RSSReport: Comcast considers usage caps and overage fees
By Tim Conneally | Published May 7, 2008, 6:21 PM
Broadband Reports posted information yesterday provided by an "insider" claiming that Comcast is in the early development stages of a 250 GB-per-month bandwidth cap that will charge users a fee when passed.
For every 10 GB over the 250 GB limit they consume, Comcast would charge $15, says the source. Early tests could begin in as little as one or two months, and would have an appreciable effect only the top one percent of downloaders. This one percent amounts to about 14,000 customers of Comcast's 14.1 million.
In addition to throttling peer-to-peer traffic, Comcast's current traffic shaping methods also involve the termination of customers' accounts who have suspiciously high bandwidth consumption. While there is no known official limit, those found in violation receive an official letter explaining their disconnection without actually saying how over the limit they were.
In a generic response to the source's disclosure, the company stated, "Comcast is currently evaluating this service and pricing model to ensure we deliver a great online experience to our customers. We have not made any changes to our current service offerings and have no new announcement to make at this time."
Though noncommittal in language, Comcast's reply does affirm that such a plan does exist within the company's walls, at least in the phase where its viability can be tested.
Comcast has too many customers and wants to downsize?!?!
Score: 0
|250GB? Heh, thats a high number to reach, very high number, I don't think even I did more than 100GB the first month I got FIOS 24/7 downloading for a solid month.
Aside this, I can see why they are trying to fix the wild west of the internet, but it won't do them any justice.
Heck, I'm a beta tester myself, I don't see how one could use up that kind of bandwidth so easily unless your hosting it yourself than it bogs my mind why you would do it.
Score: 0
|What matters to me, is that they are up front with their policies. What was/is wrong is that they were interfering with normal usage and hiding it; kicking people off for exceeding invisible limits. As long as they are openly honest, then people can make intelligent choices.
Score: 0
|**** YOU COMCAST.
You will never get any business from me or anyone I know.
You seem hell bent on driving your business into the ground.
Piss off.
Score: 0
|Rather than upgrade their service, Comcast and others are seeking ways to limit use to existing equipment. Also, metering involves hiring staff, writing reports, etc. that helps their God-complex while not improving service.
Since cable companies are franchised by the community with rights and responsibilities, what we need is for a few areas to say: You haven't met your responsibilities - you have 30-days to remove all your equipment or it's forfeit as littering the utility right-of-way.
Surely, another service provider will appear quickly, or the original provider will reconsider their priorities.
Score: 0
|blah blah blah...
They just upgraded the top tier in my area to 50mbit.
Yeah..they never upgrade their service.
*yawn*
Over the top, much?
Score: 0
|Get it but better not use it.
Score: 0
|Use 50Mbps, or use absurd amounts of bandwidth? The two are not the same, and I'm guessing you know that.
I can definitely make use of the 50mbps to download what I currently use faster. That in no way means I have to download *more*.
Get it?
Score: 0
|I know that. I just so it that all kinds of downloads are available and they are getting bigger and bigger which will sooner or late create a problem. Not lo long ago a game demo was a couple hundred meg but that time is gone. I am beta testing Conan and have had to download the client 3 times so far at 14 gig. That is over the course of a couple of days. If I had to do that anymore or with other LEGAL things that I do the COMCAST cops would start charging me more. They can kiss my as$ glad I don't have them in my area.
I do still believe that the cable companies need to have some real competition. I have DSL as a replacement oh boy. AT&T unverse won't throttle, opps, forgot they do to. That is my point.
Score: 0
|I just so it that all kinds of downloads are available and they are getting bigger and bigger which will sooner or late create a problem.
...only if you also assume that available bandwidth will not increase in that time as well. Hardly a set-in-stone determination.
I am beta testing Conan and have had to download the client 3 times so far at 14 gig. That is over the course of a couple of days. If I had to do that anymore or with other LEGAL things that I do the COMCAST cops would start charging me more.
...and you're under the impression you shouldn't have to pay for that bandwidth?
I do still believe that the cable companies need to have some real competition. I have DSL as a replacement oh boy. AT&T unverse won't throttle, opps, forgot they do to. That is my point.
...and if Comcast does this, the rest will very shortly fall in line. Your point is that you don't want to pay for the bandwidth you use and want those who don't to continue to subsidize your heavy use.
Last I checked, beta testing was optional, in fact, it was completely elective. You choose to download the amount you download. You can choose to pay for it or not download quite so much.
*shrug*
Comes down to this simple fact:
There is finite bandwidth.
Those who use the most should pay the most.
...unless we're going to call bandwidth community property now.
*laughs*
sjc001 will love that one....
Score: 0
|You have solved my problem I will view my email via my ISP web interface so I don't download any unwanted wallpaper and attachments that I might not want. I will also turn off java, active x to block any unnecessary downloads. What you say sounds good but is BS also. There is more than enough bandwidth they are just being cheap and after yet an other money grab.
We will provide you all this wonderful bandwidth but you better not use it. If that is the plan they have then they better provide you with a free odometer to check your mileage. They can easily accuse you of going over the limit.
What is next if I watch TV for 5 hours instead of the average 3 I am abusing bandwidth so they will raise my rates for that too. It's all bs.
Score: 0
|*laughs*
You complain you'd get charged for service and give as an example your multiple 14GB downloads and then use
I will view my email via my ISP web interface so I don't download any unwanted wallpaper and attachments that I might not want. I will also turn off java, active x to block any unnecessary downloads.
..to try and call BS?
*sniff*
Yeah, that's not coming from me, man.
More than enough bandwidth... really? Where'd you find that one? Proof? nah...I forget, we don't do that here.
Prevaricate all you want. This is just getting silly now.
Score: 0
|They do this they will cut there own necks. I would switch in 5 seconds if they did this to me.
Score: 0
|250 GB per month is better than ~5.2 GB/mo (or 169 MB per day) like DirecWay/HughesNet has now: And if you go over, you aren't charged extra, you're just throttled for more than 24 hours.
Score: 0
|yea I have to agree I ave about 100 gb when all I do is Straight Online gaming... when I add an occasional TV show or whatever to that Its a pretty good jump (especially with Hulu)... Add to that times when I'm doing developing or beta testing (OUCH).. and I have to upload a ton of material to the servers. yea. thats hardly enough. Personally I would be finding a new service if they did something like that. Forcing a demand to cause them to change policy yet again IMHO... If their customers start walking away in droves, yet they will start rethinking this idiocy... If your going ot offer unlimited broadband high speed connections, you need to do that as advertised. Not doing so ultimatly results in pissed off customers when they get told their unlimited service has new Capped limits... Yea. If I'm told that I'll be like. Ok you can come by any time and take your crap out of my house now. I'll find a honest company to do business with.
Score: 0
|LOL!
That will make a GREAT marketing brochure!
Their service is already priced higher than the competition.
They can do whatever they like - just stand back as the rats flee from the ship!
Score: 0
|wow... it means that in order for anyone to go over the limit, that person has to do combination of downloading and uploading over 8Gig a day. Even if I kept downloading stuffs in 24hours, I can't even achieve that limit. that's alot! Right now the only person I can think of is the person who do p2p for pirated movie.
Score: 0
|I can do 8GB a day when I'm really pised at the RIAA. I get unlimited AT&T DSL for $24.95 / mo with actual download speeds of 2550 kbps (2.5 MB) and upload of 425 (almost .5 MB) kbps.
I dumped Comcast "high speed" internet which was $65.00 a month and actually slower. We would get outages that lasted for days. I think AT&T has done down twice and for less than an hour both times. I also have a direct line to call a service rep, no voice prompts.
results from www.speedtest.net
Score: 0
|Well you can pay our incumbent telco $29.95 a month for this fantastic DSL deal:
- 256kbps down/64kbps up
- 200MB download AND upload limit
- $150 excess charge per GB over your download limit
Welcome to the broadband backwater that is Australia, US citizens. Privatised monopoly infrastructure is GREAT! :p
Score: 0
|I'm about to make a similar move. Comcast has been, let's say, less than "Comcastic" with their service, recently.
I don't know what's worse: the overly compressed HD channels, shoddy equipment (it's sad that I get a better picture with my TV's digital tuner than their box), consistent downtime on my internet connection (at least 3 hrs a day), or the promised, yet never achieved, dl speeds.
Just waiting on the sales rep to call back with my connection times...
Score: 0
|You are probably right. However theres 3 computers/users on my ADSL2+ line and occationally that 8GB limit might not be that hard to archive. Pure speculation as ive not actually checked, or care, how much traffic there is. Im paying what i get and if my ISP decided to impose limits i expect the price to drop accordingly.
Score: 0
|ehhh... in less than 5 years wired broadband'll be history anyhow....
Score: 0
|Unlikely. Not enough frequency bandwidth available for everyone to use wireless. Besides, it relies on a decent wired backbone regardless. :P
And latency on wireless sucks, in a big way.
Score: 0
|Oops, I use Skype 4 hours a day.
Score: 0
|I have Comcast and I only use 30-40GB per mouth! I have network of 10 PC's. I watch 20+ hours of Joost and talk 4 hours a week.
Score: 0
|pitdingo2: What are you talking about? A movie in divx format is often 4 gigs or less. Even a totally uncompressed DVD is 9 gigs or less. You could download 25 of those in a month, almost one a day.
Score: 0
|ever hear of a little thing called "uploading"?
Score: 0
|s***, I piss 250 gig's a Day lol. Last p2p Download I did was 32.6 GB's, thats not to mention uploading, other files downloading, gaming, the network, xbox, skype, wii, and friends who use my wireless. Luckily I have a service called Mediacom since im in AZ and it's all unlimited :P, For the 15 MB I pay for downstream lol I get 14.8 So Im not complaining. Oh and Who only downloads One Movie A day if they use P2p, its usually multiple Plus and music and or other files they do.
Score: 0
|Oh come on now, that's nuts and I find it hard to believe. Do you actually mean 250 gigaBYTES? An earth DAY? Considering that I do a lot of torrenting (TV and movies) and only do around 60GB on a heavy month, well, let's just say I'm skeptical about what you could possibly find so interesting on the Internet to trump that so spectacularly. Practically everything you mentioned save P2P takes a pittance, so what specifically are you doing with P2P? Uncompressed video or something off-the-wall like that?
Score: 0
|How big is the average HD movie? THen start tying in CBS, NBC, ABC, etc... providing downloads for all their shows.
Products like Apple TV, M$ 360, PS3, the Netflix set-top, etc... all are going to depend on downloads. And something like Apple TV is almost easy enough for my grandmother to use. Well, almost. These products will get there soon enough.
The telco strategy is very simple. Spread FUD about the P2P users clogging the pipes, extend an olive branch by only "targetting" those users by introducing bandwidth caps. These caps do not affect the majority of users, so no one cares.
Once HD really penetrates the markets and products like Apple TV, Netflix, XBox Marketplace, PS3 Video, etc... become so simple even your grandmother could use them, it is too late. Bandwidth caps will ensure the downloads are more expensive than the telco offerings. The market will never really get off the ground.
Score: 0
|Well, then you should pay for all that bandwidth, don't you think?
Right now, we share the cost of this shared bandwidth.
If you're using the vast majority of it, my thinking is you should be paying the most.
Works for me.
Score: 0
|Even at 6 movies a month (I'm guessing that's close to the average for renting), you're nowhere *near* that limit.
Not even close.
Once HD really penetrates the markets and products like Apple TV, Netflix, XBox Marketplace, PS3 Video, etc... become so simple even your grandmother could use them, it is too late.
You don't think after this start, they'll offer tiered plans and pricing structures? Perhaps even an "unlimited" (In cap) account?
One wonder how you would know such things...
Score: 0
|It is not just about movies, it is about shows, news, sporting events....all video content.
"You don't think after this start, they'll offer tiered plans and pricing structures? Perhaps even an "unlimited" (In cap) account?"
That is my point. The telcos introduce this whole tiered pricing now when people are not really looking or caring.
"One wonder how you would know such things..."
It looks pretty clear cut to me. Just connect the dots. The telcos want to charge people for using their pipes. They want to make as much money as possible as does any for profit company. Net Neutrality is a hot potato. Why take that head on when they can get around it in other ways.
Score: 0
|The bottom line I see is the their foot is in the door to implement more and more crap on the customer.
God I wished there was competition in the market. At least by me anyway.
Score: 0
|Okay, but why is it necessarily a bad thing?
Ignoring the Net Neutrality issue, which I don't really see this as being a part of:
They want to make money (Duh?)
They are now starting to charge based on usage (this is a lame-ass way to start, but it's a start nonetheless).
They are putting up clear limits and terms.
The old way has pissed me off for quite some time, so maybe *anything* new is welcome, but I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing.
It used to be, the low end users basically subsidized the high-end users. Now, they're working out a tiered pricing structure which will hopefully allow people to pay for only what they use.
While this is, in the end, cost more for those who were subsidized before (likely quite a bit more), it works out quite a bit better for the rest of us. We'll choose a 20GB/month plan and be done with it.
I suppose, if I used 250GB or more per month, I *might* be pissed off, but then, I also might simply realize that it finally caught up with me and it might be time to start actually paying for the absurd amount of bandwidth I use...
Score: 0
|How much bandwidth does a normal broadband subscriber use? I did a search but didn't find a national average? I could easliy live with 250 GB of bandwidth a month. That seems exorbitant to me.
Score: 0
|I live in Canada, we get ****ed. Currently my roommates and I share the second highest package from rogers $60/month gets you 10.0 Mbps download and 1.0 Mbps upload and a limit of 95GB with $2.50 per gb overage. 5 of us survive under 120 a month, 250 would be a dream.
Score: 0
|Australia gets ****ed more. I'm on the highest download limit cable plan I can get (which is $70 per month, as long as you bundle a phone plan as well) which gives me a 20GB peak, 40GB off-peak download limit, 10Mbps down/256kbps up and speeds slowed to 128kbps down if I go over my limit.
That is the absolute highest download limit available - you can't even pay more to get more. Moreover, it's actually been discontinued and the highest now is 30GB! There are also MUCH worse value plans than mine. :P
Score: 0
|Wouldn't it be better to sacrifice some speed and pay less to DL as much as you want with DSL? Acanac, for example, charges something like $20/mo for the first year for just that.
Score: 0
|goodbye all video download services...its been nice. Simple way to kill competition and not violate net neutrality.
Score: 0
|See ya later comcast!
I switched from comcast to Time warner about two months ago when this fiasco first hit the news. As I do push close to 9GB a day, (between having 4 people using my internet access for gaming and such (minimal p2p traffic),the data from backups, code and etc..) I initially didn't want to be caught off guard with a bill from them if they started this crap without much of a notice.
Needless to say that the differences between the HDTV quality and the available bandwidth that TW provided me for less than comcast makes me regret even using comcast's antiquated over compressed services in the first place. My point here is that you don't have to be a movie pirate or a SPAMMER to surpass there 8GB a day(250GB a month)obviously and to receive a bill for legitimate overage Internet use is unreasonable. Even if your usage is for "evil" purposes free unadulterated access should be allowed.
The world is becoming more and more online based. For example I can download unlimited legitimate movies both HD and non HD with my HBO subscription now a days. Heck even Netflix allows for downloaded movies now. Does this mean that if I'm on comcast's wire and my family and I enjoy alot of movies that I should be slapped a fine for doing so?
My biggest concern in all of this is that IF comcast's pricing model holds and stupid customers don't flock away in groves that this will quickly become a norm for ISP's across the nation. I know that Time Warner is testing a similar model in the Dallas/Fort Worth area as we speak.
Keep in mind that this may also be a scheme to increase prophet margins. Do the math 14,000 x 15= $210,000 extra in comcasts bank A MONTH. Thats a staggering 2.52 million extra a year and that's just if they hit 10GB over. Tell me that their investors aren't backing this decision.
To Comcast I say to hell with ya!! Let's hope you fail in your endeavor's.
Score: 0
|free unadulterated access should be allowed.
*laughs*
That's just too rich. Seriously. I can't believe you just said that.
Do the math 14,000 x 15= $210,000 extra in comcasts bank A MONTH.
Where'd you pull the 14,000 from? You don't actually think you're use of the available bandwidth is *normal*, do you?
Score: 0
|Replace free with unlimited, I'll take the black eye on that one. But the philosophy is the same; Good or evil intent internet access shouldn't be hampered by amount of data put on the wire.
14,000 came from the last line in the first paragraph. Hence the math 14,000 X $15 =$210,000 a month.
Shouldn't matter if my usage is "normal" or not. However I have no problem admitting that my usage is high when compared to a typical suburbian family of four but when both my wife and I manage two separate data centers including a DEV and UAT environment, our home network backups to my data center, coupled with online gaming, two teenagers with there online XBOX360 stuff and our enjoyment of watching (legit) movies online..no I'd expect that kind of usage.
My point is under no circumstances should it matter how much data is pushed onto the web. I pay for service and expect the bandwidth I purchase and for that access to be unlimited regardless if it's legitimate or illegitimate use. It's not the ISP's duty to determine what I do or don't put on the cloud.
Score: 0
|Replace free with unlimited, I'll take the black eye on that one. But the philosophy is the same; Good or evil intent internet access shouldn't be hampered by amount of data put on the wire.
That's exactly what internet access is. Data on the wire. There's only so much that will fit, it is *not* infinite. If you take the vast majority of it, why are we paying the same price? Hmmm?
14,000 came from the last line in the first paragraph. Hence the math 14,000 X $15 =$210,000 a month.
Ok. Only the top downloaders. Still not seeing a problem here. those using the majority of the utility should be the ones funding it's expansion, should they not?
cal suburbian family of four but when both my wife and I manage two separate data centers including a DEV and UAT environment, our home network backups to my data center,
You should be on a business line. :)
My point is under no circumstances should it matter how much data is pushed onto the web. I pay for service and expect the bandwidth I purchase and for that access to be unlimited
Not making sense here. You're paying for the speed, not the "amount" of bandwidth. Well, at least until the cap is placed. Once it is, you're paying for 250GB. So.. you're getting the service and the bandwidth you are paying for.
t's not the ISP's duty to determine what I do or don't put on the cloud.
Never really said it was. It doesn't even really enter into it. It's amount of data, not broken down by type, protocol, or intent.
Score: 0
|