I had Insight cable and Comcrap took over Jan 1, 2008. I had download speeds of 800-1200k (900k average) with Insight (10mps rated). Comcrap took over (using the same routers and switches)and my speeds went down to 150-700k (average 250k) (rated 8mps with a 12mps boost speed).
I moved in September and now have Mediacom cable, rated 8mps and my download speeds now are 750-1100k. This is with all the same equipment.
So Comcrap is horrible.

I had Insight Cable in Illinois and then Comcrap took over. I went from 1200K max (average 900k) download speed (10mps rated) with Insight down to 600k max (250K average) when Comcrap took over Jan 1 2008 (comcrap rated 8mps, with a 12mps boost). These speeds were with the same wiring to my house and supposedly they did not change the routers and switches in their office.
I now have Mediacom (moved in September), and they are rated 8mps and I regular have 900k-1000k download speeds. These speeds are all with the same PC, modem and wireless router.

I guess I'm one of the rare people that like Comcast. I've had a cable modem since before AT&T when it was Excite@Home. I think I've had one outage in 10 years, total, and that was due to the line on the pole coming loose. We've even had the power go out during a blizzard, and I used my computer, monitor, cable modem for 20 minutes as the UPS chirped away, while the rest of the neighborhood was dark. That was pretty fun.

I haven't owned a TV in a decade either, so I don't know what the cable tv service is about. I can't understand the business model where people pay money for a service to watch commercials.

I would pay 3x what I pay for internet service. It's part of my job to have a net connection at home, they are reliable for me, and I don't have a beef with them.

Comcast sucks. Why give me more bandwidth just so I have to explain my usage to them."I'm sorry Mister customer, but we said you could download movies faster, just don't actually download them. I've been to a relatives house who has Crapcast. They literally had 450K outbound. This is with a package with 6 in. Comcast is an embarrassment, and I can hardly wait for them to vanish...

Comcast is blowing it so fast they'll be lining up for a bail out soon... if you think this is marginally valuable, you should see what they offer on the phone/tv/entertainment side... less and less for more and more... customers are revolting... just look at Sprint's customer base... GO VERIZON GO AT&T... not that they're saints, but it does look like they have Comcast in their sights... then THEY'LL start screwing their customers like they already do on the wireless market they've monopolized... time for a little anti-trust i'd say.

*laughing*

Ooh, where to begin?

First, I would suggest looking up the definition of a monopoly, then I might suggest modifying your definition of "blowing it" to not include companies/services that fall under your highly misinformed definition of a monopoly. Comcast is doing very well, in fact, they are the leaders in just about every market in which they operate...even beating out FIOS.

They are far from perfect. FIOS will eventually become more prevalent and the prices will come down, but as it stands now, Comcast is in zero danger of "blowing it"...

I want this! Oh wait, That would mean I would eat my 250GB cap out quicker. Sorry comcast, I am proudly dumping you for FIOS.

I love this strawman. People never seem to understand the flaw in logic when they make this stupid comment.

First, I highly doubt you have the slightest *clue* what your current usage is, and second, as I said below, just because one can download *faster* does not necessarily imply they will download *more*.

It's not like people are going to change their habits overnight...and as they do over time, Comcast will raise the cap. (You are aware the cap is based upon the percentage of users it will affect, right?)

First, I highly doubt you have the slightest *clue* what your current usage is, and second, as I said below, just because one can download *faster* does not necessarily imply they will download *more*.

Actually, in the past week, as per DD-WRT and my mrtg logs, I have used approximately 7.2-7.3 GB (Depending on the logs you use). I am not worried about my usage, I rarely go over 250, but I do want that ability to go over that without having to worry about being reprimanded by comcast for doing so. Just because one assumes someone doesn't know what they are talking about doesn't necessarily mean that they don't.

I do know that my service is capped after the first 20MB of any download which means I am not getting the advertised rates. I consider this advertisement style blatently misleading as users are given the impression that they will get these speeds constantly. Yes, I know, all ISP's give the disclaimer "Actual speeds may vary" but when they are imposed by an actual configuration limitation (the tftp configuration being pushed to the modem), then I have all the reason to be upset. I am all for network management and managing the utilization of the resources they have, but put it up front in black and white in text you don't have to squint to read so that users are in the know up front.

In summation, comcast can advertise as fast a speed as they want, but when they artificially limit the speeds advertised to either the first 20MB or the first 250GB downloaded, then they have lost their credibility to me.

Actually...the top speed tier does not throttle back speed after 20mb.

I am currently on the top speed tier in my area and I am still throttled.

I can't think of any [typical] user that would eat through 250GB in one month....not to say it doesn't happen though. Sure you may eat up MORE data doing things that much faster, but I don't think people will hit the cap on the regular.

Now, torrent abusers (downloading illegal stuff from torrent sites) are another issue. And I think that's why a cap has to be set.

I've read Verizon's stance on capping and that's great and all - but they're not close to Comcasts userbase, they can do and say anything at this point. When they become as ubiquitous as Comcast, that's when we'll see the real animal.

If I had a choice, I'd go Verizon. But as it stands...I don't think Comcast customers are in imminent danger of breaking caps and being warned/charged for over-the-cap use, not unless they're doing things they probably shouldn't be doing anyway.

"I can't think of any [typical] user that would eat through 250GB in one month.."

How about downloading HD content to multiple Apple TVs or other STBs? Some people, hate paying Comcast and other cable companies for a ton of crap filled channels with more ads than content.

The caps were created under the illusion of cutting off the nasty P2P pirates, but in reality the ISP's, who also happen to be your television companies, are simply moving to kill the internet as a content delivery platform.

Exactly. An HD Movie off of iTunes, or streamed off of one of the major providers, is rather large. Do that several times per week and you can easily eat up your bandwidth when combined with regular youtubing and the like. I am not saying I use anywhere near 250GB, but again, I want to be able to do so without worry about having my hand slapped for doing so.

DD_WRT is awesome, good to hear.

;)

As for HD movies, they run, on average, around 9GB (for 1080p) and 4.4GB (for 720).

That's 30-to-60 HD movies a month.

HD streaming isn't going to push anyone over the 250GB limit. It was a good try, fatty, but no luck.

I'm speaking about the 50mbps top tier which does not throttle

Sorry PC_Tool but your knowledge of this subject, like most others, appears to be quite limited. Some people have more than one person in their house using the internet connection. Voice (skype), Internet (youtube, hulu, itunes, etc....), then add multiple users of HD downloadable content. And -no- Comcast video service. Everything is over IP.

One more thing i am sure you are aware of...the "HD" content streamed by Itunes, Netflix, etc... is no where near the quality of Blu-ray or even what Verizon serves. In fact, it is even lower than the ultra compressed HD content Comcast serves up. Apple, Netflix, etc... can not stream the content at full resolution due to the amount of bandwidth it would take up.

Gawd, you bore me sometimes...

Same s***, different day.

I have a family of 5. We're all (aside from the littlest) online. My wife, for several years, *worked* from home....*online*.

As for your comment regarding streaming, lower resolution = smaller file size, so you'd be able to download even *more* before hitting that limit. Are you arguing or agreeing with me?

Do *you* have a clue what you're talking about?

Now tell me I don't know what I am talking about, pup.

Poor baby.

Then subscribe to a package that does allow you the capacity you so desperately need.

But gee whiz Mister, I saved my pennies and I finally have enough to by an appetizer, why don't I get the other 18 entries/courses of my choice too?

Wow. You really can not be that dense, can you? Come now PC_Tool, let me connect the dots for you....

If streaming sites have to decrease the resolution (i am sure you do not even understand what this means...to you 720p is 720p. LOL. Hint: There is a thing called bit rate. Do i need to define what that means for you too?) to get content down to me, and over Digital cable they do not need to compress the content as much or at all (Verizon), which one will people go for? The amount of content is only going up. An arbitrary cap on bandwidth does nothing but kill the internet as a delivery platform for HD content so the cable companies can rake in the billions from Video service.

"I have a family of 5. We're all (aside from the littlest) online. My wife, for several years, *worked* from home....*online*."

ROFL. Sending emails, sure does eat the bandwidth, eh? Does she do HD video conferencing? Does she use Vonnage? Does she download HD movies? I can not believe even you would say something so stupid. WOW.

I download the vast majority of movies we watch. While the greater portion of them are 720p, some of them are even 1080p.

These are direct from the service I use, encoded using h.264 and AC3 audio.

I also download the majority of Television shows we watch (all at 720p).

Getting a clue yet?

12 movies and 10 episodes a month equal a grand total of ~70GB. The few ISO images I download and the rest of it bring it to a grand total of ~80GB.

My usage is by *far* above the norm. Most users won't hit that in 6 months, let alone *one*. Even doubling that doesn't come *close* to 250GB.

Stop trying to argue that this is common. It is absurd, makes you look like a complete idiot, and only shows that you have less of a clue than you seem to think I do.

My household used ~312GB last month. My original point was, which all your nonsensical trolling has tried to hide, was they have effectively killed the internet as a content delivery platform. I agree, not many people use this much _today_. That is my point. The arbitrary caps means people will _never_ use that much without paying through the nose.

Get it now? Probably not...alls we will see is another troll post or a "Don't you get it? Let me put a tag in there" as you try to hide the fact you made a fool of yourself.

*laughing*

Your absurd whining only proves you have no clue how they even came up with their current cap.

If you honestly think this cap is permanent, as you seem to be implying, you're even dumber than I thought, which would be amazing considering the assumption that you're actually human.

The cap isn't arbitrary, dimwit. The cap isn't permanently set at 250GB, git. Amazing as this may sound to you, as they build out infrastructure and demand increases, they *will* raise it or lose customers to the competition who will raise theirs. Pretty basic stuff. Not surprised you can't wrap your head around it. "Connecting the dots" seems to be something more your speed. Let me help ya find some: http://images.google.com...p;resnum=4&ct=title

Exactly who is it that needs that kind of speed, yet is willing to tolerate those caps? I would think that MOST people have more time than money - since the next level down is quite fast enough for all but the ones who are using the top speed most of the time.

Me.

Just because I can download *faster* does not mean I have to download *more*.

There is no need to imply a correlation between how fast you can download and how much you can download unless you are looking for something to complain about.

I've had the service since it rolled out in my area and have yet to top 80GB. But it is sure nice to be getting 5MB/sec on ISO downloads. :)