Comcast to limit customers' broadband usage - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

UKking · 08-30-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Comcast to limit customers' broadband usage

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Comcast Corp, the largest U.S. cable operator, said on Thursday it will cap customers' Internet usage starting October 1, in a bid to ensure the best service for the vast majority of its subscribers.

Comcast said it was setting a monthly data usage threshold of 250 gigabytes per account for all residential high-speed Internet customers, or the equivalent of 50 million e-mails or 124 standard-definition movies.

"If a customer exceeds more than 250 GB and is one of the heaviest data users who consume the most data on our high-speed Internet service, he or she may receive a call from Comcast's Customer Security Assurance (CSA) group to notify them of excessive use," according to the company's updated Frequently Asked Questions on Excessive Use.

Customers who top 250 GB in a month twice in a six-month timeframe could have service terminated for a year.

Comcast said up to 99 percent of its 14 million Internet subscribers would not be affected by the new threshold, which it said would help ensure the quality of Internet delivery is not degraded by a minority of heavy users.

U.S. Internet subscribers are typically not aware of any limit on their Internet usage once they sign up to pay a flat monthly fee to their service provider.

As Web usage has rocketed, driven by the popularity of watching online video, photo-sharing and music downloading services, cable and phone companies have been considering various techniques to limit or manage heavy usage.

But Comcast has come under fire from a variety of sources for its network management techniques.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission investigated complaints by consumer groups that it was blocking peer-to-peer applications like BitTorrent, and earlier this month ordered Comcast to modify its network management.

Comcast has said that by the end of the year it will change its network management practices to ensure all Web traffic is treated essentially the same, but has also been exploring other ways to prevent degradation of its Internet service delivery.

One consumer group said while Comcast's new 250 GB limit was "relatively high," it could eventually ensnare customers as technology progresses.

"If Comcast has oversold their network to the point of creating congestion problems, then well-disclosed caps for Internet use are a better short-term solution than Comcast's current practice of illegally blocking Internet traffic," said S Derek Turner of Free Press, a Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy group that filed a complaint about Comcast's network management practices earlier this year.

The Philadelphia-based company is not alone in trying to come up with ways to limit heavy Internet usage.

Time Warner Cable Inc, the second-largest U.S. cable operator, said in January it would run a trial of billing Internet subscribers based on usage rather than a flat fee.

Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas said Comcast was also considering so-called consumption-based billing, but no decisions had been made.

The business model that ISPs use to dole out internet usage has been flawed for years. All that so-called 'fair use' policies do is deny customers the right to use the service they're paying for.

The only reason that the model's still working is that most people don't use big amounts of bandwidth most of the time. Largely, people went on websites and checked their emails - hardly bandwidth-heavy activites. As far as the ISPs are concerned, anybody trying to use the bandwidth they've paid for is clearly illegally filesharing and would get throttled back or cut off. But now there's a big problem.

BBC iPlayer went live at the end of 2007 and all of a sudden, people had a perfectly legal reason for wanting lots of bandwidth, on demand, at video-streaming capacities. The ISPs can't claim that it's illegal filesharing and throttle them or deny them a connection. Which means that they've responded by saying that it's not fair for the BBC to come along and prove that their business model is broken beyond repair.

Of course, iPlayer isn't the only big worry for the ISPs, though it's a major one in the UK. Websites such as YouTube and services such as iTunes have been stressing the ISPs' networks increasingly - perfectly legally - and now things are really coming to a head.

And what will happen is that the ISPs will throttle the users' bandwidth and then try to charge them to alleviate the throttling. You'll pay for an hour or two of SuperBoostSpeed which'll give you the bandwidth that you're already paying for for a short while.

At the end of the day, ISPs have been caught out. They can't deliver on their promises to consumers and now we're finding that out. And if you think you're being robbed blind, and want to sort it out, what can you do? Fuck all.

ASU2003 · 08-30-2008, 01:21 PM

I have no problem if they throttle bandwidth back after 200 GB and even more at 250 GB. I can't see a need to download that much in one month. If there is a valid reason, then they should be allowed to go over that amount though. But I have a problem with consumption-based billing.

Church · 08-30-2008, 01:34 PM

250 gigs a month?! Who the hell would even use that on a basic residential account? Im capped at 60 gigs per month and with my constant gaming, downloading tons of shows through itunes as well as music, I don't even come close to 60 gigs. Wow...

Cynthetiq · 08-30-2008, 01:56 PM

they all you can eat model for business is not an efficient model. there will always be those that compromise that system in some fashion.

it's always best to be some sort of pay as you go/use system.

ASU2003 · 08-30-2008, 04:07 PM

What are you using though? If they are running at 100% capacity and other customers are being effected, I can understand. But I bet their network could handle a doubling of their customer base. Or maybe we should build Internet 3.0 with all the fiber optics around and high speed wireless coming out. If we didn't have to pay a certain company for all the data that gets transfered on the backbone, the internet could be much cheaper if not free to end users.

Plaid13 · 08-30-2008, 04:31 PM

Comcast is a lousy company always has been. But 250gig isnt bad for right now. but that being said dont think about now think about 5 years from now. they will most likely still have that 250gig cap and files have been growing at a fast pace over the last 15 years. In a few years it might be perfectly normal to burn through 300-500 gig of bandwidth in a month. People may want to stream dvd quality or better movies. say 2 movies a day for the family in the house for a month thats 15gig fairly easy. do that every day and there goes your limit.

I personally cant wait for everyone to have fiber optic or better connections at home. If everyone had a upload of 5-10mbps or more and 4-5x that for download the internet would be drasticly different then it is now. Anyone willing to leave a pc running 24/7 at home could have a website with enough bandwidth for all but the most popular websites. People wouldnt have to pay a fortune to rent out game servers monthly. Some people spend a few hundred a month just for a server like that. Hell even this forum im sure costs quite a bit to keep running thanks to the bandwidth it uses. But if we all had that kind of bandwidth to play around with file sharing would most likely get out of control.

Just as long as they dont start charging by the amount im ok with it. But i really want a fiber optic line without a limit and a hell of a upload rate. Really think ISPs need to start going in that direction instead of sticking with the old tech and trying to cap it. One day we will be able to go to google or something similar to it and search for a movie and instantly be able to stream the whole thing instantly with any movie at high quality. its only the tech of the isps slowing it down from happening.

Necrosis · 08-30-2008, 04:58 PM

The biggest pirate I know (and no, it isn't me) had 9 TERAbytes uploaded to OiNK. I wondered how he explained that one, but he still posts on internet forums, so I guess the RIAA hasn't come after him.

Like others here, I'd have no problem now with 250 gigs, but who knows what will be needed in 5 years? And how much they will reduce it as soon as the system is in place. Anybody bought yogurt lately, and seen that the price is the same, but the quantity is much less?

It's a bad idea, but it's unlikely anything will prevent it.

Kadin · 09-03-2008, 11:48 PM

I really only have two issues with this: one is that, at least as of right now, there's no way to tell how much bandwidth you've consumed, or what your monthly average is, or basically to tell in any way how close you are to getting capped. This is stupid; if they're going to cap, they at least should do what they did for Usenet once they started limiting that, and have a little "meter" on your Comcast.net page that you can go to and check to see where you are for the month. That's the bare minimum.

Two, it's pretty obnoxious that they count all bytes transferred the same way. While it may be simple, it's stupid and has little correlation with what data transit actually costs them at any given time. What they really ought to be doing is billing at varied rates based on time of day, essentially imposing a network congestion fee, if resources are scarce at peak periods. Also, traffic that stays inside Comcast's network ought to cost much less than traffic going out to the Internet at large (which would drive the optimization of better P2P systems).

A billing system that actually related Comcast's costs to the charges they're imposing on users would be a lot more palatable (and seem a lot less like a cash-grab and way to avoid delivering on their implicit promises) than one with totally invented caps.

Ayashe · 09-04-2008, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plaid13

Comcast is a lousy company always has been. But 250gig isnt bad for right now. but that being said dont think about now think about 5 years from now. they will most likely still have that 250gig cap and files have been growing at a fast pace over the last 15 years. In a few years it might be perfectly normal to burn through 300-500 gig of bandwidth in a month. People may want to stream dvd quality or better movies. say 2 movies a day for the family in the house for a month thats 15gig fairly easy. do that every day and there goes your limit.

I personally cant wait for everyone to have fiber optic or better connections at home. If everyone had a upload of 5-10mbps or more and 4-5x that for download the internet would be drasticly different then it is now. Anyone willing to leave a pc running 24/7 at home could have a website with enough bandwidth for all but the most popular websites. People wouldnt have to pay a fortune to rent out game servers monthly. Some people spend a few hundred a month just for a server like that. Hell even this forum im sure costs quite a bit to keep running thanks to the bandwidth it uses. But if we all had that kind of bandwidth to play around with file sharing would most likely get out of control.

Just as long as they dont start charging by the amount im ok with it. But i really want a fiber optic line without a limit and a hell of a upload rate. Really think ISPs need to start going in that direction instead of sticking with the old tech and trying to cap it. One day we will be able to go to google or something similar to it and search for a movie and instantly be able to stream the whole thing instantly with any movie at high quality. its only the tech of the isps slowing it down from happening.

Exactly, hell I remember when having a full 1Gig hard drive was a huge deal. I had a friend who had a 40 Gig drive way back when and thought it was insane. Now, I have two hard drives on my system. 300G for for program files and a 500G for storage of documents, photos and music. Games have gotten bigger, programs have gotten bigger, in a few more years who only knows what type of space a simple program is going to take. What do you do?

laconic1 · 09-04-2008, 06:10 PM

I'm glad they finally have a hard cap instead of an ambiguous excessive use policy. I imagine that the cap will go up as time goes on. I was reading a post in another forum where the guy said he got a warning letter from his ISP back in '99 for going through 7 gigs in a month. 250 isn't bad now, and I'm sure it can be adjusted in the future.
I also think that this really isn't any different from a cell phone plan. The more minutes you need your cell phone for the more you pay. The minutes included with basic plans have gone up through the years. When I got my first cell phone in '02 my plan came with 300 anytime minutes. Now I still have the lowest entry level plan and it comes with 450 anytime minutes. It might not be a bad thing for Comcast to have a base plan, and then tiers for higher usage after that.

GonadWarrior · 09-05-2008, 08:49 AM

If (legally) downloadable movies become common, and it's hard to imagine that not happening, that 250 gig limit will start to look small.

08-30-2008, 01:34 PM	#3 (permalink)
Church Tilted F*ckhead Location: New Jersey	250 gigs a month?! Who the hell would even use that on a basic residential account? Im capped at 60 gigs per month and with my constant gaming, downloading tons of shows through itunes as well as music, I don't even come close to 60 gigs. Wow... __________________ Through counter-intelligence, it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble makers, and neutralize them.

08-30-2008, 01:56 PM	#4 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	they all you can eat model for business is not an efficient model. there will always be those that compromise that system in some fashion. it's always best to be some sort of pay as you go/use system. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

08-30-2008, 01:21 PM	#2 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I have no problem if they throttle bandwidth back after 200 GB and even more at 250 GB. I can't see a need to download that much in one month. If there is a valid reason, then they should be allowed to go over that amount though. But I have a problem with consumption-based billing.

08-30-2008, 04:07 PM	#5 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	What are you using though? If they are running at 100% capacity and other customers are being effected, I can understand. But I bet their network could handle a doubling of their customer base. Or maybe we should build Internet 3.0 with all the fiber optics around and high speed wireless coming out. If we didn't have to pay a certain company for all the data that gets transfered on the backbone, the internet could be much cheaper if not free to end users.

08-30-2008, 04:31 PM	#6 (permalink)
Plaid13 I want a Plaid crayon	Comcast is a lousy company always has been. But 250gig isnt bad for right now. but that being said dont think about now think about 5 years from now. they will most likely still have that 250gig cap and files have been growing at a fast pace over the last 15 years. In a few years it might be perfectly normal to burn through 300-500 gig of bandwidth in a month. People may want to stream dvd quality or better movies. say 2 movies a day for the family in the house for a month thats 15gig fairly easy. do that every day and there goes your limit. I personally cant wait for everyone to have fiber optic or better connections at home. If everyone had a upload of 5-10mbps or more and 4-5x that for download the internet would be drasticly different then it is now. Anyone willing to leave a pc running 24/7 at home could have a website with enough bandwidth for all but the most popular websites. People wouldnt have to pay a fortune to rent out game servers monthly. Some people spend a few hundred a month just for a server like that. Hell even this forum im sure costs quite a bit to keep running thanks to the bandwidth it uses. But if we all had that kind of bandwidth to play around with file sharing would most likely get out of control. Just as long as they dont start charging by the amount im ok with it. But i really want a fiber optic line without a limit and a hell of a upload rate. Really think ISPs need to start going in that direction instead of sticking with the old tech and trying to cap it. One day we will be able to go to google or something similar to it and search for a movie and instantly be able to stream the whole thing instantly with any movie at high quality. its only the tech of the isps slowing it down from happening.

08-30-2008, 04:58 PM	#7 (permalink)
Necrosis Tilted	The biggest pirate I know (and no, it isn't me) had 9 TERAbytes uploaded to OiNK. I wondered how he explained that one, but he still posts on internet forums, so I guess the RIAA hasn't come after him. Like others here, I'd have no problem now with 250 gigs, but who knows what will be needed in 5 years? And how much they will reduce it as soon as the system is in place. Anybody bought yogurt lately, and seen that the price is the same, but the quantity is much less? It's a bad idea, but it's unlikely anything will prevent it.

09-03-2008, 11:48 PM	#8 (permalink)
Kadin Upright Location: Virginia	I really only have two issues with this: one is that, at least as of right now, there's no way to tell how much bandwidth you've consumed, or what your monthly average is, or basically to tell in any way how close you are to getting capped. This is stupid; if they're going to cap, they at least should do what they did for Usenet once they started limiting that, and have a little "meter" on your Comcast.net page that you can go to and check to see where you are for the month. That's the bare minimum. Two, it's pretty obnoxious that they count all bytes transferred the same way. While it may be simple, it's stupid and has little correlation with what data transit actually costs them at any given time. What they really ought to be doing is billing at varied rates based on time of day, essentially imposing a network congestion fee, if resources are scarce at peak periods. Also, traffic that stays inside Comcast's network ought to cost much less than traffic going out to the Internet at large (which would drive the optimization of better P2P systems). A billing system that actually related Comcast's costs to the charges they're imposing on users would be a lot more palatable (and seem a lot less like a cash-grab and way to avoid delivering on their implicit promises) than one with totally invented caps.

09-04-2008, 06:10 PM	#10 (permalink)
laconic1 Junkie	I'm glad they finally have a hard cap instead of an ambiguous excessive use policy. I imagine that the cap will go up as time goes on. I was reading a post in another forum where the guy said he got a warning letter from his ISP back in '99 for going through 7 gigs in a month. 250 isn't bad now, and I'm sure it can be adjusted in the future. I also think that this really isn't any different from a cell phone plan. The more minutes you need your cell phone for the more you pay. The minutes included with basic plans have gone up through the years. When I got my first cell phone in '02 my plan came with 300 anytime minutes. Now I still have the lowest entry level plan and it comes with 450 anytime minutes. It might not be a bad thing for Comcast to have a base plan, and then tiers for higher usage after that.

09-05-2008, 08:49 AM	#11 (permalink)
GonadWarrior Upright	If (legally) downloadable movies become common, and it's hard to imagine that not happening, that 250 gig limit will start to look small.