PDA

View Full Version : Comcast bastardos



BadMoon
08-29-2008, 10:49 AM
Will this effect my gaming online somehow? I guess the correct question is how can I tell how much bandwidth I am using?

Comcast Corp., the nation's second-largest Internet service provider, says it will set an official limit on the amount of data subscribers can download and upload each month.

The cable company says it will update its user agreement on Oct. 1 to say that users will be allowed 250 gigabytes of traffic per month.

Comcast has already reserved the right to cut off subscribers who use too much bandwidth each month, without specifying exactly what constitutes excessive use. Customers who go over the limit are contacted by the company and asked to curb their usage.

Comcast floated the idea of a 250 gigabyte cap in May. The company mentioned then that it might charge users $15 for every 10
gigabytes they go over, but the overage fee was missing in Thursday's announcement.

Comcast has said curbing the top users is necessary to keep the network fast and responsive.

(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

Natrix
08-29-2008, 11:27 AM
250 GB is A LOT, other providers are talking of capping at anywhere from 5-75 GB a month. I don't know how much online gaming would contribute though but I wouldn't be worried unless you do a ton of downloading.


While announcing the limit, Comcast said the median monthly average for data use among its customers is about 2 or 3 GB. To reach the 250 GB threshold, a customer would have to send 50 million e-mail messages (at 0.05 KB), download 62,500 4 MB songs, download 125 standard movies (2 GB each), or upload 25,000 high-resolution photos (10 MB each), Comcast said.

The company will notify customers who exceed the limit that their use is excessive. It will tell customers just how much bandwidth they used. Most customers curb use when asked, the company said.

KitFisto
08-29-2008, 11:33 AM
I have no idea how much badwidth online gaming on the 360 takes, but this realy sucks. They offer all this high speed data transmission, but now want to limit how much you can use it....wow...just wow.

Sick Boy 82
08-29-2008, 11:38 AM
Yeah, this could suck, but it all depends on how much bandwith the 360 and PS3 are using when playing! But it's a good thing I'm cutting down with school.

Shropt
08-29-2008, 11:38 AM
It won't limit your gaming but it will limit the amount of movies and demos you will be watching/playing.

This is a very bad thing to start. Hopefully other companies will use unlimited internet as a selling point.

darthviper107
08-29-2008, 01:29 PM
This is really bad--I'm glad I don't have Comcast, but this is a step against Net Neutrality. Basically--by like 2012 they expect so many high-speed internet customers using the phone lines that the internet will just end up being slow for everyone because of the massive amounts of data going through the lines. I can understand steps to fix that problem now, but they're using that to push for the Net Neutrality problem where then they could control content speeds, essentially where sites have to pay them for their site to load up faster for customers (essentially screwing small websites that can't afford that) and making them more money. They already got in trouble for limiting speeds of torrent files, (since it's discriminatory) but their solution was to just lower the internet speeds completely for those users when using BitTorrent.

Crappy companies.

mfoga
08-29-2008, 01:44 PM
250 GB is ton of traffic. If you download a lot of movies and music that could be a problem.

It seems like a way to go after people who download music and movies illegally. Most have tried to block ports but they can just switch ports or hunt for ports.

BadMoon
08-29-2008, 03:31 PM
This is really bad--I'm glad I don't have Comcast, but this is a step against Net Neutrality. Basically--by like 2012 they expect so many high-speed internet customers using the phone lines that the internet will just end up being slow for everyone because of the massive amounts of data going through the lines. I can understand steps to fix that problem now, but they're using that to push for the Net Neutrality problem where then they could control content speeds, essentially where sites have to pay them for their site to load up faster for customers (essentially screwing small websites that can't afford that) and making them more money. They already got in trouble for limiting speeds of torrent files, (since it's discriminatory) but their solution was to just lower the internet speeds completely for those users when using BitTorrent.

Crappy companies.

I should send this dastardly business to that um girl that wants to have sex with someone to protect this very thing. Not sure what sex has to do with it. However, she isn't charging so I say F it.

darthviper107
08-29-2008, 03:36 PM
Yeah, I thought that was funny. But she has to check you out first, she won't do it with just any loser who says they are against the Net Neutrality bill. (just to clarrify, Net Neutrality means they want to get rid of it, not to support neutrality).

Chimera 1
09-05-2008, 11:03 AM
Will this effect my gaming online somehow? I guess the correct question is how can I tell how much bandwidth I am using?

Comcast Corp., the nation's second-largest Internet service provider, says it will set an official limit on the amount of data subscribers can download and upload each month.

The cable company says it will update its user agreement on Oct. 1 to say that users will be allowed 250 gigabytes of traffic per month.

Comcast has already reserved the right to cut off subscribers who use too much bandwidth each month, without specifying exactly what constitutes excessive use. Customers who go over the limit are contacted by the company and asked to curb their usage.

Comcast floated the idea of a 250 gigabyte cap in May. The company mentioned then that it might charge users $15 for every 10
gigabytes they go over, but the overage fee was missing in Thursday's announcement.

Comcast has said curbing the top users is necessary to keep the network fast and responsive.

(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

Hopefully Microsoft and Sony will step in because they just signed megabillion dollar deals to get streaming online movies over the 360 and PS3 networks. That would essentially kill those deals if people have to manage their online usage. Comcast shouldn't mess with the Media Monsters money, in this instance David will get squashed by Goliath.

lcummins
09-05-2008, 11:17 AM
Other companies have stated it was the peer-to-peer sharing, media downloads and gaming that use the most bandwidth!



While announcing the limit, Comcast said the median monthly average for data use among its customers is about 2 or 3 GB. To reach the 250 GB threshold, a customer would have to send 50 million e-mail messages (at 0.05 KB), download 62,500 4 MB songs, download 125 standard movies (2 GB each), or upload 25,000 high-resolution photos (10 MB each), Comcast said.

The company will notify customers who exceed the limit that their use is excessive. It will tell customers just how much bandwidth they used. Most customers curb use when asked, the company said.

Here is my problem with their statement; if it truly is only a few spoiling it for the rest of us, then why punish the rest of us? Is there really anyone out there downloading 125 movies or 62,000 songs a month? This is just a ploy, just like the other providers are considering, to increase revenues. Time Warner has been accused (although I don't think it was ever proven) of putting less priority on data packets for gaming, and peer-to-peer sharing causing slowdowns and packet loss for those users. And Time Warner is also looking at capping it's bandwidth usage or having tiers of usage level. It's all about the money; they claim their service has more in common with the phone service or electric service where you should pay for what you use, instead of a flat monthly fee. The problem is, their fees are so high to begin with! If they lowered the fees and had a tiered service structure with the highest fees only being a little more than what we are paying now, then I think most people could live with it. Of course, that wouldn't bring in much more money, so...

Mrs.Mac
09-05-2008, 11:32 AM
I've been telling the world that Comcast is the devil for years. :devil

lcummins
09-05-2008, 12:04 PM
I've been telling the world that Comcast is the devil for years. :devil

Yeah, but my company actually does work for them, as well as Time Warner, Cox, etc., so I can't knock them too hard... :duh

bagelsncheesey
09-05-2008, 12:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvVp7b5gzqU

ProgMatinee
09-05-2008, 12:43 PM
It affects like 1% of the customers and is basically a method of getting rid of the people losing them money. They don't owe service to people making them lose money and hurting overall service. Unfortunately the media likes to run with stuff as if its effecting you all.

If I ran an all you can eat place and 1% of my customers were costing me 10% of my profits I'd ban them too.

Its like the Netflix customers that complain that they can't get 50 DVDs a month because Netflix slows their service. Uh, sorry but us normal users shouldn't be paying for people that max it out.

Theres a reason places like banks charge more to business accounts that take up a crapload of employee hours to handle deposits and check processing. There's a reason utility companies charge more to people when they use lots of water or gas or electricity. And thus theres a reason Comcast will charge more to people using up the bandwidth. Don't like it? Good luck finding a new service provider.

Vader AL
09-05-2008, 12:58 PM
I hope my DSL doesn't do that but then again I'm not sure how much I use so it may not be an issue. the problem is this is just the beginning. i'd love for them to use money to improve their technology so they do not have to limit usage.

lcummins
09-05-2008, 01:04 PM
...is basically a method of getting rid of the people losing them money. They don't owe service to people making them lose money and hurting overall service...

Beg pardon? They provided "unlimited" Internet service, just like most all of the cable companies and telephone companies, so any users that actually use the service to the max aren't owed that service? They are paying for what Comcast offered, so yes, they are owed that service!


...If I ran an all you can eat place and 1% of my customers were costing me 10% of my profits I'd ban them too...

You would have no rights to "ban" them if they didn't do anything wrong. It is an "all you can eat" restaurant, so how are they wrong? If they get plates of food and leave a lot, then I could see charging extra... a Chinese place does that where I go to eat a lot.


...Its like the Netflix customers that complain that they can't get 50 DVDs a month because Netflix slows their service. Uh, sorry but us normal users shouldn't be paying for people that max it out...

Again, sorry, but Netflix and other companies base their pricing on the "average" user; there are always going to be users who take full advantage of what they are paying for, based on what the company is offering. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't use a service they pay for, to the maximum, just to be fair to people who don't want to or are too lazy to? Sorry, not even an argument...


...And thus theres a reason Comcast will charge more to people using up the bandwidth. Don't like it? Good luck finding a new service provider.

If enough people leave for DSL or Dish, then the cable companies will back down... trust me, they have in the past when subscribers began to leave.

Vader AL
09-05-2008, 01:13 PM
yeah good points Lonnie. The companies do have users that they lose money on but they have many, many more customers they make their money on because they don't use very much bandwidth so Comcast needs to suck it up.

and you're right when they lose not only internet subscribers but cable subscribers too they'll back off. they are just testing the waters.

BadMoon
09-05-2008, 01:14 PM
Way to go Josh......um I mean Lonnie. :lol

Vader AL
09-05-2008, 01:16 PM
Way to go Josh......um I mean Lonnie. :lol

:rotfl:lol

yeah that was a lot of quoting. :lol

lcummins
09-05-2008, 01:36 PM
Way to go Josh......um I mean Lonnie. :lol


:rotfl:lol

yeah that was a lot of quoting. :lol


Nah... I just copied and pasted and deleted out each time leaving the appropriate part of the quote I was dealing with... :D

ProgMatinee
09-05-2008, 01:47 PM
Sorry, but your "customer is always right" philosophy misses the fact that companies are allowed to refuse service to people for many reasons. Disabled people, races, etc are protected..."people that download music and play games" aren't a protected class.

While it may be contradictory to the advertisement that first drew people in, Comcast has no obligations to continue a business model that isn't in their best interest.

Otherwise, Sideshow owes me $49.99 figures for the rest of my life.

"The average user" is definately who these companies cater for and thus its them that they should satisfy. If someone is using $2000 a month worth of bandwith, I think they should be charged for it rather than raise 2000 consumers prices by $1. If that one consumer doesn't like it, they need to drop the service, not expect the "average users" to pay for his nonaverage use.

lcummins
09-05-2008, 01:52 PM
Sorry, but your "customer is always right" philosophy misses the fact that companies are allowed to refuse service to people for many reasons. Disabled people, races, etc are protected..."people that download music and play games" aren't a protected class.

While it may be contradictory to the advertisement that first drew people in, Comcast has no obligations to continue a business model that loses money.

Otherwise, Sideshow owes me $49.99 figures for the rest of my life.


I never said they had an obligation to continue the business model, only that until they do, they do owe people the service they paid for. If they choose to change it (just like TWC is thinking about), then it will be up to consumers to decide if they want to continue to pay for it... which was what my last point was, that if people decide not to and go someplace else, the cable companies would probably back down. Now if the cable operators, phone companies and dish providers all decide to model their business this way, then we are going to be out of luck, unless the government steps in or enough cancel their service to make an impact (which won't happen unfortunately)...

ProgMatinee
09-05-2008, 02:03 PM
Its conceivable that if Comcast cut the riffraff out, that they could actually offer the typical consumer a REBATE. Which would not only not drive customers away but bring in more average to lower level users. I'm a firm believer in pay for what you use and if Comcast promised me they'd charge me less for not being an abuser, I'd sign up.

I've received rebate checks from utilities companies before when my usage was below average.

If the bandwidth grows too fast for its britches and becomes too expensive, then its users are going to have to learn that not everything needs streaming broadcast or high definition feeds.

If the government feels like it needs to subsidize people's internet entertainment then I will just cry from the ridiculousness. It would be like internet wellfare.

Just like there is no "right" to cheap toys, there's no "right" to affordable broadband internet.

Sick Boy 82
09-05-2008, 02:10 PM
Yeah, I could never boycott Comcast, even though the piss me off sometimes. I love my HDTV way to much!!!! Hell, I never even watch SDTV unless its Comdey Central or Spike TV. And the Travel Channel, I love "No Reservations"!!!! AB is the shizz!!

All my other channels are taken care of by HD. It's very sad though, I'm such an HD snob. When I got to my friend Mike's house and he has an 27" tv in his front room with regular Cable, I'm always trying to push him into getting an big ass Plasma like me and get the HDTV service too.

lcummins
09-05-2008, 02:11 PM
There is no "right" to affordable bandwidth, but until they can eliminate stuff like spam email, pop up ads, etc. that I neither want or requested, why should I have to pay for that bandwidth usage? It really isn't quite the same as electric service or water service; imagine if along with your electricity delivered to your house that you used, there was also some being used for neon sign advertisements which you couldn't stop or turn off, but were required to pay for... how many people would put up with that? There are enough differences that you can't really say they are the same.

ProgMatinee
09-05-2008, 02:43 PM
Yeah. The pop ups, I understand, though luckily they're easy to shut off and ultimately you have a choice to not visit sites that utilize pop ups at all. Any site that would unwillingly have pop ups are victims of a computer crime and then its a whole seperate issue altogether, like if your neighbor used your water to wash his car without asking.

But the current state of popups are basically like I visit "Freaks" on my own free will, if they use popups its on me to decide not to visit them again if I don't like the amount of bandwidth they consume.

KitFisto
09-06-2008, 08:53 PM
Don't visit sites that use pop ups? so you're saying avoid the internet then? I have had pop ups on just about every site I have ever been to including places like ESPN. I have a pop up blocker on my computer these days, but most sites have pop up's.