• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Comcast to start Bandwidth Caps

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Shiggity -

Respectfully, I disagree with some of your statements; and I would like to address them individually:



Yay for ISP monopolies enforcing w/e they want and pretty much saying screw you if you don't like it.
"Monopoly" is defined as exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
Neither Comcast nor any other Internet Service provider is a monopoly because neither they nor any of the others has exclusive control over access to the general internet or the ability to set prices beyond their own Autonomous Systems.
As for what Comcast or any other service provider decides to do with their own AS's is entirely their business. If you do not wish to purchase a service from them you are not compelled to do so.



People abusing P2P / torrents ruin it for everyone because there is no legal way for Comcast to weed them out [at the moment].
The use of P2P software is entirely legal, and just as legitimate as any use that you personally wish to put your own connection to. It is also presumably within the Terms of Service for Comcast customers, otherwise Comcast would be on entirely firm legal ground for doing whatever they want to stop the practice, up to and including canceling of service.
Personally, were I running Comcast I would offer a special service for P2P and MMP customers with a higher price point. (Is that acronym correct? Massive Multiplayer? I'm not a gamer, so I don't know.) It would have symmetrical speeds, possibly Base10T wirespeed and a special Customer Premise box that is actually a switch, not a router; because that would allow traffic to flow at the higher speed layer 2 instead of layer 3. But that's just me. Greedy Capitalist that I am, I see problems like that as a money making opportunity.



Not to mention comcast says they can downthrottle anyone they want now.
It IS their network you know. They can do whatever they want with it.



When downloading large files from fileplanet, I get downthrottled all the time now.
Have you considered purchasing an internet connection that is more in line with your preferred use?
Forgive me, but it sounds like your complain is rather akin to trying to tow a 35,000lb boat with a Subaru Forester and then complaining that Subaru's factory hitch keeps breaking.



I'll be going along at my max avg of ~750KB/s then all of a sudden it'll drop to less than 10KB/s then go back up. So dumb.
If I may... A more appropriate complaint would be "So Frustrating". It is not, however; "dumb". Bandwidth is a commodity. Just like oil, if the demand outstrips the supply; the price will float up. Just as it would be unreasonable to expect your local gas station to sell you gas that costs 3.50/gallon for 2.00/gallon, it is unreasonable to expect an internet service provider to sell it's service for a price that doesn't allow it to fully recoup it's costs.



What's even worse is that I usually download these files late at nite, when no one else is using the network anyways....
Isn't that rather like complaining that you shouldn't get a speeding ticket for driving at 90mpg in a 65mph zone; because it's 3:00am?
Also, I find myself wondering how you know the internet habits of all their other customers?
Finally, I find it a little ironic that you complain that you can't do your bandwidth hogging activities because of all the other bandwidth hogs.;)



Believe me...
I would LOVE to have an unlimited pipe for $20/month. Everyone wants a bargain. But at the end of the day you HAVE to realize that your internet service provider OWNS the infrastructure that it is selling you access to, and therefore it has the right to set the rules.

If you feel that you are not getting a good value for your dollar, you can simply take your business elsewhere. OR, you can stay where you are but buy a more appropriate service level.


Finally, if you are in the somewhat frustrating position of having to make do with the internet connection that your parents have purchased for you; I feel your pain. We didn't HAVE the internet when I was young... we banged rocks together... But Dad would never purchase a big enough rock for me, and that really bummed me out.
 
Last edited:
I, myself, don't think I even come close to the cap of 250 GB so I am not worried about the cap directly.

Instead I am worried about the consequences the cap with have in the future. Like it was said earlier, companies have a habit of setting a high cap at first and then lowering it later so people don't react as strongly as just applying a lower cap initially.

Also, the more important result is the limitation of future technologies. Other than P2P downloads, the next most bandwidth absorbing download is streaming video. This sector of the bandwidth has been growing and has the potential to revolutionize the world. It provides easier access to learning, entertainment, and most importantly unbiased news outlets. The major news carryers are so biased and propaganda driven it is crazy. This will only increase as time goes on and more capitalistic interest is created. Bandwidth limits will halt all of this in its tracks.

Companies like Microsoft and Netflix are trying to change the way we get our media. They were banking on being able to offer HD TV signals over the internet and getting rid of the physical form of media. This will stop that dead. Imagine losing your service because you watch a few HD movies from Xbox live or Netflix in the future?

Lastly, you say companies like Comcast don't have a monopoly when in fact they do. It is a poorly regulated monopoly. For many people across the country they have access to only one high speed ISP. If that ISP decided it wants $200 a month for internet what choice does the person have? Either pony up the cash or go without. That sounds like a monopoly to me.

I for one do have Comcast and I am stuck with them. They own the cable network in my area and I can't get cable internet from anyone else. FIOS isn't available. The satellite signal in my area sucks due to buildings limitation and so on. I had satellite TV and got rid of it in a few months. ATT provides DSL locally but they suck around my area. Everyone I know that has gotten it in my area goes back to cable because of non-stop connection problems. Point is some people don't have free will to get any ISP they want. Some people are stuck with Crapcast and merely cancelling services is not a choice.

Comcast wins everyone else loses.
 
The major news carriers are so biased and propaganda driven it is crazy. This will only increase as time goes on and more capitalistic interest is created. Bandwidth limits will halt all of this in its tracks.

Lastly, you say companies like Comcast don't have a monopoly when in fact they do. It is a poorly regulated monopoly. For many people across the country they have access to only one high speed ISP. If that ISP decided it wants $200 a month for internet what choice does the person have? Either pony up the cash or go without. That sounds like a monopoly to me.


I quotated the first part because it's relevant to the second.

Your denigration of capitalism is a clear indication that your see things through an anti-business lens. Your complaint about propaganda indicates that when you hear things that you don't agree with, you assume that what you heard were lies.

You are of course completely free to hold these views. However, you would do well to remember that if it weren't for capitalism, you wouldn't have high speed internet access in the first place.


Moving on...
The Word "Monopoly" has a specific definition. This is true regardless of your personal feelings on the subject.

Also, your statement about people having access to only one high speed provider is absolutely untrue. Anyone anywhere in the country that has access to telephone service has the ability to purchase high speed leased line access. ISDN BRI or PRI is also available, as is the ability to buy multiple phone lines and use an aggregator to combine several modems. Just two 56k modems will provide most people with enough bandwidth to run a VoIP telephone. Four of them will give you over 150k of symmetrical access. There is also Satellite access.

Allow me to anticipate your response: "Those options are expensive."

Yes. I agree completely. They are expensive.

Bandwidth costs money because infrastructure must be built and maintained.

I make THAT comment because your complaints are REALLY about money. You want Comcast to provide you a service at a price that YOU want to pay. And if they don't, you complain that it's because they are greedy capitalists. (My words, but quite clearly your viewpoint.)


And ironically, that capitalism that you complain about is EXACTLY what will stop Comcast from charging $200/mo for ordinary broadband internet access.

Because they AREN'T a monopoly, and if they tried that; the other providers would swoop in to undercut them.

But you really need to face a certain reality here.

It costs MONEY to build and maintain the infrastructure that IS the internet. And as demand for high speed access grows, it will cost more money. When I was a kid, a Volkswagen Beetle cost $2,000. Now... They don't.

Prices go up with time and more desirable things cost more money.


And don't be so quick to complain about the cost for another, very important reason.

As I look around this forum I see a LOT of people who want to go into technology and networking as a career. For all I know, you are one of those people. I know for sure that I am. Or was... I I'm not trying to have a technology career, I DO have a technology career.


I wont tell you what I make, but I will tell you this:
I own a house at a nice lake in the Midwest, and it is filled with the usual silly toys that we guys like to have, I own a boat and I'm planning to buy another one this winter. I lease my daily drive car for a little under $500/mo.
Those are just the big things.

I am NOT telling you this to brag, and I do it in the full knowledge that someone probably is going to flame me for it and I am going to look more than a little A-Hole-Ish for saying it.

But please believe me that I am really only saying it to make a VERY important point.

All the people in this forum who are trying to get into technology jobs, who are studying for their CCNA, who read everything they can get their hands on about new technology...

They aren't doing it ONLY because they like technology. They are doing it because they want to make a good living at it.

And that's what I'm doing. Making a good living at it. Over the next 5 years I expect my compensation to increase by anywhere from 30% to 100%, depending on how our new project goes. Over the next decade, it will double or possibly even triple my salary. When I retire, I am hoping to buy a nice little lakefront house at Lake George in Upstate NY.


So if you want to blame someone for the high price of broadband, blame ME, and all the other highly compensated nerds LIKE me.


Unless of course you want to BE a highly compensated nerd. In which case I would respectfully ask you to please stop throwing stones at the glass house you want to live in.
 
Last edited:
Well comcast is a pseudo monopoly. I cannot get another cable provider in my area, and the DSL alternative is even worse (price : bandwidth is WAY worse).

Internet just sucks in the US, that's all there is to it. And it won't get better, it'll get worse. Comcast will jam as many people onto their quickly overcrowding infrastructure as they possibly can.

Only way it'll get better is if the state and federal governements help subsidize infrastructure, which won't happen. The US is going for super cheap / low quality bandwidth for the masses and high end broadband bandwidth will just get worse / more restrictions / more expensive.

Comcast is the 2nd biggest ISP now, as soon as they start capping bandwidth and charging per GB, everyone will do it. This is absolutely awful for the future as more and more digital media will be downloaded and higher quality video and audio will constantly come out and require much bigger files. Yeah 250GB is a lot and is fine for now, but soon it'll get lower and lower.

I'm mad about it, but you're entitled to your opinion IntelLoyalist, even though I disagree with most things you've said.
 
Last edited:
Shiggity -

To respond, although I don't anticipate that you'll agree...


Well comcast is a pseudo monopoly. I cannot get another cable provider in my area, and the DSL alternative is even worse (price : bandwidth is WAY worse).

That you do not like the price does not make Comcast a monopoly, psuedo or otherwise.



Internet just sucks in the US, that's all there is to it.

The internet in the United States works just fine.



And it won't get better, it'll get worse.

If by that you mean that ISPs wont conform their business decisions to your personal preferences, you are probably correct. But I think you're overlooking the fact that your complaint essentially comes to this. You want to use SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY in ways that he would prefer that you didn't. And to add insult to injury, you think that you should be allowed to tell him what you should pay.



Comcast will jam as many people onto their quickly overcrowding infrastructure as they possibly can.

I'm not sure I understand your complaint. Is it your desire that Comcast stop subscribing new customers? Or is it your belief that Comcast has no plans to expand their capacity?



Only way it'll get better is if the state and federal governments help subsidize infrastructure...

So you want the government to take over ISPs, and use my tax dollars to make certain that you can download all the music and movies you want without paying for it?
EDIT -- no flaming!! and F a member certainly more than enough for a 3 days vacation time to re-think!!!

-LandShark




...which won't happen.

I pray to God that it never does. Nothing ruins a business faster than having the government try to run it.



The US is going for super cheap / low quality bandwidth...

As someone who has a great deal of inside knowledge as to the future of the internet, I can tell you that you couldn't possibly be more wrong.



...for the masses and high end broadband bandwidth will just get worse / more restrictions / more expensive.

Oh, I see.
This is one of those class warfare things.

Why do I suspect that I could make very accurate predictions as to how you view "Big Awl", Walmart, Halliburton or the 'Truth" of 9/11


I'm sorry to have bothered you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well comcast is a pseudo monopoly. I cannot get another cable provider in my area, and the DSL alternative is even worse (price : bandwidth is WAY worse).

That you do not like the price does not make Comcast a monopoly, psuedo or otherwise.

Comcast is a natural monopoly. The government has to allow for it because infrastructure costs are so high, but maintenence costs are low.

The problem I see is that the government has given trillions of dollars(google it, I forget the act) so that the ISP/telco industry would upgrade their infrastructure over a period of 10 years, and these companies have nothing to show for it. Instead, they whine about extra burden and how they can't keep up, without mentioning what they did with the subsidies.
 
Comcast For The Win!

I would love to be at that executive desk, especially with "supportive" customers with mindsets like InteLoyalist. :)

"Hmm my downloads were steady at 1.9Mbps, but then suddenly dropped to 56Kbps... darn those P2P'ers who are saturating an infrastructure that has no plan of growth"!

If I heard news that Comcast needed to cap our usage, due to the overhaul of their infrastructure (to meet the high bandwidth demands of the future), then I would be all for it. But to tell me that I am getting capped while my rates stay the same, is just plain wrong.

bryan d

PS - I knew someone who was found drowned in a barrel of oil, that was unfairly contracted to Halliburton, the barrel sold dirt cheap by Wal-mart, and rumor has it that he was "offed" because of finding the truth of 9/11 on Comcast capped internet.
 
Such a nice discussion, some many pointless points, but the cap has little to do with what's going on right now. Wait till high definition TV can be streamed over internet in large amounts or even better internet Tv packages emerge. Netflix launched movie download service this year. That probably will grow over time and many similar services will show up. Watch out blue ray movie on its way 25gb down or more. They can cap people right now because people have need for so much bandwidth. If they did, this would not fly.

Internet brought cheap movies and music for people, not comcast. Comcast like any other corporation is about maximizing profits rather than proving best service for least of money. Sure they can, since there is no competition.

I see comments saying that infrastructure is expensive to maintain. Probably is, though comcast usually charges more in most areas than a dsl provider. Sharing between isps would lower maintenance cost but then again competition is not good for profits. I seen increase in comcast's bandwidth speed but I attribute them to cable HD tv.

An HD movie downloaded from Microsoft's online Xbox Live Marketplace typically weighs in at 4.5GB, and demos of upcoming games can be in excess of a full gigabyte in size. Select PC games available on Valve's digital distribution platform Steam exceed 4GB.
 
Last edited:
I would love to be at that executive desk, especially with "supportive" customers with mindsets like InteLoyalist. :)


You mean the mindset that says that the people who OWN the network get to decide how the network is used?

Yeah, I'm sorry...
I tend to have a lot of bizarre thoughts like that.

Why, just last week I actually came up with the bizarre idea that I get to decide who parks in my own driveway! Imagine that. I really must remember to take my meds.
 
You mean the mindset that says that the people who OWN the network get to decide how the network is used?

Yeah, I'm sorry...
I tend to have a lot of bizarre thoughts like that.

Why, just last week I actually came up with the bizarre idea that I get to decide who parks in my own driveway! Imagine that. I really must remember to take my meds.

2qss77q.jpg

Luckily your driveway is not the only means of parking my car, or everyone else cars for that matter. :) It is really nice to have choice where to park.
 
People abusing P2P / torrents ruin it for everyone because there is no legal way for comcast to weed them out atm.

I agree.

Not to mention comcast says they can downthrottle anyone they want now. When downloading large files from fileplanet, I get downthrottled all the time now :( I'll be going along at my max avg of ~750KB/s then all of a sudden it'll drop to less than 10KB/s then go back up. So dumb.

I believe they are down throttling you because you are using 100% of your maximum bandwidth. If you have a router that has OoS, set you bandwidth cap to 85% of your max and you should be able to avoid this problem.
 
The way I it, IntelLoyalist is right. This is the reality that is capitalism. However, that's not to say we as the consumer are screwed (forever that is), it's just the opposite. The growing dislike for the current system means more and more people would be willing to invest in something faster, cheaper and overall better. You can see this happening to day with gas. As prices go up, more and more people are opting for alternatives. It's basic economics really.
 
att uverse is in my near future , say Oct 1st, Comcast will not be my provider any longer .

I have been too loyal to companies , time for a change .
 
just as an indication how much traffic i actually see going across my network, here is what my smoothwall has reported so far this month:

Month: 2.3 GB / 29.5 GB (Out / In)

this is with running a local gentoo mirror, an exchange server, and a website. of course, i am the only one who uses my exchange server and my website... i also do not really download a whole lot with the exception of some ISOs on occasion.
 
hmmm, this got interesting..


:grab popcorn
:grab fire extinguisher
:pull up chair
:now the wait for the show to begin..


on topic...

i dont agree with the bandwidth cap, but then again i do not use anywhere near 250 gigs a month. i do alot of online gaming, and porn downloading, with some websurfing in between those 2.

basically, if you dont like comcasts caps, take your money to somewhere else.

your choices are
your local Teleco DSL or dial up
independant ISP ( that most likely buys internet bandwidth from either the teleco or the major ISPs like comcast, timewarner, charter)

so, basically, your screwed.. just pick the position you want it in.

also, you could just upgrade your residential service up to a business class that is not affected by the bandwidth cap. in my area its about $20 extra and another + $5 for the static IP per month. so $25 extra a month.. not a big deal and i can DL all the crap i want.
 
That question is so silly, I don't even know how to respond to it.

You want to believe that we're an internet backwater, you go right ahead.

The operative word is "COULD".

Frankly, as a network engineer with one of the largest providers in the world,; I AM a reputable source.

...........
.

i am an engineer for NASA - we are moving to mars in a year! so I am a reputable source :rolleyes:

So why is it most studies done show that Europe and Asia have the best infrastruture around? and the U.S is rated somewhere past 10th in the world last i checked for high speed internet.

Why is it Europe you can get 100MB fiber lines to your door for $50 with no limits and caps? Wasnt it some grandma in Switzerland set a speed records cause she got fiber set up and got an email and it set a speed records for fastest file download for a home user or some crap..

Why?

For one their infrastructure is much newer so while it was built, it was made with newer technologies, such as fiber, as opposed to aged degrading copper wire systems like North America was...

There land mass is also much smaller so it was likely cheaper to cover the entire area in fiber then the U.S.

Bottom line is that the internet MAY work in North America, but it wont for long unless they do upgrade the back end to it all, as another said the government dished out billions to ISP's and NOTHING was updated, they basically wasted the cash and changed jack! and will continue to do so, as long as they can rake in millions in profit and say F*** America! bend over and enjoy.
 
i dont agree with the bandwidth cap, but then again i do not use anywhere near 250 gigs a month. i do alot of online gaming, and porn downloading, with some websurfing in between those 2.

This. Even though I don't like it, those using it for legal things or not hosting a server off of it will most likely not hit that cap. The only downside to this is that large families or groups of friends using the same internet connection will more likely hit that wall. But the fact that it's still advertised as "unlimited" is still annoying. Anybody who cares about the difference between 250gb a month and truly unlimited service probably already knows, and to someone who just browses the web and checks their mail, 250gb a month probably wouldn't care, so continuing to call it unlimited is pointless.
 
maybe i am missing it somewhere, but i do not see anything "unlimited" except for Streaming Music through Rhapsody Radio.


as for a family, it would still be hard for a family to break 250 gigs a month.
250 gigs is truley a large amount of data. honestly, if anyone is going over 250 gigs, they are doing so will full knowledge they are doing it, and with intentions.

also, this may be a surprise for alot of people, but even if it does say "unlimited", im sure you can go through thier old TOS and still find out that it is not really unlimited.

almost any company who offers anything of "unlimited" there is normally a clause in there that actually limits it. it is just a absurd amount that they dont except anyone to ever reach. this is so they can cover thier *** when/if they have to refuse someone because the person is intentionally abusing it.

think all you can eat buffets.
normally a person, family, whatever goes there and eats. might have 3 or 4 plates per person.

this is normal usage

then comes the abuser

shows up at doors opening, and eats, and eats, and eats.
sits there for the whole day until closing, then packs a to-go plate.

this is clearly abuse.

or, same abuser shows up the next day, and has friends join him that dont pay, but he goes and gets plates for them..

again abuse

and i will bet that every single "all you can eat " palces have rules stating that they can refuse service or cancel your service if they feel your abusing it.

except comparing this to food, its no different for ISPs.

got to think, you think a major company with *** loads of laywers would leave thier *** hangin in the wind on a clause liek this? in todays world of greedy, abusing people?

on the flip side...

if people are so ****ed off about this, start uniting and file a lawsuit instead of griping on a web forum. im sure you will lose, both in court and financially, but will be great amusement for alot of us.

i dont see comcast giving in and lifting the cap unless the users who complain about it make them, by takign them to court.

i may come across as being a a-hole, but really it is a matter of fact.
look in thier TOS, and im sure you will find that you have nothing.
 
Back