Comcast sets 250GB ceiling

Fuzz420

Are U Here 2 take My Baby
Now, it’s official. Comcast will impose a 250GB monthly cap on its Internet customers, as the SF Chronicle reports.

Violators will get a notice and a warning. If you do it twice in a six-month period, they may terminate your account.

What’s more, Comcast won’t be releasing any programs that will let you easily monitor your bandwidth usage, although anyone who is seriously in danger of hitting the cap probably can figure out how to download their own monitor.

This is how Comcast manages its network when it can’t cut off BitTorrent users. Comcast says most users use 2 to 3 GB.

The thing is, isn’t Comcast’s future – the commercial future of the Web – in higher-def video, stuff like the NBC Olympics site? Won’t Comcast be encouraging users to download video – and video ads – at greater and greater volumes even as it threatens to cut heavy users off?

“This wouldn’t be necessary if Comcast had chosen to expand its capacity,” said Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers’ Action Network in San Diego. “They’ve chosen instead to degrade service.”

And the monopoly nature of broadband providers means few people will have any choice but to accept the limits, even if their usage is completely legitimate. That’s the broadband policy we have chosen, said Free Press’s S. Derek Turner:

“Unfortunately, Americans will continue to face the consequences of this lack of competition until policymakers get serious about policies that deliver the world-class networks consumers deserve,” Turner said in a statement.

As a law school graduate and technology writer, Richard Koman brings a unique perspective to the blog's intersection of law, government and technology. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3968

You comcast users beware
 

Facime

Leather work expert
Jun 1, 2006
2,716
0
0
60
Corvallis OR
I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make with your post. Are you saying its illegal for them to limit bandwidth to its customers or just cheap? Im sure you have an option of upgrading to a commercial account that allows for greater limits, its just going to cost more.

My second point is it sounds like you are mad that you wont be able to illeglly download through bit-torrent all of the media you would otherwise have to pay for through other sources. Did I get that right?

Im not trying to pick a fight or anything but holy shit man...false sence of entitlement much?
 

Supracentral

Active Member
Mar 30, 2005
10,542
10
36
Current Internet access is built upon the broken backs of investors.

Back during the dot com crash, many providers bought up tons of network capacity for pennies on the dollar. And they've been selling access to that capacity like it's never going to run out.

It is now running out.

Providing multi-megabit per second internet access for the prices that people are used to paying for it is a non-sustainable model.

The OP seems to think there needs to be government regulation to provide "policies that deliver the world-class networks consumers deserve".

That's socialist bullshit rhetoric. You deserve nothing but your right to your life, your liberty and your property.

The bandwidth providers deserve the same.

Internet access is now going to be a "right"? Is that where we are going with this?

Start smelling the bullshit you are shoveling folks... It stinks.
 

ForcedTorque

Join the 92 Owners Group
Jul 11, 2005
6,099
2
38
58
Satsuma, Alabama, United States
I don't have Comcast, and I don't understand the limit thing myself. I would like to know more, as I am a new subscriber to Mediacom, and I'm sure if it is beneficial to Comcast, Mediacom will not be far behind. Other than curbing illegal downloads (which I don't do), what else will it effect?
 

Facime

Leather work expert
Jun 1, 2006
2,716
0
0
60
Corvallis OR
ForcedTorque;1116680 said:
Other than curbing illegal downloads (which I don't do), what else will it effect?
nothing. in fact, taking the gross abusers off the network should actually speed things up for the rest of us. I say should, because in theory thats what would happen, but the gross abusers wont go away, they will just find new avenues to hog bandwidth). As Mike alluded to, the infrastructure needs constant update if its to keep up with demand (though Im not sure what socialism has to do with that, but that seems to be Mike's "rally call" at the moment).

I think the situation is born more of our nations economy and the trend of sending money overseas rather than investing in US jobs and services. The move by comcast seems like a pretty reasonable way to remain profitable while providing decent service to the vast majority of its customers. Scott, to guys like you and I, its a good thing.


ninja edit:
mkiiSupraMan18;1116689 said:
250GB of porn is more than enough...
SAYS YOU! :naughty:
 

iwannadie

New Member
Jul 28, 2006
981
0
0
gilbert, az
Supracentral;1116675 said:
Current Internet access is built upon the broken backs of investors.

Back during the dot com crash, many providers bought up tons of network capacity for pennies on the dollar. And they've been selling access to that capacity like it's never going to run out.

It is now running out.

Providing multi-megabit per second internet access for the prices that people are used to paying for it is a non-sustainable model.

The OP seems to think there needs to be government regulation to provide "policies that deliver the world-class networks consumers deserve".

That's socialist bullshit rhetoric. You deserve nothing but your right to your life, your liberty and your property.

The bandwidth providers deserve the same.

Internet access is now going to be a "right"? Is that where we are going with this?

Start smelling the bullshit you are shoveling folks... It stinks.


So when does my carbon foot print become eclipsed by my bandwidth foot print?

People cry gas is too expensive and the govt should make it cheaper so they can drive 10mpg SUVs. Now the govt has to step in and make the internet cheaper so they can download media.
 

Doward

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
4,245
0
36
Alachua, FL
I redistribute Linux distributions all day long, as well as constantly stream access to my home media server.

I pay for Cox's top tier of residential service - I don't agree that I should be capped, but I do think if you pay for the 'economy' (which is still 1.5 mb/s, IIRC) then you should have a cap.
 

Fuzz420

Are U Here 2 take My Baby
Facime;1116643 said:
I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make with your post. Are you saying its illegal for them to limit bandwidth to its customers or just cheap? Im sure you have an option of upgrading to a commercial account that allows for greater limits, its just going to cost more.

My second point is it sounds like you are mad that you wont be able to illeglly download through bit-torrent all of the media you would otherwise have to pay for through other sources. Did I get that right?

Im not trying to pick a fight or anything but holy shit man...false sence of entitlement much?

LoL, i believe you've over analyzed my post. My problem is the fact that subscribers are paying "top" dollar for internet service. So limiting bandwith usage seems absurd when your paying $60 a month for "premium" service. I fore one have had issues because of my RSS feeds(non-comcast isp). Large familys or heavy single users may run into this "cap," with online gaming, legal downloads,and streaming video's.

And for the record bittorrents are a terrible way to acquire illegal content :)
 

Facime

Leather work expert
Jun 1, 2006
2,716
0
0
60
Corvallis OR
lol, maybe I did over analyze it a tad, I just see entitlement written all over it. Want more? pay more! its really as simple as that. Sometimes you just need to put things in perspective. $60/month for 250gb bandwidth is very reasonable. $60 is about a tankful of gas and for most anyone with even a mediocre job, 4 hours or less of work a month. Compare what kind of entertainment you get from a tank of gas to the entertainment you get each month from being online. I would say I get far more entertainment from being online (ok...NO cracks about my NA 2.8 mk2, lol) I spend as much online time as most people spend working a day (part of that is because I get my work online), and I doubt I come anywhere close to the cap.


So the chief complaint of the thread was an economic one? Ok, I can get behind that, but as is said about the Supra as well...you wanna play you gotta pay!
 

Fuzz420

Are U Here 2 take My Baby
Facime;1116715 said:
lol, maybe I did over analyze it a tad, I just see entitlement written all over it. Want more? pay more! its really as simple as that. Sometimes you just need to put things in perspective. $60/month for 250gb bandwidth is very reasonable. $60 is about a tankful of gas and for most anyone with even a mediocre job, 4 hours or less of work a month. I spend as much online time as most people spend working a day (part of that is because I get my work online), and I doubt I come anywhere close to the cap.


So the chief complaint of the thread was an economic one? Ok, I can get behind that, but as is said about the Supra as well...you wanna play you gotta pay!

I do pay to play, i bought the top tier package from my ISP, here recently they just started advertising it for the masses.If im paying for the best why should i have to worry about some silly cap.I should be able to use my internet as i see fit, as long as it doesn't infringe on the ISP's TOS agreement. I could understand if i were paying for a lesser package, a cap is fairly understandable, as i wouldnt be paying for the "premium" service.
 

Facime

Leather work expert
Jun 1, 2006
2,716
0
0
60
Corvallis OR
do you think you are in danger of going over that cap? If so, how much of that is "less than legal"? If you can honestly say zero, I will start feeling bad for you.


edit: no wait...if you can honestly answer zero Im gonna say "dude, put down the bong and go outside for fucks sake" :biglaugh:
 

Fuzz420

Are U Here 2 take My Baby
Facime;1116722 said:
do you think you are in danger of going over that cap? If so, how much of that is "less than legal"? If you can honestly say zero, I will start feeling bad for you.


edit: no wait...if you can honestly answer zero Im gonna say "dude, put down the bong and go outside for fucks sake" :biglaugh:

lol, im not in danger now, i filled up almost all of my 1.1tb of HDD space ;)
Gotta take it easy now days, dont need my ISP contacting me again. As for legalities of the downloads ill take that one too my grave :biglaugh:
 

figgie

Supramania Contributor
Mar 30, 2005
5,225
16
38
50
Twin Cities, Minnesot-ah
250GB a month

that equals to

5 Blu-ray Disc encoded at their 40 mb/s @1080p video and including about 6 or 7 LOSSLESS audio tracks.

More if droping all but one audio track.

31.25 DVD worth of Movies or applications.

312 Full Music CD uncompressed = (average of 10 songs per CD) 3125 songs.

So forgive me but who exactly downloads that many songs CONSTANTLY save for the bandwidth leechers or people doing what they are not supposed to.

let Comcast limit the badnwidth. unless you are running google. No reason to be going above 250gb.
 

GotTurbos?

2J = Here; Swap = Near
Apr 24, 2006
951
0
0
35
Dallas, TX
I think it would take me over a year to DL more than 250GB... so if it stops some yahoos from stealing stuff, who cares? Let the company do what they want.
 

Fuzz420

Are U Here 2 take My Baby
But it wont stop anyone

Im surprised most of you all would concede so easily. Im sure when ISP's start limiting internet access, and saying"this is how we manage our network when we can’t cut off BitTorrent users."You would then quickly change your minds on how the ISP handles things, when one of your favorite websites is un-accessible
 

Facime

Leather work expert
Jun 1, 2006
2,716
0
0
60
Corvallis OR
Fuzz420;1116823 said:
But it wont stop anyone

no it probably wont...but it will limit them, and in this case I agree with that limitation. Im sorry, but knowing that you are afraid of pushing the cap because of illegal downloads gives me ZERO sympathy for your cause.
 

Supracentral

Active Member
Mar 30, 2005
10,542
10
36
ForcedTorque;1116680 said:
I don't have Comcast, and I don't understand the limit thing myself. I would like to know more, as I am a new subscriber to Mediacom, and I'm sure if it is beneficial to Comcast, Mediacom will not be far behind. Other than curbing illegal downloads (which I don't do), what else will it effect?

Prices. Bandwidth is finite. The more scarce the resource, the more the price goes up. You either increase supply, or lower demand.

Fuzz420;1116703 said:
My problem is the fact that subscribers are paying "top" dollar for internet service. So limiting bandwith usage seems absurd when your paying $60 a month for "premium" service.

You think $60 a month is "top" dollar for "premium" service? You're fucking kidding, right? You want a government regulated 100% guaranteed connection? Go get a T1 that's regulated by the FCC.

Tell me how "top" $60 a month sounds after pricing that out.

Fuzz420;1116703 said:
I fore one have had issues because of my RSS feeds(non-comcast isp). Large familys or heavy single users may run into this "cap," with online gaming, legal downloads,and streaming video's.

A quarter terabyte a month? Really? Once again, you have to be kidding.

A DVD holds 4GB +/- of data.

You're pulling 250GB in RSS feeds?

Stop it, you're embarrassing yourself.

Fuzz420;1116703 said:
And for the record bittorrents are a terrible way to acquire illegal content :)

What's the "good" way? Is that the reason for a quarter GB not being enough for you?
 

Poodles

I play with fire
Jul 22, 2006
16,757
0
0
43
Fort Worth, TX
Having 5 computers, Xbox, and PSP connected to our home network, we could easily do that amount in a month...

If you pay for a specific bandwidth you should be able to use it 24/7 at max capacity.

It depends if this is being forced on those that already have contracts or not...