

pizz

Premium Member

join:2000-10-27

Astoria, NY pizz Premium Member Cable companies need to wake up By going to a tiered bandwidth plan, you're just going to make it that much easier to switch to DSL. They only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL.



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ 1 edit 1 recommendation FFH5 Premium Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by pizz:



By going to a tiered bandwidth plan, you're just going to make it that much easier to switch to DSL. They only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL.

By going to a tiered bandwidth plan, you're just going to make it that much easier to switch to DSL. They only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL.



And that 250GB should be plenty. The biggest month I ever had was about 12 GB up & down combined and that was watching a few TV shows online I missed on TV and downloading one of those infamous linux distros. And what makes you think that DSL providers won't follow suit? Once a big ISP like Comcast and TW do this, the rest will follow.And that 250GB should be plenty. The biggest month I ever had was about 12 GB up & down combined and that was watching a few TV shows online I missed on TV and downloading one of those infamous linux distros.

EPS4

join:2008-02-13

Hingham, MA EPS4 Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to? While I understand that DSL is also shared, it doesn't seem to have the same level limitations as DOCSIS 1.1 (which most of Comcast uses IIRC) that lead Comcast to think of capping.



SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN 1 recommendation SpaethCo MVM Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by EPS4:



The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to? The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to? Running circuits to remote terminals isn't free.



davoice

join:2000-08-12

Saxapahaw, NC davoice Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by SpaethCo:



said by EPS4:



The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to? The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to?

Running circuits to remote terminals isn't free.



}Davoice You're right. And the smart LECs used USF funds to get it done without costing them a penny. Just look at Bellsouth's (now AT&T) DSLAM and remote terminal ployments in Mississippi as an example.}Davoice

patcat88

join:2002-04-05

Jamaica, NY patcat88 to SpaethCo

Member to SpaethCo

said by SpaethCo:



said by EPS4:



The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to? The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to?

Running circuits to remote terminals isn't free. Replacing 2 line cards on 1 strand of fiber is almost free.



Combat Chuck

Too Many Cannibals

Premium Member

join:2001-11-29

Verona, PA Combat Chuck to EPS4

Premium Member to EPS4

said by EPS4:



The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to? While I understand that DSL is also shared, it doesn't seem to have the same level limitations as DOCSIS 1.1 (which most of Comcast uses IIRC) that lead Comcast to think of capping.

The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to? While I understand that DSL is also shared, it doesn't seem to have the same level limitations as DOCSIS 1.1 (which most of Comcast uses IIRC) that lead Comcast to think of capping. Because capping has nothing to do with the line between the customer and the ISP; but the line between the ISP and other ISP's, which is an issue for every ISP regardless of how they deliver service to the customer.



SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN SpaethCo MVM Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by Combat Chuck:



Because capping has nothing to do with the line between the customer and the ISP; but the line between the ISP and other ISP's, which is an issue for every ISP regardless of how they deliver service to the customer. Because capping has nothing to do with the line between the customer and the ISP; but the line between the ISP and other ISP's, which is an issue for every ISP regardless of how they deliver service to the customer.



The costs are in the last mile, always have been. I don't know if I agree with that. Carrier bandwidth is the cheapest bandwidth you can buy; it's generally a small number of massive circuits with large commits so Internet bandwidth itself is dirt cheap. The DS1/DS3/OC3 circuits to feed the remote terminals, on the other hand, require buildout of the telco ATM cloud which is definitely not cheap bandwidth.The costs are in the last mile, always have been.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY Crookshanks Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by SpaethCo:



The costs are in the last mile, always have been.

The costs are in the last mile, always have been.



How quickly we forget. This held true even for POTS services. Recall how the price of long distance dropped like a stone after the AT&T divestiture while the price of local service has done nothing but increase. AT&T was using long distance revenue to subsidize the last mile and couldn't keep doing that once other players entered the long distance market.How quickly we forget.



factchecker

@cox.net factchecker to Combat Chuck

Anon to Combat Chuck

said by Combat Chuck:



Because capping has nothing to do with the line between the customer and the ISP; but the line between the ISP and other ISP's, which is an issue for every ISP regardless of how they deliver service to the customer.

Because capping has nothing to do with the line between the customer and the ISP; but the line between the ISP and other ISP's, which is an issue for every ISP regardless of how they deliver service to the customer.



There is no transit and backbone level bandwidth shortage, it is entirely in the last mile. Chuck, you've got it backwards... Take it from someone who has worked/still works with enterprises that purchase transit bandwidth... Transit is the cheap bandwidth. Bandwidth for regional, long haul backbone and local access networks (last mile) are where the costs are for providers because they have to run fibre/coppper, install nodes/RTs, etc.There is no transit and backbone level bandwidth shortage, it is entirely in the last mile.



Combat Chuck

Too Many Cannibals

Premium Member

join:2001-11-29

Verona, PA Combat Chuck Premium Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by factchecker :



Chuck, you've got it backwards... Take it from someone who has worked/still works with enterprises that purchase transit bandwidth... Transit is the cheap bandwidth. That's not what everyone was saying a couple years ago when the "invisible cap" originally hit. That's not what everyone was saying a couple years ago when the "invisible cap" originally hit.



S_engineer

Premium Member

join:2007-05-16

Chicago, IL S_engineer Premium Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up Yes but with the rollout of docsis3, you can reach these caps faster than ever...costing you the consumer more than ever!



How Comcraptic!



Quaoar

join:2004-08-11

Fort Collins, CO Quaoar Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up Docsis 3.0 is only viable for Comcast in DIRECT competition with FIOS or similar. Most of Comcast will never see Docsis 3.0 since Verizon overlaps Comcast in only very limited areas.



Q



SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN SpaethCo MVM Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by Quaoar:



Docsis 3.0 is only viable for Comcast in DIRECT competition with FIOS or similar. Docsis 3.0 is only viable for Comcast in DIRECT competition with FIOS or similar.



The big gains on DOCSIS 3.0 deployments are in enabling switch digital video, allowing greater channel density without further degrading quality from compression. That you can get additional HSI bandwidth is just a nice cherry on the package.



The reason FiOS is being deployed by Verizon is that they needed a plant overhaul to be able to get into the video services distribution business. HSI gains are, again, only a side benefit.



PS: Minneapolis is a Qwest/Embarq market, and we have DOCSIS 3.0 Saying this more times doesn't make it any more true.The big gains on DOCSIS 3.0 deployments are in enabling switch digital video, allowing greater channel density without further degrading quality from compression. That you can get additional HSI bandwidth is just a nice cherry on the package.The reason FiOS is being deployed by Verizon is that they needed a plant overhaul to be able to get into the video services distribution business. HSI gains are, again, only a side benefit.



funchords

Hello

MVM

join:2001-03-11

Yarmouth Port, MA funchords MVM Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by SpaethCo:



The reason FiOS is being deployed by Verizon is that they needed a plant overhaul to be able to get into the video services distribution business. HSI gains are, again, only a side benefit. The reason FiOS is being deployed by Verizon is that they needed a plant overhaul to be able to get into the video services distribution business. HSI gains are, again, only a side benefit. I don't get it. We (Internet subscribers) pay pretty big bills -- a good fraction of any double-play. Are we getting our share of the plant in return?



SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN SpaethCo MVM Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by funchords:



I don't get it. We (Internet subscribers) pay pretty big bills -- a good fraction of any double-play. Are we getting our share of the plant in return? I don't get it. We (Internet subscribers) pay pretty big bills -- a good fraction of any double-play. Are we getting our share of the plant in return?



Even though video services occupy the overwhelming majority of a cable system, what do you figure the ratio is for service calls on video vs data? My guess would be 1:10 for video:data. Not all services are created equal, even if they use the same amount of capacity on the plant. Video is largely identical downstream replication, and it's a gift that keeps on giving in terms of subscriber revenue *AND* advertising insert revenue. The engineering is less complex, there are no DoS attacks/worms/DMCA complaints/SPAM floods/etc in the video world. The capacity is fixed 24x7, making the infrastructure easy to plan for, and people are accustomed to paying premium rates for content.Even though video services occupy the overwhelming majority of a cable system, what do you figure the ratio is for service calls on video vs data? My guess would be 1:10 for video:data.



funchords

Hello

MVM

join:2001-03-11

Yarmouth Port, MA funchords MVM Re: Cable companies need to wake up Good points, all of them.



It's been a breath-taking week -- and it's not over. The Network Neutrality news is snowballing.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 to S_engineer

Member to S_engineer

As it should cost you more. If you are using that much bandwidth on a regular basis then you need to be paying for it. Plain and simple and now they are spelling out for you.



S_engineer

Premium Member

join:2007-05-16

Chicago, IL S_engineer Premium Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by Skippy25:



As it should cost you more. If you are using that much bandwidth on a regular basis then you need to be paying for it. Plain and simple and now they are spelling out for you.

As it should cost you more. If you are using that much bandwidth on a regular basis then you need to be paying for it. Plain and simple and now they are spelling out for you. Maybe they should have spelled it out before. I don't know where you learned the English language from but where I grew up "unlimited" meant without limitations. An invisible cap on an "Unlimited" network constitutes breach of contract.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05

Jamaica, NY patcat88 Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by S_engineer:



said by Skippy25:



As it should cost you more. If you are using that much bandwidth on a regular basis then you need to be paying for it. Plain and simple and now they are spelling out for you.

As it should cost you more. If you are using that much bandwidth on a regular basis then you need to be paying for it. Plain and simple and now they are spelling out for you.

Maybe they should have spelled it out before. I don't know where you learned the English language from but where I grew up "unlimited" meant without limitations. An invisible cap on an "Unlimited" network constitutes breach of contract. Comcast doesn't use the word unlimited anywhere, what makes you think it is?

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 to S_engineer

Member to S_engineer

We can play all day with what the term unlimited means in respect to your connection and the ISP's obligation to you and YOUR obligation to the ISP.



Bottom line is, as been pointed out numerous times already, they do not use the term Unlimited and haven't for quite some time.



You want unlimited bandwidth to download all the crap you want, then pony up the cash and get it or stop the whining.



factchecker

@cox.net factchecker to Combat Chuck

Anon to Combat Chuck

said by Combat Chuck:



said by factchecker :



Chuck, you've got it backwards... Take it from someone who has worked/still works with enterprises that purchase transit bandwidth... Transit is the cheap bandwidth. That's not what everyone was saying a couple years ago when the "invisible cap" originally hit. That's not what everyone was saying a couple years ago when the "invisible cap" originally hit.



Yes, transit WAS more expensive back when the "invisi-cap" sprang up, but that was partly because interfaces and hardware just for those transit circuits was more expensive (think about how much a router that could handle a dozen or two GigE or OC48 or OC192 interfaces cost back then compared to now). There also wasn't as much capacity on the backbone and access portions of the major carriers' networks that ISPs connect to as there is now (thanks to DWDM, etc.).



But if it was being said that transit costs were part of the reason for the "invisi-caps"... That would be true...



As for now, with most ISPs connecting to transit providers (or being their own transit providers) at, in most places, 1 and 10 Gbps, there definitely is not issue with transit. The problem is that the last mile is much harder to upgrade than a router card swap or installing a new router. Well, most of "everyone" back then, like now too, probably have no idea of how transit bandwidth is purchased and priced.Yes, transit WAS more expensive back when the "invisi-cap" sprang up, but that was partly because interfaces and hardware just for those transit circuits was more expensive (think about how much a router that could handle a dozen or two GigE or OC48 or OC192 interfaces cost back then compared to now). There also wasn't as much capacity on the backbone and access portions of the major carriers' networks that ISPs connect to as there is now (thanks to DWDM, etc.).But if it was being said that transit costs were part of the reason for the "invisi-caps"... That would be true...As for now, with most ISPs connecting to transit providers (or being their own transit providers) at, in most places, 1 and 10 Gbps, there definitely is not issue with transit. The problem is that the last mile is much harder to upgrade than a router card swap or installing a new router.



funchords

Hello

MVM

join:2001-03-11

Yarmouth Port, MA funchords MVM Re: Cable companies need to wake up So do we need this new policy at all? Maybe what we need -- all we need -- is something that addresses the uplink side?



Jeffrey

Connoisseur of leisurely things

Premium Member

join:2002-12-24

GMT -5 2 recommendations Jeffrey to FFH5

Premium Member to FFH5

said by FFH5: said by pizz:



By going to a tiered bandwidth plan, you're just going to make it that much easier to switch to DSL. They only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL.

By going to a tiered bandwidth plan, you're just going to make it that much easier to switch to DSL. They only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL.

And that 250GB should be plenty. The biggest month I ever had was about 12 GB up & down combined and that was watching a few TV shows online I missed on TV and downloading one of those infamous linux distros. enough for someone else. That's great that you only use 12GB. Perhaps it's just you in your house, and a significant other. Then again, you have other people, homes with parents, 4 teenagers, Netflix movie downloads, etc. I really dislike when people say what should befor someone else. That's great that you only use 12GB. Perhaps it's just you in your house, and a significant other. Then again, you have other people, homes with parents, 4 teenagers, Netflix movie downloads, etc.



NOCMan

MadMacHatter

Premium Member

join:2004-09-30

Colorado Springs, CO NOCMan Premium Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up I agree. Music downloads, web surfing, online radio, video games, Movie rentals from Itunes range from 600M to over 6G.



Backing up all my digital media online would put me over a terabit. So you're telling me it would take me several months to download all of it. That limit would severely limit innovation on the internet.



ropeguru

Premium Member

join:2001-01-25

Mechanicsville, VA ropeguru Premium Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by NOCMan:



...



Backing up all my digital media online would put me over a terabit. So you're telling me it would take me several months to download all of it. That limit would severely limit innovation on the internet.

...Backing up all my digital media online would put me over a terabit. So you're telling me it would take me several months to download all of it. That limit would severely limit innovation on the internet. Sad part is that with all the wimpy upload speeds, you would be through a month and still wouldn't have a complete backup..



JamesPC

join:2005-10-12

Orange, CA JamesPC Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up thats why you upload 24/7, but still takes awhile with 120kb/s



NOCMan

MadMacHatter

Premium Member

join:2004-09-30

Colorado Springs, CO NOCMan to ropeguru

Premium Member to ropeguru

I have FIOS 15mbit upstream. Not my fault other ISP's are crap.



JamesPC

join:2005-10-12

Orange, CA JamesPC to NOCMan

Member to NOCMan

Great point NOCMan. There should be no limitations on a unlimited service. And if they cant offer unlimited SOMEONE WILL!



Quaoar

join:2004-08-11

Fort Collins, CO Quaoar Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up Comcast dropped the "unlimited" at least two years ago, perhaps three.



Q

patcat88

join:2002-04-05

Jamaica, NY patcat88 to JamesPC

Member to JamesPC

said by JamesPC:



Great point NOCMan. There should be no limitations on a unlimited service. And if they cant offer unlimited SOMEONE WILL!

Great point NOCMan. There should be no limitations on a unlimited service. And if they cant offer unlimited SOMEONE WILL!



Concept of capitalism guarantees there will not be true unlimited service.



Cisco and Lucent don't make unlimited speed equipment............. Since when is broadband run by a socialist or communist state?Concept of capitalism guarantees there will not be true unlimited service.Cisco and Lucent don't make unlimited speed equipment.............



Jeffrey

Connoisseur of leisurely things

Premium Member

join:2002-12-24

GMT -5 Jeffrey to NOCMan

Premium Member to NOCMan

said by NOCMan:



I agree. Music downloads, web surfing, online radio, video games, Movie rentals from Itunes range from 600M to over 6G.



Backing up all my digital media online would put me over a terabit. So you're telling me it would take me several months to download all of it. That limit would severely limit innovation on the internet.

I agree. Music downloads, web surfing, online radio, video games, Movie rentals from Itunes range from 600M to over 6G.Backing up all my digital media online would put me over a terabit. So you're telling me it would take me several months to download all of it. That limit would severely limit innovation on the internet. Shit, I forgot about 3rd party online backup. Yep, that would set me over the 1TB limit as well.



SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN SpaethCo to Jeffrey

MVM to Jeffrey

said by Jeffrey:



I really dislike when people say what should be enough for someone else. I really dislike when people say what should befor someone else.



A former coworker of mine now works for Charter Communications here in MN -- for grins I asked him about the node data they collect from the CMTS head-end. He showed me a sample report and I was surprised that I had to skip through a few pages before I found the first line that showed > 2GB of usage.



Statistically speaking, 250GB would easily fit 99+% of the existing user base usage. They had to quit using the phrase "One Size Fits All" because of statements like this.A former coworker of mine now works for Charter Communications here in MN -- for grins I asked him about the node data they collect from the CMTS head-end. He showed me a sample report and I was surprised that I had to skip through a few pages before I found the first line that showed > 2GB of usage.Statistically speaking, 250GB would easily fit 99+% of the existing user base usage.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY Crookshanks to FFH5

Member to FFH5

said by FFH5:



And what makes you think that DSL providers won't follow suit? And what makes you think that DSL providers won't follow suit?



Realistically speaking how many broadband customers even cared about getting faster speeds? Isn't everything above a certain point (1.5 or even 3.0Mbps) just gravy to the vast majority of broadband users? That still hasn't stopped them from engaging in speed wars in areas with real competition. Why will this be any different? Because the telcos are hemorrhaging customers left and right to cable's triple play offerings and need something to use as a competitive advantage, even if said advantage won't matter to 99% of their customers?Realistically speaking how many broadband customers even cared about getting faster speeds? Isn't everything above a certain point (1.5 or even 3.0Mbps) just gravy to the vast majority of broadband users? That still hasn't stopped them from engaging in speed wars in areas with real competition. Why will this be any different?

SilverSurfer1

join:2007-08-19 SilverSurfer1 to FFH5

Member to FFH5

said by FFH5:



And that 250GB should be plenty. The biggest month I ever had was about 12 GB up & down combined and that was watching a few TV shows online I missed on TV and downloading one of those infamous linux distros.

And that 250GB should be plenty. The biggest month I ever had was about 12 GB up & down combined and that was watching a few TV shows online I missed on TV and downloading one of those infamous linux distros. Well that settles it once and for all then. You, personally, have not used over 250 gigs so that stat, of course, applies to everyone else.



Cabal

Premium Member

join:2007-01-21 1 recommendation Cabal Premium Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by SilverSurfer1: said by FFH5:



And that 250GB should be plenty. The biggest month I ever had was about 12 GB up & down combined and that was watching a few TV shows online I missed on TV and downloading one of those infamous linux distros.

And that 250GB should be plenty. The biggest month I ever had was about 12 GB up & down combined and that was watching a few TV shows online I missed on TV and downloading one of those infamous linux distros.

Well that settles it once and for all then. You, personally, have not used over 250 gigs so that stat, of course, applies to everyone else. Nope, just 99.9% of Comcast's users.

rapidrick

join:1999-10-28

Bear, DE rapidrick to FFH5

Member to FFH5

The easiest way to ensure it doesn't catch on is to canel the service!



I would recommend it too! The charge extra, call up and cancel. Trust me, if enough people do it, this idea will get axed quick....

BosstonesOwn

join:2002-12-15

Wakefield, MA BosstonesOwn to FFH5

Member to FFH5

Apr 21st to 28th 2008 30.78 GB 10.62 GB 41.40 GB



One week watching hulu and updating Windows and ubuntu.



They can't stop the bandwidth monster. They need to start coming up with a new method. docsis 3 can only do so much for them.



As soon as this becomes official , Im gone , just on principal.



Sell me a pipe don't try and be a controller. Once these HD video services kick off , we really need just pipes. This sounds like comcast is trying to figure out what the future holds. And throttling torrents was the better of the 2 evils. Now they are trying to find fair numbers , but I am voting with my wallet.

88615298 (banned)

join:2004-07-28

West Tenness 1 recommendation 88615298 (banned) Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by BosstonesOwn:



Apr 21st to 28th 2008 30.78 GB 10.62 GB 41.40 GB



One week watching hulu and updating Windows and ubuntu. Apr 21st to 28th 2008 30.78 GB 10.62 GB 41.40 GBOne week watching hulu and updating Windows and ubuntu. As soon as this becomes official , Im gone , just on principal. And good riddence to you then. 41.4 GB per week X 4.3 weeks a month=178 GB a month. That still leaves you 72 GB left. No worries.And good riddence to you then.



SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN SpaethCo to pizz

MVM to pizz

said by pizz:



The only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL. The only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL. ... or the overwhelming majority of folks who never consume > 250GB/month.

radam

join:2004-02-13

Fairfax Station, VA radam to pizz

Member to pizz

Sounds like Comcast coverage areas need Verizon competition. This competition has forced Cox to be more customer focused in Fairfax VA.



JamesPC

join:2005-10-12

Orange, CA JamesPC Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up The Cable Co's need telco competition everywhere.



KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2

Zoom 5341J

1 recommendation KrK to pizz

Premium Member to pizz

250GB seems fair.... but the $15.00 for 10 GB is steep. $1.50 a GB is way too high.... It's obviously designed as a penalty to try and get people to cut usage, otherwise, why not just give the 250GB and then meter the rest above that for a realistic figure, say 10c a GB...



The reason is most likely to do with the infrastructure configuration. They think the nodes could become overloaded at the neighborhood level. So they will use the steep pricing to encourage people to stay down on usage.



Evergreener

Sent By Grocery Clerks

join:2001-02-20

Evergreen, CO Evergreener to pizz

Member to pizz

It's about time they started considering a sane pricing model. One of two things will happen:



1) Their low-margin customers will pay a premium for overages



or



2) Their low-margin customers will go be low-margin DSL customers



Just freaking tell me exactly what I get for how much. The same flat-rate "UNLIMITED" data transfer pricing model is not sustainable for both casual and hard-core users.

supertech315

join:2006-03-01

Perris, CA supertech315 to pizz

Member to pizz

Only the top 0.1% ...comcast can afford that if anything will be a benefit to get rid of them



tc1uscg

join:2005-03-09

Guantanamo tc1uscg to pizz

Member to pizz

said by pizz:



By going to a tiered bandwidth plan, you're just going to make it that much easier to switch to DSL. They only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL.

By going to a tiered bandwidth plan, you're just going to make it that much easier to switch to DSL. They only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL. Then maybe, the FCC will say.. "Ok, go ahead.. but.. as long as your adding caps, if you sell service at 10mbps, that's what you HAVE to provide. Anything less, and you have to credit your customer(s)".. Naw.. just day dreaming. Martin doesn't have the balls.



OldGrayWolf

join:2007-10-06 OldGrayWolf to pizz

Member to pizz





However, I can also look at my router logs. The router logs have entries for constant port scans and messenger SPAM from malware infected computers on THEIR network. This is NOT included in the bandwidth measurement I have taken because they just bounce off my router.



If they don't exclude these unsolicited attempts to connect to my computer/network, it will distort the statistics of my bandwidth usage.



This idea is not going to work very well.



I think that companies that have TV content provided through other channels (such as Comcast/TimeWarner/et.al.) are trying to limit the adoption of Internet TV and other video Internet sources that are already available in Europe in order to maintain their revenue. I've monitored my bandwidth usage. I fits in the 250GB per month bandwidth.However, I can also look at my router logs. The router logs have entries for constant port scans and messenger SPAM from malware infected computers on THEIR network. This is NOT included in the bandwidth measurement I have taken because they just bounce off my router.If they don't exclude these unsolicited attempts to connect to my computer/network, it will distort the statistics of my bandwidth usage.This idea is not going to work very well.I think that companies that have TV content provided through other channels (such as Comcast/TimeWarner/et.al.) are trying to limit the adoption of Internet TV and other video Internet sources that are already available in Europe in order to maintain their revenue.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05

Jamaica, NY patcat88 Member Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by OldGrayWolf:



I've monitored my bandwidth usage. I fits in the 250GB per month bandwidth.



However, I can also look at my router logs. The router logs have entries for constant port scans and messenger SPAM from malware infected computers on THEIR network. This is NOT included in the bandwidth measurement I have taken because they just bounce off my router.



If they don't exclude these unsolicited attempts to connect to my computer/network, it will distort the statistics of my bandwidth usage.



This idea is not going to work very well.

I've monitored my bandwidth usage. I fits in the 250GB per month bandwidth.However, I can also look at my router logs. The router logs have entries for constant port scans and messenger SPAM from malware infected computers on THEIR network. This is NOT included in the bandwidth measurement I have taken because they just bounce off my router.If they don't exclude these unsolicited attempts to connect to my computer/network, it will distort the statistics of my bandwidth usage.This idea is not going to work very well. Comcast will just NAT and therefore firewall everyone and no more incoming traffic, of any kind. If you want an IP you will have to get business class.



Quaoar

join:2004-08-11

Fort Collins, CO Quaoar to pizz

Member to pizz

Right DSL, only if you live within the 5k feet of the local switch that gives you anything above dial-up speeds. That might be 30% of Comcast subscribers.



Q



Why_Knot

@sbcglobal.net Why_Knot to pizz

Anon to pizz

If Cable companies put a cap on bandwith - and charge the proposed 1.50 per 10GB - then users who use under their proposed 250GB should be allowed to roll-over their unused bandwith for lets say a year. Sort of like the phone companies do. Seems fair to me.



Chuckles0

Premium Member

join:2006-03-04

Saint Paul, MN Chuckles0 Premium Member Rollover... There should be some type of roll over MBs/GBs.



FiL25

Premium Member

join:2005-08-16

Silver Spring, MD 1 edit FiL25 Premium Member What a GREAT number... damn, typo... lol, still, Comcast is only here to dick the consumers.

gsm8

join:2004-09-29

Renton, WA gsm8 Member Get a job if you have a full time job you should be ok I am lucky I can get 45 to 56gb a month and most of that is from when I reformat my desktop



Matt3

All noise, no signal.

Premium Member

join:2003-07-20

Jamestown, NC Matt3 Premium Member Doesn't affect upload? I thought Comcast said that P2P traffic was bringing their network to its knees? So they are asserting it's not the UPSTREAM channels that are taking the beating, but the downstream? Wow.



DaveDude

No Fear

join:1999-09-01

New Jersey DaveDude Member Re: Doesn't affect upload? because Comcast upstream is so pathetic , they dont mention it.



STrRedWolf

join:2006-06-18

Severn, MD STrRedWolf Member 250MEG? 250 Meg?!? That's XP Service Pack 3! It better be 250 Gig. Talk about worse than satelite!

STrRedWolf STrRedWolf Member Re: 250MEG? Correction, it's 250 gig. That's better. Only 50 times that of AT&T's semi-cap of 5 gig on their 3G cards.



FLengineer

CCNA, CEH, MCSA

Premium Member

join:2007-06-26

Deltona, FL 1 edit FLengineer Premium Member Kudos Grats Comcast.



This is a solution that is perfectly legal and not in violation of Net Neutrality. However I hope Comcast is going to provide a way for the average user to check on their usage. Most people don't know how to log into their router, and some routers don't record this data.



netwire

Premium Member

join:2001-04-27

Dallas, NC netwire Premium Member Not bad at all... 250GB per month is a lot of bandwidth for one person to consume. Heck, I don't even use anywhere near 12GB per month and I have two people using the internet. IMO, anyone that's using that much per month either is doing it for business reasons or file sharing.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member Tell me more It seems reasonable, but I'd first want to see

1}An accurate useage meter (including useage history, to see how my usage fits the plan

2} What useage counts against the cap (i.e. Do comcast driven sites and ads "cost" me?)

3} The opportunity to buy a high cap/ flat rate or lower plan for less $(works best where a third party (work) pays your bill)

4} more details



Rob

Premium Member

join:2001-08-25

Miami, FL Rob Premium Member Now we're talking.. I've always said that Comcast's "invisible" caps was a good thing because if they made the caps known, then they would lower them to something like 60GB, otherwise all the abusers would use exactly that amount per month.



250GB is PLENTY PER MONTH. Would be nice if we could have a website where we can see our monthly usage.

93388818 (banned)

It's cool, I'm takin it back

join:2000-03-14

Dallas, TX 93388818 (banned) Member where is Rick5 ??



funchords

Hello

MVM

join:2001-03-11

Yarmouth Port, MA funchords MVM Re: where said by 93388818:



is Rick5

is Rick5 ?? Apparently talking to Karl Bode under the condition of anonymity.



guhuna

5149.5

Premium Member

join:2001-03-31

Benicia, CA 1 recommendation guhuna Premium Member Well. Now shit, was it that hard? Took them what? 3 years to finally publish this?

LowRider

join:2006-06-23

Dallas, GA LowRider Member What ever happened to Docsis 3 well guess there not going to build there pipes for that and just do a temp fix like AT&T. Na but for real, if this is the case what happens when Dosis3 come out to all the users? will the caps still be in place? we need more answers



ztmike

Mark for moderation

Premium Member

join:2001-08-02

Michigan City, IN ztmike Premium Member Re: What ever happened to Docsis 3 said by LowRider:



well guess there not going to build there pipes for that and just do a temp fix like AT&T. Na but for real, if this is the case what happens when Dosis3 come out to all the users? will the caps still be in place? we need more answers

well guess there not going to build there pipes for that and just do a temp fix like AT&T. Na but for real, if this is the case what happens when Dosis3 come out to all the users? will the caps still be in place? we need more answers More than likely when they do raise the speeds, they will just make the caps higher.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05

Jamaica, NY patcat88 to LowRider

Member to LowRider

DOCSIS 3 will be the financial windfall alternative to node splitting except in FIOS markets where it will be used for speed competition. Caps will still apply since Comcast would want heavy bandwidth users to leave by their own will to FIOS.



greg523

@comcast.net greg523 Anon once this happens im dumping comcast att has been calling every other month about the new u-verse service thats available in my area. since right now comcast seems to be faster i decided not to change, but if they are going to make a 250gb cap there is no point in staying with them at least with u-verse i will be able to use my service as much as i want and not be ripped off by having to pay extra if i go over the cap limit



dosguy2000

@comcast.net dosguy2000 Anon Re: once this happens im dumping comcast I'm with you on this. If the ISPs all start capping usage and charging for overage, I'll throw in the towel and go back to dialup. After all, the only reason for having high-speed in the first place is to be able to download large files in a reasonable amount of time. When it starts costing too much, I'll quit. (Not a threat, Comcast. A promise).

MontananIce

join:2008-04-21

Salt Lake City, UT MontananIce Member 250MB I use a videoconferencing machine. At 384Kbps a second, I would hit the 250MB in mere minutes. This story must mean 250 GB cap not a 250MB. I hope...



Jeffrey

Connoisseur of leisurely things

Premium Member

join:2002-12-24

GMT -5 Jeffrey Premium Member Re: 250MB said by MontananIce:



I use a videoconferencing machine. At 384Kbps a second, I would hit the 250MB in mere minutes. This story must mean 250 GB cap not a 250MB. I hope...

I use a videoconferencing machine. At 384Kbps a second, I would hit the 250MB in mere minutes. This story must mean 250 GB cap not a 250MB. I hope... I think it was fixed---it has to be GB.



Millenniumle

join:2007-11-11

Fredonia, NY Millenniumle Member ...



I really hope ISP's don't turn an internet connection into fee central. "Are there any prepaid options." Those Time Warner samples posted here a while back seem more like what is to be expected, unfortunately. Higher tiers have higher caps, but much lower than 250GB. Lower tiers have lower caps. Whichever tier, hitting the cap, and fees, is probable. Uhg!! The number is almost too large to believe. If it only affects .1%, and presumably cuts only a portion of the usage of that .1%, then it would seem to have little to no effect on congestion.I really hope ISP's don't turn an internet connection into fee central. "Are there any prepaid options."Those Time Warner samples posted here a while back seem more like what is to be expected, unfortunately. Higher tiers have higher caps, but much lower than 250GB. Lower tiers have lower caps. Whichever tier, hitting the cap, and fees, is probable. Uhg!!

gworkman

join:2005-10-18

Las Vegas, NV gworkman Member .01% Seems to be a reasonable level to start out with. If only 14,000 of 14 Million are crossing this threshold, it would stand to reason these folks are doing something outside the norm. I'm sure those 14,000 have neighbors that would be better served if the hogs paid a bit more attention to their usage. There are some who, given all they can consume, will consume much more than they need.



pokesph

It Is Almost Fast

Premium Member

join:2001-06-25

Sacramento, CA pokesph Premium Member caps? I have the 8meg plan and I sure as hello hope that there is higher usages set up for us.. and those on the 16/2 plans as well.



Some of us actually use our connections.. we would like to at least get what we pay for.. and caps are lame.



Well I sure wish there were better alternatives available.. T1+ costs too much.. DSL, too far from the CO/DSLAM (now) sat, to much lag and poor performance.. dialup, yeah right.. what else is there?



Surewest Fiber (locally) is near, but STILL won't deploy to my location/house even though I can look out of my window and see the feed.



Also, I think this may be another way MegaCorp Comcast can kill 2 birds with one stone: Make FCC et al happy by not messing with packets AND feed the already fat wallets of the corp and its shareholders. blah



I hope it fails. utterly.



TongSama

join:2002-07-04

Santa Rosa, CA TongSama Member ATT ur chance to steal me away from comcast.. just match the speeds and no caps and i will switch. i recently got into high def content so this cap will hurt me

patcat88

join:2002-04-05

Jamaica, NY patcat88 Member Re: ATT ur chance And Comcast wont care if you leave, they are better off if you do.



DaveDude

No Fear

join:1999-09-01

New Jersey DaveDude Member Fios ? I wonder how FIOS will react to this, for some reason i think they will just ignore heavy users . This way they get even more cable customers

patcat88

join:2002-04-05

Jamaica, NY patcat88 Member Re: Fios ? Verizon has free bandwidth for FIOS. They do own the first Internet backbone provider (UUNet) and every other Tier 2 and Tier 3 backbone provider PAYS Verizon for access onto Verizon's backbone, and Verizon has free peering with all other Tier 1s. So FIOS is just a way to increase the value of Verizon's Tier 1 backbone by adding tons of high speed content sinks (residential customers). The faster that FIOS customers can suck bandwidth, the more expensive other Tier 2s and Tier 3s peering bandwidth costs get with Verizon which means more profit for Verizon.