Comments on: Comcast to cap monthly consumer broadband

Party seems to be over for unlimited bandwidth: In October, Comcast will begin capping usage at 250GB per month, with dire consequences for abusers.

[ThomasPic]

So after two offenses, you get suspended for a year. I wouldn't mind that. Then my contract with Comcast would finally be broken and I could get FIOS. WOO HOO. I'm definitely going over 250GB then.

[14695]

on can surmise that the "real" objective is to replace the recently struck-down attempts by companies like comcast to prohibit the use of on-line video services competing with their cable TV offerings through IP blocking (masked as "security" measures). the popularity of high-res internet video as a substitute for cable TV may be growing too fast or pose a threat in the near-term; hence, comcast's decision to stem its growth by capping bandwidth. does anyone know if verizon FIOS plans to do the same?

[sideshowmellemel]

Doesn't anybody see a major problem here?

250 GB = a lot of data for one month
no warnings or alerts when you approach your limit = just plain HORRIBLE business practice
percentage of people who will regularly approach this limit = small
amount of complaints Comcast will likely see because of this policy = low
implications for the future of net neutrality, broadband users' bill of rights, streaming HD video, a 2-tiered internet = HUGE

This royally sucks! I don't see MYSELF hitting this limit in the near future, but the fact is that when I signed up for Comcast, this was not their policy. I've been wanting to drop Comcast for years now, but unfortunately the only other ISP in Denver, CO is Qwest DSL (Not going down that road. As if DSL weren't bad enough, it's being offered by Qwest. No thanks.)

DENVER NEEDS A NEW ISP!!!

[Dauplat]

I see no problem with this. Most utilities are metered. I don't agree with their suspending your service if you go over more than once. I think they should have monitoring tools available, and charge more if you go over a certain threshold. It's that way with most home and cell phones. Shouldn't people who use more of the resources pay more?

Flame away.

[garythecynic]

In college, it was not unusual for anywhere between 6-10 people sharing a large house near campus and sharing their cable internet via wireless router. It is not a far stretch at all to see that account occasionally dipping over the 250 GB limit.

We had a lot of course lectures that were available for streaming online. If you have 10 people all streaming their own thing every night, I think it is entirely probable to top Comcast's data ceiling. Of course, that is just one situation.

I bet Comcast will just institute a steep fine for exceeding the data limit. That would let people choose to continue downloading, as well as let Comcast wring their wallets for a few extra dollars.

[CMonsma]

I don't expect to have a problem, but the way this is being rolled out is ludicrous!

Problem #1: I am a subscriber, but I have yet to receive any kind of notice about the change from Comcast.

Problem #2: It is appalling that Comcast would implement this kind of rule change without giving the users a way to review the usage numbers used to enforce the rules! This is especially troublesome given the harsh penalty Comcast is willing to impose. I would expect some regulatory agency to have problems with this implementation.

Problem #3: The 250GB limit doesn't appear to scale based on your subscriber level. This doesn't bother me, but if I were paying for a premium speed level I'd be upset that I can only get to the same limit faster.

I'll be reconsidering a move over to DSL. Even if it means slowing down a bit I can save $20 a month. I might as well if I can't make theoretical use of the extra speed anyhow. I'm not sure that I'll keep my TV service either. I was seriously considering moving to a triple play package a month ago, but this is a real eye-opener.

I can only imagine what the folks in Paris are thinking about this as they enjoy 100MB download speeds for not much more than I give Comcast for around 5MB. At 100MB, you could hit the 250GB cap in around 6 hours... I wonder if I should change my password to "comcastispants"?

[twystedwiz]

Meh... Called Qwest to see about getting their 12Mbps service after I called Comcast and confirmed this was going to happen Oct 1st. Guess what? Qwest has a 250GB cap also... Can't get verizon here, already checked. Can anyone verify that they don't have a cap too and just being quiet about it?

And Comcast does not provide any way for their users to measure how much they have used. They said "there are lots of free utilities available on the internet that do this".

Guess I will convert to comcast biz if I need more than 250GB/mo, same speed costs about $14 more a month with 5 static IP's, but there is no cap on biz customers. Seems like nothing more than a slimy way to extort more money out of us.

I think this should be totally, completely, illegal and won't be surprised to see class action lawsuits.

[Jagmit_B]

ok, first off, i don't like how internet companies are starting to put a cap on internet usage, it is ridiculous. second, we can't do anything about it. they have us by the neck. thirdly, this 250 gb is amazing, at least for most canadians. Rogers, the largest wireless, internet and cable provider in canada has a limit of 60 and 80 gb. THATS IT!!!!!!!!! so i don't know why you guys are wining about a 250gb limit per month!!! i have a family of 5 and we always meet the cap. i don't know how someone can pass the 250 gb limit when that is the size of an average home user harddrive. i mean i know some files are temporary but come one. if someone should be complaining it should be canadians. i don't know why cnet didn't do news on rogers cap, at least i never saw it. but they did report rogers caps on iphones, just because they were iphones. come on cnet, start doing some more widespread news. anyways, bottom line, you comcast customers should be happy with your limit, VERY happy. so please stop complaining and look at us with our 60gb limit!!

[gerry-g]

There is a significant error in the main article:

"Users who go over the limit will get a courtesy call from Comcast's customer service for the first instance"

Comcast's actual Frequently Asked Questions about Excessive Use states

"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."

"***" added by me.

Comcast is measuring the usage but won't let a customer check that data and they reserved the right not to even tell you via use of the word "may"!

[Travis742]

Of everyone I know, nobody likes Comcast. Every story is a bad story. So, how does Comcast get away with this? Simple: they're the only choice in many markets (ie, DSL unavailable, etc). This is exactly why regulation is important. It's a similar story with gas, electric and other utilities... when customers MUST use a particular company and there is no viable competition, the government must step in to protect customers and ensure a company doesn't take advantage of their position.

For some reason, Comcast has gotten away with a lot more than other utilities though. Imagine if your gas or electric were capped at a certain level, which you could not check, and the company just shut off your service if you exceeded your limit.

... it just amazes me that Comcast gets away with this.

[Nostradumbass]

So, on paper (ie our bill/agreement), we were paying a set price for "unlimited" bandwidth. Now, we're paying that same set price for limited bandwidth? I predict an internet provider switch the moment it's feasible...

[Strnj1]

Twenty years ago, when I first moved into my house, I proceeded to cut all connections to Comcast from my house roll the cable up and toss it over the fence on the back side of my property. I did this because of my previous experience with Comcast's total lack of concern for what you, the customer, thought of their policies and this was when the were just Cable TV.

They tried, continuously, for about five years to sell me cable. I refused.

Then, a couple years ago, I had a "rough" looking girl come to my front door, flash what was supposed to be a Comcast ID and begin, basically, accusing me of stealing cable.

I cut her short, told her if she could find any connection to this house or any device in this house that was connected to anything other than Verizon DSL, that I would be more than willing to pay any backcharges and penalties that Comcast believed they were owed. Failing that, I had attorneys on retainer that would be more than eager to meet again with her and her employers.

She had this dumb look on her face for a few second and then actually began trying to SELL me cable service. I slammed the door in her face.

I refuse to deal w/ this attitude and I don't see it changing until it is too late. That is why I have given their stock the "thumbs down" on most of the stock trading boards that I belong too.

[MrTuth]

A lot of you aren't seeing a bigger picture here.

By Comcasts numbers, if an average user say hits 3 or 5 Gbytes a month and thats what they are shooting for as a typical user, Then a Bandwidth hog at 300-500 Gbytes a month is using 100 times the bandwidth comcast might be expecting from a typical user.

Bandwidth costs money. (period)

So either Comcast can kick the Bandwidth hog, or they can charge him/her/them 100 times the fee of an average and typical user, say $5000 a month.

Ok so this is one of those extreme comparisons, but its the type of extreme comparison that bean counters use to justify their positions on making decisions like these.

I personally feel that every ISP should tax the source of the downloads a fee for using their infrastructure for profit.
Let me explain further before you flame...

If companies like T-Mobiles Wifi Home Hotspots, Roku Video service, Slingbox Video servers, VuDu HD Movie Download subscription service, Apple's I-TV, Blockbuster and Netflix movie download services, among others, depend on your internet capabilities to make their company be profitable, then they in turn should be charge by the ISP, in turn, a fee for using their Internet backbone in the process of making money.

In otherwords, the fees you would pay to download from a third party subscription service would then subjected to a surcharge, a small percentage that would be going right back to the ISP whose Bandwidth is being utilized by the Third party serve provider in a for profit business.

This might be a better way to recoup losses rather than eliminate bandwidth hogs.

Its just an opinion, and I have the right to my opinion as much as the next guy, so if I'm flamed for it, you'll be the fool, not me.

[dmonn77]

So.... I just point my 14 dbi antenna out my window and use one of the 30 or so unprotected wireless networks out there and suck up everyone elses bandwidth. Or if I just took the 5 min it takes to use aircrack-ng.. heck I could start making all my neighbors get the phone calls from comcast and their service shut off for a year.

I would not actually do either of those, but I am sure many people will be, and comcast will be shutting off the internet of people that probably only check their email once a week.

I think comcast's plan was rushed and without much thought.

They were just angry because the whole P2P and Net Neutrality thing with the FCC didn't go according to their plan, and now they are just whining like a big baby because of it.

Maybe if they spent their money updating their antiquated network instead of spending their money monitoring every Byte that goes through it, it would not only be less painful for them but also less painful for their customers.

[kj7yl]

Comcast Sues FCC For Right To Limit Bandwidth Hogs
Michael Learmonth | September 4, 2008 6:20 PM
Comcast (CMCSA) is challenging an FCC ruling that blocked the company from slowing down Web traffic from peer-to-peer fille sharing applications such as BitTorrent.

The FCC voted 3-2 in early August that treating certain types of Web traffic differently violated its "net neutrality" principles, which state that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.

Comcast says while it will comply, it is still appealing the order "to protect our legal rights and to challenge the basis on which the [FCC] found that Comcast violated federal policy in the absence of pre-existing legally enforceable standards," EVP David L. Cohen said, in a statement.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin told Bloomberg he's "disappointed" by the challenge, and that "it was important for the commission to continue to protect consumers' unfettered access to the Internet."

Even before the FCC's ruling, Comcast announced a different strategy to keep the most prolific consumers of bandwidth from overburdening their network: It will slow down users based on how much bandwidth they're using -- not based on what software they're using. And as of Oct. 1, the company will impose a cap of 250 gigabytes a month for residential customers, a move that could affect about 1% of Comcast's 14.1 million broadband subscribers.

[Mr.HD]

What about playing games online line how does this effect the games.

[satansoldier]

Comcast is really starting to **** me off. But they control the damn internet. Unless i want to go back to dial up, i have to put up with there BS.

Anyway, I flashed my router with tomato (link below) You can monitor your bandwidth daily, weekly, monthly, even real time, for your entire home network. I'm at 39.3GB so far this month....
http://www.polarcloud.com/tomato

[royalspin]

Where do I even start ? Used to work for these yahoos when they were ATT Broadband and they actually gave a hoot about the customer even if they're gear wasn't ready for prime time.Left for a contractor gig and came back to ComCast or should I say ScamCast with they're over eager shareholders who don't give a rip about customer service or for that matter honesty.Most the technicians and in house staff in general care about what they do but as with most companies in this 1980s revisited era of "greed is good" or at least till Wall st crashes they don't care about customer rights or fair deals because in most cases they have you where they want you.Usually there are the only high speed B.B. ISP in the area unless FIOS is around which is far and few inbetween currently.So because of this they have become in my opinion as a former employee of this company, very complaisant and will ride this monopoly as long as they can because really .Wacha gonna do, go with dial up ? or sign a contract for dsl charging almost the same for a fraction of the the speed ? Cmon !

They know this and will dictate for as long as they see fit.Initially they started off as the brand new face to what had become a major nightmare of overspending with the former ATT and seemed to be the salvation ,that is until they got comfortable and started to forget the golden rule of any sales driven business which is "The Customer is ALWAYS right".

I got tired of hearing the constant complaints because many times I agreed with the customer which is a big no no .After seeing on what became the last occasion a customer get the shaft and be canceled for they're appoinment after waiting all day for what should have been a simple transfer of equipment as well as new services.They had records of conversation and were outright lied to by the branch I worked at and told something totally different by the main call in center.I found myself profusely apologizing to the customer especially after hearing that this person had taken the day off of work just to be there and then got the run around. I found myself getting pretty ticked off by my own company.So what I did is try to save the account and went through "proper channels " to see how this gross error could be fixed and to see about offering a free month or perhaps more which should have been the correct course of action chosen by the company especially since they were good paying long term customers never late on they're bills and had all the extras HD DVR etc.Standing up for the customer only landed me into hot water because I tried to make things right.Silly me what was I thinking of ?

So all in all this is no surprise to me at all.It has become the American way of doing business.No honesty or integrity just greed.Gee I wonder why we had that little crash Hmmm ??

[taxprosolutions]

This is absolutely unacceptable, but unfortunately it is not surprising.

The competition is tight with the internet providers, and competition is not the cable companies preferred environment. The cable companies are now learning that the days of legislating away competition are over. Now they must learn to compete in a competitive environment, and nickel and diming their customers will likely not be effective.

Jonathan
taxprosolutions.com

[ConcastAsswipe]

I just got the "friendly" cease and desist call from Concast. ******* on the other end had the nerve to throw in after I stated I had originally signed up under "UNLIMITED INTERNET!!"...*******'s response... "You did read the fine print? We reserve the right to amment your contract at ANY time. But on the same note...we don't want to lose you as a customer." I told him to go f**k himself and hung up.

I foresee ...Fun times ahead.