastructure is expensive, it is a big reason Verizon stopped expanding FIOS and is focusing on wireless networks.
 
I cant find any way to get roots sports other than having cable or satellite tv. I need to have my basketball fix so cable has got me there. I
 
nutzo said:
To compete, they will just increase the cap or stop enforcing it.

Amazing what a little competition will do.

This is what is really needed, a real choice in ISP's.
Not like the choice I have: Cable at a high cost, or very slow 3mbit DSL.
At least with TV, I can switch to satellite if they get too unreasonable.
Click to expand...

They have a data cap in Chattanooga, TN.

A city where they have gigabit fiber internet (with no cap) for like 89 bucks.
 
sfsuphysics said:
So what's the DVR option for something like that? I mean ok Netflix, Amazon & Hulu you don't need it, but hey the football game is on and I can't see it now... are there any decent 3rd party DVRs that don't absolutely suck?
Click to expand...

Tivo? That said, it's 44 bucks + whatever your Internet costs. You pretty quickly end up back where Cable was. Sure you have internet, but aside from streaming, you could probably get by with a 6Mb down stream, which is what, 20 bucks (just a guess)?

Also for sports, you could probably set up a PC with a capture card, since that stuff comes OTA.
 
kbrickley said:
I wouldn't care about caps if an unlimited tier were offered ... I suspect that is what Comcast and the other non-wireless providers will do is provide an unlimited tier at a higher price eventually ... longer term they will eventually settle on unlimited as the standard but it will take a while ... I think phones lasted more than a decade with calling minutes before they all went unlimited
Click to expand...

I still pay for minutes on both my landline and cell.
 
Some of you regardless of age need to have a long term plan. Why you make think it's impossible to move, is it really?

Sticking with data caps, sub-par pos internet providers, high cell phone bills, etc etc. Your lover priced ocal economy, etc etc, high rents ....

Shit, consider moving. 10 - 20 year savings could be in the several thousands of dollars.

Hearing this kinda crap just incites and angers me. United States is the only or one a few countries that gouge it's own people in these areas. Go and research if you don't believe me.
 
sfsuphysics said:
So what's the DVR option for something like that? I mean ok Netflix, Amazon & Hulu you don't need it, but hey the football game is on and I can't see it now... are there any decent 3rd party DVRs that don't absolutely suck?
Click to expand...

Several. Channel master+ is an excellent dvr, tivo but costly, tablo is excellent, and a couple others are out there.
 
nutzo said:
Satellite dishes are allowed, it's the outside broadcast TV antenna's that they have not allowed.
Based on the FCC link, they should have to allow outdoor TV antenna's.

However, the FCC requirement also specifies a "good quality" signal.
I live far enough from the transmitters, that the best I can get is a "weak" signal (based on my address and the FCC web site). To receive anything more than a couple channels would require a tall antenna (more than 30' about the ground) with a large antenna.
I imaging this would end up with fines and a court fight over them arguing that the OTA antenna is not allowed under the FCC rules because my neighborhood doesn't have a "good quality" signal available.
Click to expand...

Well then I guess your stuck on cable.. Out people are within a hundred miles of a TV antenna I would assume and there are a lot of options that don't need los to pick up a decent reception. However, there are cases, such as yourself, that can't take advantage of this. It also stands to reason if you can't take advantage of it you probably don't have the infrastructure for high speed Internet to deliver it to you anyways so again the point is moot.
 
The folks are pointing out the obvious. The point of data caps is to kill streaming views and get those people back into watching cable. Once people start getting more 4K content, the amount of hours you can stream will be pitifully low. I have a friend that already signed back up for Comcast cable TV because his household was blowing through the 300GB cap with multiple streaming boxes and kids in the house.
 
David_Schroth said:
I understand that bandwidth != data usage, but when you're selling a 1gbit/sec service with a monthly data cap, it doesn't make sense that the service is capped at 2 hours of full use (based on my back of the envelope math). Sure, it's currently unlikely that a standard user will exceed that number, it's something that will be creeped up on over time.

The problem that I have with caps is that they're not placed on residential networks as a means for managing the network, but rather a means for extracting more dollars out of users. Residential networks are typically designed for peak delivery times (i.e. prime time) and the incremental cost of delivering data when the network is not at peak utilization is more or less zero. If they were truly concerned about being "fair" to all users (as they imply that heavy users cost everyone more, when really, peak usage is just as much the fault of the normal level users), then the focus should be on mitigating the peak usage of the network as that's where their additional infrastructure costs come into play.
Click to expand...

I'm on your side and that's the thing... Standard users are using gigabit service. 90% of the people I talk to can't tell you the speed of their internet service. My parents were still paying for a 1.5mb/s download line for $59.99 / month before I got them to change. People really only care about; continuous service without interruptions and, "Can I watch Netflix?" There really shouldn't be any sort of caps at all and it goes back to the original points. They aren't capping people for usage, they're throttling them for monetary gain, and that's garbage.
 
SixFootDuo said:
Some of you regardless of age need to have a long term plan. Why you make think it's impossible to move, is it really?

Sticking with data caps, sub-par pos internet providers, high cell phone bills, etc etc. Your lover priced ocal economy, etc etc, high rents ....

Shit, consider moving. 10 - 20 year savings could be in the several thousands of dollars.

Hearing this kinda crap just incites and angers me. United States is the only or one a few countries that gouge it's own people in these areas. Go and research if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

1. most peole don't consider selling their house to change ISPs.
2. There are places where moving changes NOTHING. I lived in 4 places near my last job and every single one of them was Comcast or slow DSL from AT&T. I'd have loved the option of another provider, but it wasn't available in places that were relatively close to work and I'm not going to move an hour away to save on an ISP.
 
nilepez said:
1. most peole don't consider selling their house to change ISPs.
2. There are places where moving changes NOTHING. I lived in 4 places near my last job and every single one of them was Comcast or slow DSL from AT&T. I'd have loved the option of another provider, but it wasn't available in places that were relatively close to work and I'm not going to move an hour away to save on an ISP.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In most peoples lives internet is "something to have" not the most important thing.

I moved from Chicago (with many provider options & AT&T Gigapower coming soon) to the far suburbs where my son can walk across our back yard, walk 300' and be at the park w/o crossing a street. My schools went from some of the worst in the nation to the top 15-20%.

I have a choice of Comcast (200M if I want to pay for it), AT&T DSL (max 18Mbit/s down) or fixed wireless at sub 10Mbit.

The good schools & good area are waaaaay more important than internet.
 
Why is no one upset over the lack of a 3rd party data measuring device. If you are stuck with a cap, why settle for what the ISP says you are using. If I want to know how much gas or electric I am using, I walk out and look at the meter. ISP's should be required to have an independent way to measure data usage for the consumer if it's something that may be charged for.
 
Kwisatz Haderach said:
Why is no one upset over the lack of a 3rd party data measuring device. If you are stuck with a cap, why settle for what the ISP says you are using. If I want to know how much gas or electric I am using, I walk out and look at the meter.
Click to expand...

You can already do this in many cases. Many routers will have a statistics page in their GUI or similar which will tell you about how much traffic has passed in and out.
 
Kwisatz Haderach said:
Why is no one upset over the lack of a 3rd party data measuring device. If you are stuck with a cap, why settle for what the ISP says you are using. If I want to know how much gas or electric I am using, I walk out and look at the meter. ISP's should be required to have an independent way to measure data usage for the consumer if it's something that may be charged for.
Click to expand...

It needs to go farther than this. The gas station can't rig up their own pump and measuring system (legally) and start selling gas. Gas pumps have to be certified and receive inspections to assure they are acxuratle measuring and dispensing gasoline. There's big fines to pay if you are caught outside of regulation and it helps protect cconsumers by assuring they are getting what they pay for. See http://m.caranddriver.com/features/the-pump-police-feature

Like I'm going to trust Comcast telling me this is how much you used because they said so. If usage based billing come to play they need to be regulated, checked, and forced to define when the meter rolls and when it doesn't. Ie. Do they count TCP/IP overhead? Etc. There needs to be massively punitive fines for fraudulent billing.
 
GotNoRice said:
You can already do this in many cases. Many routers will have a statistics page in their GUI or similar which will tell you about how much traffic has passed in and out.
Click to expand...

Many, but not all. Also there are a lot of people that don't have the knowledge to go in and look at it.

canna said:
It needs to go farther than this. The gas station can't rig up their own pump and measuring system (legally) and start selling gas. Gas pumps have to be certified and receive inspections to assure they are acxuratle measuring and dispensing gasoline. There's big fines to pay if you are caught outside of regulation and it helps protect cconsumers by assuring they are getting what they pay for. See http://m.caranddriver.com/features/the-pump-police-feature

Like I'm going to trust Comcast telling me this is how much you used because they said so. If usage based billing come to play they need to be regulated, checked, and forced to define when the meter rolls and when it doesn't. Ie. Do they count TCP/IP overhead? Etc. There needs to be massively punitive fines for fraudulent billing.
Click to expand...


Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner. This is something that I have felt strongly enough if I start getting charged for an overage, I will bring this up to my elected officials to try and force the issue.
 
Kwisatz Haderach said:
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner. This is something that I have felt strongly enough if I start getting charged for an overage, I will bring this up to my elected officials to try and force the issue.
Click to expand...

Dong, dong, dong... It shouldn't even matter. There's no reason they should be capping customers. If your infrastructure can't keep up then you spend the money to upgrade it or stop accepting new customers instead of just offering shittier service. Internet providers have gotten to a point where a few large companies have completely monopolized large market segments. If you don't like a certain gas station, you go down the street and find another one because, there's twenty more two minutes away. Internet isn't the same. Here we're seeing where large companies completely smother competition and eliminate that option. In my city, Comcast employs more people than some federal and state government entities like; The IRS as well as the Department of Children and Families.
 
Staples said:
Simple as that.

I pay for water by the cubic foot, electricity by the kw hour..

Internet is a utility too.
Click to expand...

Not this idiocy again. Yes, yes, lets make the internet an official "public utility" and watch as it becomes even more monopolistic than it is now. How many water company or electric company options do you have where you live? I have one and one. Yay.

Now given electrical generation tech and water sources, having them as a public utlity isn't that bad of an idea and it seems to work fairly well (though it helps stall power gen tech for sure). But do we really need internet to be a utlitiy? The tech does not require it. DSL vs cable vs fiber vs sat vs wireless has proven that. It is all down to gov laws not that actual technical ability. Giving the government more power over regulation will likely just make things worse.
 
Ranulfo said:
Not this idiocy again. Yes, yes, lets make the internet an official "public utility" and watch as it becomes even more monopolistic than it is now. How many water company or electric company options do you have where you live? I have one and one. Yay.

Now given electrical generation tech and water sources, having them as a public utlity isn't that bad of an idea and it seems to work fairly well (though it helps stall power gen tech for sure). But do we really need internet to be a utlitiy? The tech does not require it. DSL vs cable vs fiber vs sat vs wireless has proven that. It is all down to gov laws not that actual technical ability. Giving the government more power over regulation will likely just make things worse.
Click to expand...

Just because it's a utility doesn't mean there's not competition (never mind that under the current system these companies work very hard to prevent competition from moving into their territory).

I've got friends and family that have Muni Fiber and they love Love LOVE it. It's cheaper, faster and has no caps. Your idea would work if there was competition, but there's not. The only way that changes is if you pass laws that separate the ISP from Video companies and/or you have a company that provides the pipe (i.e cable, fiber whatever) and anyone can use that pipe.

That is pretty much how the TX electric utilities work. The downside is there are so many providers and plans, it's difficult to figure out which one to go with. The upside is that electricity is pretty damn cheap.

Technically that was deregulation, but good luck convincing Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, TWC etc to go for that.
 
kbrickley said:
I wouldn't care about caps if an unlimited tier were offered ... I suspect that is what Comcast and the other non-wireless providers will do is provide an unlimited tier at a higher price eventually ... longer term they will eventually settle on unlimited as the standard but it will take a while ... I think phones lasted more than a decade with calling minutes before they all went unlimited
Click to expand...

They do, in Fort Lauderdale, Miami and Atlanta. For an additional $30 ($35 in Atlanta) they'll give you unlimited. I'm downloading shit just in spite because of that. I hit a terabyte last month and was on 400gb on the first week of this month alone.
 
Staples said:
Simple as that.

I pay for water by the cubic foot, electricity by the kw hour..

Internet is a utility too.
Click to expand...

There's no incremental cost to delivering more data once the infrastructure is in place, however, there is incremental cost to delivering more water and power over infrastructure. Therefore, you're comparing an apple to an orange....
 
David_Schroth said:
There's no incremental cost to delivering more data once the infrastructure is in place, however, there is incremental cost to delivering more water and power over infrastructure. Therefore, you're comparing an apple to an orange....
Click to expand...

There is no incremental cost if the speed and volume requirements for data stay below the desired threshold ... fiber and copper infrastructure still have maximum capacities and speeds they can support ... if the capacity requirements increase then it is only through the addition of more infrastructure or newer higher capacity infrastructure that the new increased demands can be met ... that said, unless the ISP vastly underestimated their need you would never be as capacity constrained as water or power
 
kbrickley said:
There is no incremental cost if the speed and volume requirements for data stay below the desired threshold ... fiber and copper infrastructure still have maximum capacities and speeds they can support ... if the capacity requirements increase then it is only through the addition of more infrastructure or newer higher capacity infrastructure that the new increased demands can be met ... that said, unless the ISP vastly underestimated their need you would never be as capacity constrained as water or power
Click to expand...

Never mind that a lot of infrastructure was subsidized by tax payers and that they charge content providers upload the bandwidth that we already paid the ISP to d/l.

My company does Fiber and Video. Fiber is by far the more profitable service. If the customer base is large enough to justify going in, it's a cash cow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top