![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Comcast To Make Monthly Internet Use Cap Official
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
I'm just glad I only lived on campus at Virginia Tech one year. If you upload more than 650mb in a 24 hour period they throttle your internet to the point you are lucky to load a website. And I'm pretty sure that is for each dorm room so that 650mb is shared between 2 people.
"The 650MB upload threshold meets the vast majority of the academic and leisure needs of on campus residents." http://www.cns.vt.edu/html/data/bandwidth.html
I've had Comcast the last couple years as it is far better than the other services in the area.
"The 650MB upload threshold meets the vast majority of the academic and leisure needs of on campus residents." http://www.cns.vt.edu/html/data/bandwidth.html
I've had Comcast the last couple years as it is far better than the other services in the area.
w1retap
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 13,710
Heh, sounds like the same argument socialists make when they want to take over citizens' liberties. "For the great good of the people".. limits limits limits. Limits on everything. Lets limit people to what type lightbulbs they can buy. Lets limit people's toilets to how much water they can flush. Lets limit people's children to what type food they can eat in school. Lets limit people to how much air conditioning and heating they can use in their homes. Lets limit what type gas milage cars have to get. BAHHHHHHHHHHHHH
NKDietrich
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,442
Actually, last year I went on a binge downloading TV episodes and archiving them on disc, and for a couple months I was hitting 500GB, then on the third month I hit 1137 GB (lol) and they called me and told me to chill. In my area congestion is virtually zero since they are not oversold to death here, so their "unspoken" cap was a lot higher.
I average probably 100GB/month now, so it's not really going to effect me, but the unspoken caps before were a lot higher. Thats why they wouldnt say how big the cap was, because it would get them in hot water if it wasnt consistent for all customers.
They always said that if they had to set a hard cap that people wouldn't be too happy.
You must not have a Netflix account. Instant view at best quality uses bandwidth like a mofo, and they haven't even rolled out HD yet.
I don't, but If I had a VPN and remote desktop to work that would eat up a bunch right there.
It isn't that hard to do if you use your computer for more than web, e-mail, and a game or 2.
I have ATT DSL and I think this is coming down the line for me as well, I'm not pleased.
I don't believe that will be the case, all they did now was made the cap be known. In the past, it was 4gb per month, 40gb, then it jumped to 100gb per month, then 150, then 200, now 250.
I'm using Time Warner, which isn't much better than Comcast. If anything, they're going to add the same thing, but make us pay when we go over rather than tell us to slow down. The other major ISP here is AT&T, and my family doesn't do business with them. No FIOS here, and I don't think they're coming anytime soon.
At least I still have the option to switch to this ISP. Will be doing so very soon, hopefully. Even if it will force me to get landline phone service through AT&T.
At least I still have the option to switch to this ISP. Will be doing so very soon, hopefully. Even if it will force me to get landline phone service through AT&T.
It doesn't matter if 250GB is "more than enough". Comcast could have limited it to 500GB a month and it still would be an issue. Because the issue isn't the amount being limited but the precedent set by limiting the bandwidth.
That's the bad news.
I'm also gonna venture a guess comcast is doing this so they can delay upgrading their infrastructure while offsetting their lowering profit margins with the high-end users premium charges.
I would be interested to know if this precedent is set anywhere else in the world. Because I haven't heard about our neighbors across the pond on either side being limited by the amount of bandwidth consumed.
That's the bad news.
I'm also gonna venture a guess comcast is doing this so they can delay upgrading their infrastructure while offsetting their lowering profit margins with the high-end users premium charges.
I would be interested to know if this precedent is set anywhere else in the world. Because I haven't heard about our neighbors across the pond on either side being limited by the amount of bandwidth consumed.
They have always had this limit, it was just unwritten. IIRC, they were sued for not publishing this unwritten cap... now they are getting hell for it by publishing it.
Ha I'm in canada and with Cogeco and I'm Capped at 60 gb total, but they don't actually do anything till about 75 gb. It gets quite irritating sometimes here but the other options are bell dsl which is slower for the same price and they bill you heavily when you go over instead
Actually I think they're getting hell for having a cap at all. When the people say "look, Comcast does cap us but they won't admit it", they're not looking for Comcast to admit it, but rather to have them not cap their services.
Comcast is still playing games with the legal system to keep their head above the water without opening up their network to the public.
I know that in Russia, limits are set only for ultra-low-cost internet for people that only need basic useage. It's not actually limited, but rather billed per amount of bandwidth used.
I've had Comcast for a few years now. It was previously Road Runner until Comcast took this area over, and I have to say that my internet service has gotten faster since the takeover. I pay about $40-45 a month, and my download speed can sometimes hit over 1,000k/s, but typically will be around 800k/s. I was worried about a possible bandwidth cap since Road Runner was testing a 40gb cap just down the road from me in Beaumont, TX, but with a 250gb cap, I'm not worried at all anymore.
Even if that is true (which who can say? I have my doubts), written rules and unspoken rules play in two different ballparks. It's still a big difference and one that will ultimately not help the customer.
I can believe Comcast would only say it was an unwritten rule so they don't have to discount people when they say they are getting the same service as before (even when they aren't). But like I said, who knows? And it doesn't matter. Written and unwritten are two different monsters with different sets of fangs.
I don't know a single ISP aside from business providers who doesn't have a cap whether it's written or unwritten.
250GB used to sound like a lot to me, but now with all these HD internet enabled content (videos from xbox, ps3, apple, netflix, etc) you might hit that pretty regularly in the not so far future.
Hell, I hooked up my parents' TV to a comp and it spend like 5-6hrs per day streaming video (they watch a bunch of asian drama from sina). They pretty much leaves it streaming while they do house work. It's crappy res but if it ever went HD, that might break the 250GB easy.
Hell, I hooked up my parents' TV to a comp and it spend like 5-6hrs per day streaming video (they watch a bunch of asian drama from sina). They pretty much leaves it streaming while they do house work. It's crappy res but if it ever went HD, that might break the 250GB easy.
-(Xyphox)-
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 6,518
I'm glad I got my OC-192's at work
As for the cap, I think it's reasonable, but we should see a price cut in our service. For going from unlimited to limited, I think comcast should provide everyone with these caps a reasonable discount.
OC-192
I offical hate youNKDietrich
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,442
Again, that's not entirely true. The unwritten cap varied by region and congestion levels, now we're getting a one size fits all cap. This will actually be a drastic reduction for most low congestion regions. I still feel it's relatively generous though. I could go over 250GB easy, but it's not going to inconvenience me much to stay under.
I don't think it varied per region as it varied per person enforcing the caps. But yes, I have no problem staying under 250, in fact, I don't have to change any of my habits. When I used to torrent heavily, I could get to 300+gb per month, but realistically, torrent is a hog on its own.
I'm wondering if this is a fixed cap or a discretion cap, in other words, if you go 251 for the first time in years if you get service cancellation, a email/notice, or if they let you slide.
NKDietrich
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,442
Probably a soft cap, they just haven't announced the specific overage charge yet.
SamuraiInBlack
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 5,771
Well, I know what this means.
Time to download as much pr0n as I possibly can between now and October 1st.
Time to download as much pr0n as I possibly can between now and October 1st.
The biggest problem with this bullshit, is how long is it going to take them to move the cap upwards when it becomes the norm. With all the gaming, Shows, random Linux torrents, and streaming movies, I am probably already close to that in legit form. With all games switching over to Digital distribution, Steam, etc etc. A single format might push me up at-least 100gb if not more. This is not an acceptable mean of dealing with an oversold network.
Comcast get your fucking head out of your ass and roll out DOCSIS 3.0. You sat on your ass when DOCSIS 2.0 came out saying it wasn't necessary, now your shit is oversold to hell. You fucked up, fix it.
Comcast get your fucking head out of your ass and roll out DOCSIS 3.0. You sat on your ass when DOCSIS 2.0 came out saying it wasn't necessary, now your shit is oversold to hell. You fucked up, fix it.
lord_farfig
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,410
While the FiOS does look pretty neat-o... It can't come soon enough to most people.
However, Comcast is in no way shape or form wrong for doing this. It's their service, and they can do whatever they want with it. The kicker is, it's a change, and people don't like change. Vista anyone?
It's encroaching cell phone-like service. Hell for me, last month, I went over on my text messaging... and holy cow shit did they charge the piss out of me.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. And who knows maybe Verizon will catch on and charge for their FiOS similar to how they charge for their cell phones.
That's not going to work out well for me, I'm on 768/128 and I use about a gb a day.
That's without any real downloading or anything. 4gb/mo might be an issue.
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
Nothing but whining babies, that's all I can see from start to finish. What legitimate purpose can any home user possibly have for 250GB or more of bandwidth in a month, eh? What are you, suddenly a dumpsite for Linux ISOs? I don't think so. It's their network, folks, they can charge what they want to use it, or do people simply not get that.
Next thing I know I'll have to change my nick to Devil's Advocate or something... sheesh.
Every ISP I look at has some arbitrary bandwidth limits, it's just that most of them don't go after every single person that goes over them. The guy that posted earlier on this thread saying he did 500GB in a month then did nearly 1.2TB the next month, ok, bub, you need to turn off the PC and go for a walk. There are no legitimate reasons to have consumed that much bandwidth unless you're a Sourceforge mirror or something, or a backup for Linux ISOs or whatever.
So many people spouting off about movies - how many of you are actual legit customers of some service like Netflix? Not that many, I'll bet. Usenet? Let's be realistic: the amount of public domain content on Usenet is nearly null and void. TV rips? Copyrighted materials, of course, even if recorded live during the original broadcast and not just ripped from the boxed set of DVDs. mp3s? FLAC files? And the almighty biggest bandwidth consumer of all: pr0n?
Bleh. Someone else earlier said "You knew this was coming" and they make a most excellent point. After starting on dialup at 50 baud in 1977 and finally moving to cable Internet service in 2004, all I can truthfully say is: nothing but whining babies, start to finish. Most of you kids have no legitimate reason to complain, not one.
You have fat pipes and you abuse them beyond any meaning of the word and then complain when you get pulled over on the Internet Superhighway for speeding and then get a governor slapped on the engine. Try that colorful metaphor sometime...
Next thing I know I'll have to change my nick to Devil's Advocate or something... sheesh.
Every ISP I look at has some arbitrary bandwidth limits, it's just that most of them don't go after every single person that goes over them. The guy that posted earlier on this thread saying he did 500GB in a month then did nearly 1.2TB the next month, ok, bub, you need to turn off the PC and go for a walk. There are no legitimate reasons to have consumed that much bandwidth unless you're a Sourceforge mirror or something, or a backup for Linux ISOs or whatever.
So many people spouting off about movies - how many of you are actual legit customers of some service like Netflix? Not that many, I'll bet. Usenet? Let's be realistic: the amount of public domain content on Usenet is nearly null and void. TV rips? Copyrighted materials, of course, even if recorded live during the original broadcast and not just ripped from the boxed set of DVDs. mp3s? FLAC files? And the almighty biggest bandwidth consumer of all: pr0n?
Bleh. Someone else earlier said "You knew this was coming" and they make a most excellent point. After starting on dialup at 50 baud in 1977 and finally moving to cable Internet service in 2004, all I can truthfully say is: nothing but whining babies, start to finish. Most of you kids have no legitimate reason to complain, not one.
You have fat pipes and you abuse them beyond any meaning of the word and then complain when you get pulled over on the Internet Superhighway for speeding and then get a governor slapped on the engine. Try that colorful metaphor sometime...
Well Comcast could at least offer tiers of service for people that want to be fully unlimited. I'd gladly pay $60-70/month for a 16mbit/2mbit connection that was literally unlimited.
I agree. It's obvious from this thread that one size does not fit all. I don't see a problem if someone is willing to pay more to have their cap raised or eliminated. Having a blanket cap for everyone - even if it is seemingly large - doesn't seem like the best idea from the consumer or business standpoint.
lord_farfig
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,410
Exactly. It just might be a bit early to know if/what they will offer.
Going back go my cell phone statement, I went into the Verizon store the day after I got my bill and changed my service to an unlimited texting plan. A bit more per month, but not double my bill for going over. Ack.
AT least they are FINALLY saying what excessive really is, now we just need the satellite companies to do the same.
There are still companies out there offering "unlimited" (with a cap they don't tell you about)
This is one less reason for them to offer a "we can't" about
There are still companies out there offering "unlimited" (with a cap they don't tell you about)
This is one less reason for them to offer a "we can't" about
I'm glad I got my OC-192's at work
As for the cap, I think it's reasonable, but we should see a price cut in our service. For going from unlimited to limited, I think comcast should provide everyone with these caps a reasonable discount.
I agree. I suspect I generally won't top this limit, but it's not unlimited. This is especially true for anyone that pays for faster connections. I personally prefer the solution they spoke of a week or go, where heavy users get temporarily slowed down during periods of heavy use (as opposed to a year ago, where they regularly sent reset messages).
Spectrum17
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2006
- Messages
- 742
250 GB seems like a lot to me. Cox has a fixed cap of only 40/10 GB (down/up), or 60/15 in the premium tier.
And it is clearly stated in their written policies: http://www.cox.com/policy/limitations.asp
And it is clearly stated in their written policies: http://www.cox.com/policy/limitations.asp
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
Which is what I have here in Vegas, but they don't enforce it actively unless you regularly go 10x or more over it consistently. Most I've ever grabbed in a month was about 185GB and that was just after Vista SP1 came out as I was doing a lot of testing... ~3GB ISOs suck down bandwidth pretty quick, as well as some of the other MSDN materials for training.
But I've had this service for over 2 years, and I doubt I stay under the 40GB cap because of streaming videos for training and even my Netflix subscription (their online service kicks ass, really and it's worth every cent).
Here's what I think:
If you could show a legitimate reason for using so much bandwidth, your ISP wouldn't have an issue as you'd be either requiring the bandwidth for that purpose, or perhaps you're paying for streaming media or gaming, ala Netflix or Steam or whatever reason. I seriously don't think the intention of any ISP is to curb legit users doing legit things.
But running BitTorrent clients goes against every single TOS/EUA/rules thing I've ever seen because it makes your computer a server and all of those TOS/EUA/rules always specifically state you are not allowed to act as a server - that's why most every connection you can get is asymmetric with the exception of newer FIOS lines with symmetric bandwidth.
If you have a legit need for the bandwidth, I can't believe your ISP would pull the plug but they'd contact you and "warn" you, and you'd respond by saying "Ok, I pay for this streaming service, or that one, and that's where the bandwidth is required." None of them are stupid enough to bounce users off for legit purposes. But let's face it:
There are those that consistenly max their given connections 24/7 every day of a week, month, even year, and that's who the ISPs are going to be keeping an eye on because yes, it does create an uneven balance.
Think of driving on the highway where most everyone goes 55 MPH as required by the law stating that's the max speed. Sure, sometimes you'll see someone blaring by at 90 or more, and sometimes they get away with it, more often than not. But sometimes... sometimes they get tagged and busted for it.
That's only fair, right?
Except BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer protocol; not a client-server protocol. There's technically no 'server' involved aside from the trackers. Also, the TOSes that I've read usually prohibit web or email servers; not for traffic congestion reasons but rather so that companies are forced to buy the more expensive business plans rather than try to be cheapskates with a home broadband connection.
And while bittorrent is undoubtedly used for a lot of illegal downloading, some of it is legit. So basically you're saying that the burden of differentiating between legit and illegal content should rest with the ISP? And if I use my connection a lot for legit purposes, I have to prove it? That doesn't sit right with me.
In my opinion, piracy is mostly irrelevant to this discussion since the cap will still apply regardless of the legality of net traffic. Sure, a lot of traffic is undoubtedly illegal, but enforcing the law/TOS and implementing a cap are two separate issues.
They don't give a shit if your downloading 100% legal pictures of bunnies and kittens, or kiddie porn. They have to pay for your bandwidth usage, it doesn't matter what your downloading. They just jump on the "high bandwidth users must be bit torrenting and criminals" bandwagon.