Comcast to Place a Cap on Internet Downloads

Yeah, it's kinda scary. We don't use that much, but I don't watch videos online, etc. But when we had satellite Internet, they had a "fair use" policy - no one could download more than 200 megs in one 24 hour period. I could hardly BREATHE using that thing. Comcast's cap seems like a walk in the park to me comparatively... but it's still annoying. :mad:
 
They have been doing it unannounced for awhile and the FTC has busted them for it. There will be at least one law suit about false advertising if not many others. They are trying to save themselves.
 
Bandwidth is a scarce good, and if some people use a ton of it there's less for others. (My understanding is that this is particularly true for cable, where the speed of the network declines when use is very heavy.)

It seems that the goal then is to maximize the incentives to increase bandwidth. Competition is the main means for doing so. I have a Sprint network card, and before that I had DSL - two platforms competing with cable. Internet over power lines is another. Comcast now has to worry that one or more of those platforms will start promoting "no limit downloads" and steal a competitive march.

The current incentives in the system have all of them scrambling to add bandwidth and to lower prices - exactly what we want. I predict the cap will be temporary. What could make me wrong is the ongoing growth in demand for online video outstripping the pace of bandwidth-increasing innovation. In which case caps could be imposed on all platforms, but there will be competition to make them as lenient at possible.

The thing to worry about is any reduction in that level of competition, not the details of how they compete.
 
Bandwidth is a scarce good, and if some people use a ton of it there's less for others. (My understanding is that this is particularly true for cable, where the speed of the network declines when use is very heavy.)

It seems that the goal then is to maximize the incentives to increase bandwidth. Competition is the main means for doing so. I have a Sprint network card, and before that I had DSL - two platforms competing with cable. Internet over power lines is another. Comcast now has to worry that one or more of those platforms will start promoting "no limit downloads" and steal a competitive march.

The current incentives in the system have all of them scrambling to add bandwidth and to lower prices - exactly what we want. I predict the cap will be temporary. What could make me wrong is the ongoing growth in demand for online video outstripping the pace of bandwidth-increasing innovation. In which case caps could be imposed on all platforms, but there will be competition to make them as lenient at possible.

The thing to worry about is any reduction in that level of competition, not the details of how they compete.

The key is in your last sentence. The problem for a lot of people in the US is that there isn't a lot of competition available. The last two places I lived in the US, there was one cable internet provider and no DSL. The cable provider could do what it wanted because we had no place to go. In areas where there is competition, it tends to be two companies. Just look over, see what the competition is doing, and offer something similar. They offer a 2.5GB cap, you offer 3GB. If the customer doesn't like it, they can do without.

Where I live now, there are at least six different companies that provide internet service to my address. The prices are low and headed lower, the service is good, and no one is mentioning usage caps. Until you have real competition, the market will not provide those incentives.
 
The problem for a lot of people in the US is that there isn't a lot of competition available....Until you have real competition, the market will not provide those incentives.

This is 100% accurate. Rural areas are completely screwed. Their only options are dialup...or satellite... both of which SUCK. And when I say SUCK, I mean really. Satellite, especially, has its customers over a barrel. They charge outrageous fees to start the service and THEN charge you even more outrageous fees to end the service before the "contract" term is up (even if you move.) They just charged me $600 just for ending a contract. And they charged my CC without my permission to get it. They will do whatever they want, if they can get away with it. Competition is the key, sure... but the problem is, in areas where there isn't any... people are out of luck.
 
Paul Krugman wrote an interesting article on the internet, the FCC and competition a few years ago.

He points out that the information superhighway is a bad metaphor. The internet resembles the railroads during the robber baron era than the current highway system.
 
The key is in your last sentence. The problem for a lot of people in the US is that there isn't a lot of competition available. The last two places I lived in the US, there was one cable internet provider and no DSL. The cable provider could do what it wanted because we had no place to go. In areas where there is competition, it tends to be two companies. Just look over, see what the competition is doing, and offer something similar. They offer a 2.5GB cap, you offer 3GB. If the customer doesn't like it, they can do without.

Where I live now, there are at least six different companies that provide internet service to my address. The prices are low and headed lower, the service is good, and no one is mentioning usage caps. Until you have real competition, the market will not provide those incentives.

That last place you lived almost certainly had DSL through the phone company, and some of the cell phone companies now offer broadband service (mine is through Sprint) everywhere they have cell phone service. IOW, there's some competition almost everywhere in the US, except in isolated rural areas, where people shouldn't and presumably don't feel entitled to all the conveniences avaialble where populations are denser.
 
That last place you lived almost certainly had DSL through the phone company, and some of the cell phone companies now offer broadband service (mine is through Sprint) everywhere they have cell phone service. IOW, there's some competition almost everywhere in the US, except in isolated rural areas, where people shouldn't and presumably don't feel entitled to all the conveniences avaialble where populations are denser.

No Roxy, it doesn't almost certainly have DSL. DSL requires a proximity to a major telephone switching station and in many rural areas, that distance is just too significant for DSL to be practical. Until my recent move, my only high-speed option was through my cable company at very high prices and DSL was not offered to the area. My in-laws just went to satellite because where they live, DSL isn't an option and no one is offering cable to the farm.

And read the fine print on your Sprint contract. If you aren't close enough to a major metropolitan area, you won't get broadband through your card either, as the networks haven't been upgraded. Hell, there are still a lot of places in this country where you can't get regular little web updates on a regular phone, let alone have the infrastructure in place to use your broadband card on your laptop.

There is a great need for competition for internet providers, but the reality of that competition exists in a very few, lucky markets.

Edited to add -- neither of the above mentioned areas would be considered by any definition an "isolated rural area". I used to live in a town of 25,000 and my inlaws live just two miles outside a town of 12,000 -- both of which are less than 60 miles from the Chicago city limits.
 
Last edited:
Alright, which one of you pervs is downloading more than your fair share of porn!
 
Damn it, Nero!

How dare you bring worldly experience into a theological argument! ;)
 
Comcast is to customer service what McDonalds is to cuisine.

I have to use them for internet access now, because ATT doesn't offer DSL in my new 'hood. (Phone lines too old or something).

The installer who came out to hook up TV and broadband couldn't get the digital TV conversion box to work (I didn't want the box, but they'd charge me more if I didn't let them install it; they want me to have access to all those pay-per-view movies.) Installer got on the phone with someone from the company, got angry, and stomped out without finishing the installation.

"I've had it," he said. Then slammed my door and drove off in his truck, leaving the TV armoire in the middle of the living room and the cable box, unwired, still on top of my TV.

When I called Comcast and complained, they offered to make him come back out that night.

Um, no. I don't want crazy-postal cable guy in my house, thank you very much. Someone else can have my share.

They're sending someone else out in September. Meanwhile, they've billed me for the uncompleted installation.
 
Last edited:
Comcast is to customer service what McDonalds is to cuisine.

I have to use them for internet access now, because ATT doesn't offer DSL in my new 'hood. (Phone lines too old or something).

The installer who came out to hook up TV and broadband couldn't get the digital TV conversion box to work (I didn't want the box, but they'd charge me more if I didn't let them install it; they want me to have access to all those pay-per-view movies.) Installer got on the phone with someone from the company, got angry, and stomped out without finishing the installation.

"I've had it," he said. Then slammed my door and drove off in his truck, leaving the TV armoire in the middle of the living room and the cable box, unwired, still on top of my TV.

When I called Comcast and complained, they offered to make him come back out that night.

Um, no. I don't want crazy-postal cable guy in my house, thank you very much. Someone else can have my share.

They're sending someone else out in September. Meanwhile, they've billed me for the uncompleted installation.

September... that's like... Monday :D
 
Comcast is to customer service what McDonalds is to cuisine.

I have to use them for internet access now, because ATT doesn't offer DSL in my new 'hood. (Phone lines too old or something).

The installer who came out to hook up TV and broadband couldn't get the digital TV conversion box to work (I didn't want the box, but they'd charge me more if I didn't let them install it; they want me to have access to all those pay-per-view movies.) Installer got on the phone with someone from the company, got angry, and stomped out without finishing the installation.

"I've had it," he said. Then slammed my door and drove off in his truck, leaving the TV armoire in the middle of the living room and the cable box, unwired, still on top of my TV.

When I called Comcast and complained, they offered to make him come back out that night.

Um, no. I don't want crazy-postal cable guy in my house, thank you very much. Someone else can have my share.

They're sending someone else out in September. Meanwhile, they've billed me for the uncompleted installation.


You could always do what this woman did :D :

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1076091.html
 
I saw the download-cap story in the context of internet piracy, where they're trying to keep movie theft from getting out of hand. The music business is already in a shambles because of illegal downloading, the Hollywood looks to be next.

Of course, many will say Hollywood deserves to get the shaft, but you have to consider all the little people who contribute to the industry, like scriptwriters, for example. (Cough cough. This is the Author's Hangout, right?)

On the internet access issue, when I see the free-marketers trumpeting the 'integrity and honesty' of the free market, and compare it to the stories about getting charged $600 for canceling your internet service in an uncompetitive market, it makes me wonder if we're living in some kind of parallel universe, where capitalists are honest in one, and dishonest in the other. What else could explain the complete disconnect between ideology and reality?
 
Man there goes my gaming right down the tubes. And my late night porn streams. Damn! :mad:
 
I saw the download-cap story in the context of internet piracy, where they're trying to keep movie theft from getting out of hand. The music business is already in a shambles because of illegal downloading, the Hollywood looks to be next.

Of course, many will say Hollywood deserves to get the shaft, but you have to consider all the little people who contribute to the industry, like scriptwriters, for example. (Cough cough. This is the Author's Hangout, right?)

On the internet access issue, when I see the free-marketers trumpeting the 'integrity and honesty' of the free market, and compare it to the stories about getting charged $600 for canceling your internet service in an uncompetitive market, it makes me wonder if we're living in some kind of parallel universe, where capitalists are honest in one, and dishonest in the other. What else could explain the complete disconnect between ideology and reality?
Well, you may be right or wrong about that, but I'll bet my shorts that Comcast themselves don't give a rat's ass about piracy per se. They just want to squash the most extreme bandwidth hogs, because those customers are not cost effective for Comcast.

Those hogs happens to a large extent to be file sharers, pirated movie and TV media, to be exact. Which makes it easier for Comcast to motivate their cap. But I don't believe for a second they do it because they want to be cuddly with Hollywood, or anything else for that matter, but their bottom line.
 
Man there goes my gaming right down the tubes. And my late night porn streams. Damn! :mad:
An hour of uncompressed videostream of good TV quality is about 1,8 gigabytes.

That means that for 250 gigabytes/month you can watch close to half an hour of porn every day.

And remember, that for top dvd quality. And also uncompressed (and nothing is uncompressed, not even regulat DVDs).

Which means you can stay glued to the screen 24/7 if you settle for Youtube quality porn. And still have bandwidth for all the gaming you might get done on your breaks from porn.
 
An hour of uncompressed videostream of good TV quality is about 1,8 gigabytes.

That means that for 250 gigabytes/month you can watch close to half an hour of porn every day.

And remember, that for top dvd quality. And also uncompressed (and nothing is uncompressed, not even regulat DVDs).

Which means you can stay glued to the screen 24/7 if you settle for Youtube quality porn. And still have bandwidth for all the gaming you might get done on your breaks from porn.

I do a lot of gaming...much more than vid watching. Hours and hours of gaming. On servers in Dallas, NL, UK, Chicago, New York and California.
 
That last place you lived almost certainly had DSL through the phone company, and some of the cell phone companies now offer broadband service (mine is through Sprint) everywhere they have cell phone service. IOW, there's some competition almost everywhere in the US, except in isolated rural areas, where people shouldn't and presumably don't feel entitled to all the conveniences avaialble where populations are denser.

Actually, no it didn't. I lived in a city of 80,000 people in a new neighborhood two miles away from downtown and my only internet option was cable from one company. My cell phone provider did not provide internet and I was locked into a contract. Believe me, I was looking for alternatives and I was not in a rural area.

Besides, two companies doesn't really make for competition. As I said in my last post, places with one DSL provider and one cable provider tend to have almost identical plans and services offered by both. Without competition, they have no incentive to offer improved services.

The Comcast cap is at least a generous one. There are other providers introducing two and three GB caps.
 
I do a lot of gaming...much more than vid watching. Hours and hours of gaming. On servers in Dallas, NL, UK, Chicago, New York and California.
Bandwidth-wise, it's marginal compared to even the crappiest video stream.

Are you talking about stuff like video games, mmorpgs and shootemup arenas? Or stuff like online poker?

If it's the former, you need bloody quick response times (as in low lag), but not very much in terms of bandwidth. if you have a headset and voice chat during gameplay, you need a bit more. But still not much compared to the pr0n.
 
Back
Top