The Comcast Cap
posted at 9:45 am on August 29, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I moved away from Comcast just in time, it seems. The cable giant has decided that its users only need a certain amount of Internet traffic each month, and when they hit the limit, their customers can party like it’s 1989. Starting October 1, Comcast switches to a shortage economy on Internet usage:
Comcast Corp., the nation’s second-largest Internet service provider, Thursday said it would set an official limit on the amount of data subscribers can download and upload each month.
On Oct. 1, the cable company will update its user agreement to say that users will be allowed 250 gigabytes of traffic per month, the company announced on its Web site.
Comcast has already reserved the right to cut off subscribers who use too much bandwidth each month, without specifying exactly what constitutes excessive use.
Granted, a 250 GB cap will restrict few people on the network. Comcast points out that a user could download four feature-length films each day and not run afoul of the cap. They expect few actual confrontations over the limitation, and they plan to counsel customers who come close to disconnection.
However, the entire notion seems a little strange, especially as prices keep falling on the technology needed to build infrastructure for delivery. Comcast offers a good price on their connection, but they’re hardly losing money, and the economy of scale favors the largest providers. Telco providers don’t penalize customers for making too many local calls, and that’s arguably more of a resource issue than broadband Internet. It looks like a Net Neutrality-friendly way of putting the lid on P2P and file-swapping users.
This change will further impact Comcast’s perception in the marketplace as a capricious and arbitrary provider and lower trust in its brand among the users they need to attract. One has to wonder whether this policy based on shortage really reflects a cost issue or just the turf-protecting impulse found within big corporations. At the very least, it makes Comcast look paternalistic and condescending — and cheap. (image via Lonely Machines)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
condescending and cheap pretty much nails it.
jdkchem on August 29, 2008 at 9:49 AM
If there are so few users using more than 250GB then why do they need a cap?
ronsfi on August 29, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Komrad Obama would be proud. This sort of leftist tactic is right out of his playbook.
Sure, 250 a month is a lot, but how long until it’s reduce to 200? 175? You’re paying for the same internet, but you’re getting less of it, in essence. Kinda like a plate limit at an all-you-can eat buffet.
fourstringfuror on August 29, 2008 at 9:51 AM
On October 2, Comcast declares bankruptcy…
Mazztek on August 29, 2008 at 9:51 AM
We need some real competition in this industry.
ronsfi on August 29, 2008 at 9:52 AM
If it really slows things down for other people, that seems like a good reason to limit it. I wouldn’t want my neighbor’s activities to keep me from HotAir.
MamaAJ on August 29, 2008 at 9:52 AM
I realize that any private business reserves the right to run its business any way it chooses, but this certainly won’t look good to prospective customers.
I don’t think it’s real smart.
MBuck on August 29, 2008 at 9:52 AM
oh great…I am a Comcast subscriber. ugh
I dont download alot of stuff tho…is that what they are mostly worried about?
becki51758 on August 29, 2008 at 9:53 AM
My ex-wife sends me that many ‘forwards’.
DoctorDentons on August 29, 2008 at 9:54 AM
stupid bone headed decsion from the management. I would sell the shares of this company if I owned it. This will impact the company 10 years from now. You can not grow your way out of conservation. 250 gigs seem like alot today but in 5 years or 10 years 250 gigs/per month will seem small. What happens when TV is downloaded on the web 24/7. When HD movies, Video games etc catch on. with this decsion comcast has decided that it does not want to play in the future growth of the internet. It is a bad way to go. Time warner is also moving in this direction. It too will be buried in the dustheap of change.
unseen on August 29, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Ok, can someone smart out there tell me how I can find out how much I use each month?
mimi1220 on August 29, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Really?! Come on fourstring, you are going to try to tie Barack Obama to Comcast? It sure is a leftist tactic to make unpopular corporate decisions. Nice work there.
Anything to smear a Democrat, eh? Unbelievable.
http://thepajamapundit.com/
thePajamaPundit on August 29, 2008 at 9:58 AM
There’s absolutely no reason why anybody would ever need any more than 64k of memory in their computer. After all, how many programs do you really need to run at one time?
dalewalt on August 29, 2008 at 9:58 AM
If there are so few users using more than 250GB then why do they need a cap?
ronsfi on August 29, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Because of the FUTURE growth. The rate of growth in the last year or two has been explosive. To keep up with that growth 5 or 10 years from now, comcast will have to invest millions today and next year and next year etc. With this cap they have effectivily capped their infrastructure costs. However It is a bad move as others like google will not cap their investments and thus will end up stealing their customers away when it becomes appearent that they can no longer meet the needs of their customers
unseen on August 29, 2008 at 10:00 AM
My ex-wife sends me that many ‘forwards’.
DoctorDentons on August 29, 2008 at 9:54 AM
I have a buddy who downloads that much porn everyday.
meoky on August 29, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Got to protect that video on demand revenue stream.
This is not good for the Internet.
tarpon on August 29, 2008 at 10:02 AM
If there are so few users using more than 250GB then why do they need a cap?
ronsfi on August 29, 2008 at 9:51 AM
IT is the same mindset that says drilling will not help the enrgy crisis. Comcast has basically said they can not build their way out of the problem of expanding use on the internet.
unseen on August 29, 2008 at 10:02 AM
I ditched commiecast a few years ago. I had crazy slow speeds and they couldn’t figure out why. Probably because too many people were on the same node. Their customer service was crap as well. Every time it drizzled the cable went out. I switched to directv and bellsouth for DSL and have been very satisfied. My DSL did get a bit of a hiccup when AT&T took over, but it was taken care of pretty well.
Either way, if you’re downloading 250 gigs of crap per month, you seriously need to get a life (not you specifically, Ed!).
robblefarian on August 29, 2008 at 10:02 AM
As a Comcast user, I am wondering if they have a meter, that each user can see to know what there monthly usage is. I don’t have a big problem with the 250 GB limit. I know my daughter watches some Netflix and other movies online, but I have no idea what our usage is. Also it seems there should be consideration for off peak usage.
Dasher on August 29, 2008 at 10:04 AM
And if they are that stupid, it’s amazing they’ve still in business. They’d have to be really dumb to not see that demand will grow. If they have no plans to increase capacity, they will lose customers pretty quick, but why would you assume they are that dumb?
MamaAJ on August 29, 2008 at 10:04 AM
The issue is not a single “corporate decision” . . . it’s the concept of coercive control through less than democratic corporate manipulation.
rplat on August 29, 2008 at 10:04 AM
I hate comacast.
When they made all the customers change their email addresses, I said enough.
Their DNS database is often corrupt so I use open DNS to go around theirs.
There techs/installers are the absolute dumbest bastages on earth.
TheSitRep on August 29, 2008 at 10:06 AM
I will be searching for alternative internet providers as of today. I don’t use the internet much, but I think this is the worst idea ever. Is China now the model for which all economies should follow?
ballz2wallz on August 29, 2008 at 10:06 AM
More like Commiecast
ballz2wallz on August 29, 2008 at 10:06 AM
This is the second reason why I have not moved to satellite, the first being expense.
The satellite providers in this area have a much lower limit, 30GB (I think) for the mid-tier, and another level with an even higher price tag. Violating the download limit on satellite and your downlink drops to 256kb until you are at 80% of the limit (30 day period).
rockhauler on August 29, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Could this be somehow connected ti IE8’s new porn feature? More peeps looking to secretly download tons of pron?
bbz123 on August 29, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Either way, if you’re downloading 250 gigs of crap per month, you seriously need to get a life (not you specifically, Ed!).
robblefarian on August 29, 2008 at 10:02 AM
250 gigs is only around 50 movies at standard rate. A regular DVD is around 8 gigs. A high dif movie is closer to 20 gigs. A video game can go from 5 -20gigs. While speed at the moment prevents regualer downloads of these large files in a 5 years they will be common as bit torrent etc takes hold. 250 gigs harddrive today looks small where 20 years ago a 20mb harddrive was considered large.
unseen on August 29, 2008 at 10:08 AM
They should simply charge a higher rate for bandwidth hogs. That would also seem to make business sense. Are they prohibited from doing so? That would be Net Neutraility friendly.
Pablo on August 29, 2008 at 10:08 AM
And if they are that stupid, it’s amazing they’ve still in business. They’d have to be really dumb to not see that demand will grow. If they have no plans to increase capacity, they will lose customers pretty quick, but why would you assume they are that dumb?
MamaAJ on August 29, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Because some companies plan for 3 months stock reporting not 10 years of growth. This is an attempt by comcast to nip the escalating usage of internet in the bud. They hope others will follow their move like an airliner raising prices hoping that others will also.
unseen on August 29, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Conservative radio talk show ads announce that in 2 years, it’s all gonna cost big bucks to use the internet.
All the more reason to push the Democrats into the minority! They keep gasoline prices so inflated, can’t afford to go anywhere. So now the internet gets all the more traffic, corner the web with quadruple bypass taxation, too.
Whatcha gonna do?
Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
Let Freedom Ring. Better get someone great on task to secure conservative communications!
maverick muse on August 29, 2008 at 10:11 AM
I wonder about the limit on bandwidth. Its like the high price of gas. Fix it by more supply. Look at other countries like Korea. They connect at much higher speeds with more bandwidth. Why not increase the pipe and we wouldn’t have to worry about the bandwidth.
Quaking Conservative on August 29, 2008 at 10:13 AM
In part because I don’t know what system you’re running, and because there are several solutions, try Googling “net usage monitor” and download a free usage meter.
OldEnglish on August 29, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Truth hurts, doesn’t it? Put a steak on it.
fourstringfuror on August 29, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I dumped Comcast sometime back, what’s the matter, they don’t like capitalism? Someone will fill the Comcast void and we probably won’t even be aware of it…it will be that seamless. I can see other ISPs willing to take Comcast customers off Comcast hands, help em out.
Dr Evil on August 29, 2008 at 10:14 AM
OldEnglish on August 29, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Thanks. I’m on cable through Time Warner. Use a Mac, don’t do movie downloads and from what I’ve read above, doesn’t look like I’ll be affected.
mimi1220 on August 29, 2008 at 10:18 AM
BTW, I use 1 - 2 GB per month. Am I doing it wrong?
OldEnglish on August 29, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Cable internet is a shared medium, if someone on your node (neighborhood) is constantly uploading or downloading large files via P2P networks your connection speed suffers. This 250GB cap is quite generous but is most likely set due to the current state of Comcast’s infrastructure limits to provide quality service to all customers per node.
However, with that being said, if Time Warner does indeed follow suit here in Texas I’m going AT&T UVerse or hopefully Verizon will have rolled out Fios in my area to allow me to switch.
smfoushee on August 29, 2008 at 10:20 AM
In my opinion it’s a token attempt to limit piracy. A couple of years ago they capped the news group service to 2gig per month. If people don’t know the news group service is a giant source for bootleg movies, software, songs and e-books. Not to mention porno of every type you could imagine and it’s all free and pretty much untraceable. Buy capping it at 2gig a month they made it useless for large scale downloads though Comcast. Let’s face it; it’s kind of tough to download a 4gig DVD with only 2gig of transfer. They let you do it but you are only allowed that 24gig a year so downloading 12 gig shuts off access to the news group service for 6 months. What this did was push people that use the news group service to other providers like Giganews, (who Comcast uses for their news group service), which offer unlimited transfer for 20 bucks a month. I think that capping all data transfers is a token attempt to close the backdoor leading to other news group services.
jmarcure on August 29, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Google is not an ISP. There competition is DSL and Satellite.
Dasher on August 29, 2008 at 10:23 AM
I am surprised to see such griping on a site like HA, of all places.
Comcast have the inviolable right to make such changes to plans. They are looking at the future applications for broadband and realizing that they need to lay the foundations for tiered QoS.
Their actions are exemplary conservatism. Americans have gotten too complacent in their expectations that everything should be a stuff-your-ass buffet for one low price.
LimeyGeek on August 29, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Pfft. 250G is generous.
What I don’t like is the mobile broadband “cellphone” like internet access fees. So far I’m finding 5G a month for $50 with $.25/MB after that.
geckomon on August 29, 2008 at 10:25 AM
must…cut down….on…the….pr0n.
Alden Pyle on August 29, 2008 at 10:29 AM
I can’t say I blame them.
Sir Andrew on August 29, 2008 at 10:30 AM
I am getting ready to dump Comcast and go with Verizon Fios. I have had it with them and their overpriced system. This latest stunt of theirs is the last straw.
pilamaye on August 29, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Bummer! :)
OldEnglish on August 29, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Comcast limits, Google censorship, the fairness doctrine, universal healthcare, carbon caps, corporate tax hikes, guest workers, bilingual eduction, abortion rights for children, the list grows longer everyday. Welcome to the brave new world of social and moral relativism proudly sponsored by us. Freedom and choice are just to complicated and scary for the lazy and stupid while the rest of us have become comfortably numb.
All Hail the death of America!
dmann on August 29, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Comcrap crashes so often that my connection is limited anyway. At any rate, this is a lame move.
Grafted on August 29, 2008 at 10:40 AM
I’ll be announcing some changes to my relationship with Comcast soon…
d1carter on August 29, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Bullshit. This is not a government entity. This is the private sector. You have no right to Comcast service or to free speech through Google. These are entirely unrelated to government intrusion into broadcast and healthcare.
LimeyGeek on August 29, 2008 at 10:43 AM
I think my neighbors kid is a pr0n addict.
I can tell when he goes to bed because my connection to Quake 3 gets less laggy and I can bust out my l33t r411 sk1llllz.
As a consumer and Comcast customer, I am glad that they are taking action against hogs on a shared connection. If electricity worked the same way, I would have to go next door and punch him in the face…..or shut his toaster off….or something.
scr00s on August 29, 2008 at 10:44 AM
All you whiners that want to throw a hissy fit and dump Comcast - go right ahead, I’m begging you…..with enough petty adolescents walking away it might drive down my costs.
LimeyGeek on August 29, 2008 at 10:44 AM
They are just conditioning their customers to accept “metered” internet. Camels nose in the tent and all that…..
TBinSTL on August 29, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Understood. Should you feel the need, try Net Monitor. It’s not free ($12), but is well thought of. It requires 10.4, and can be downloaded from MacUpdate.
Full disclosure; is there any other platform? :)
OldEnglish on August 29, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Next comes the opportunity to pay to opt out of download limits. Which is not so different from the phone companies charging based upon the download speed.
davod on August 29, 2008 at 10:49 AM
“I dont download alot of stuff tho…is that what they are mostly worried about?”
Every time you access the internet you download data.
davod on August 29, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Ed,
Er, I think you miss the reason for the cap. It has only peripheral issues with bandwidth and everything to do with CONTENT. Comcast and the rest of the cable companies are deeply invested in providing channel line ups, pay per view, etc. Well if the movie studios ramp up to provide direct to the home feeds of their movie vault then 2/3rds of the revenue for the cable co’s disappear.
The ones going over the cap aren’t the P2P users its the TVoIP folks that are using the bandwidth the most. Comcast sees the trend and notices the threat. Their only way to handle it right now is to apply caps since they are too lazy to provide a high band channel for high usage users at a premium.
Dr. Dog on August 29, 2008 at 10:51 AM
All you whiners that want to throw a hissy fit and dump Comcast - go right ahead, I’m begging you…..with enough petty adolescents walking away it might drive down my costs.
LimeyGeek
———————
Actually it won’t. Cable co’s rate their $ cost penetration per subscribe based on the line mile not the Gbits used. So when Comcast see massive defection in a service area they will raise their base rate accordingly during the next billing adjustment cycle.
Another words you lose.
Dr. Dog on August 29, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Limey, I never said these companies were part of the government nor claimed an inalienable right to anything. When private enterprise makes decisions which are NOT based on market conditions but are founded in a “do the right thing” mentality they are promoting behavoir, not services or products. The bottomline is the bottomline, time will show if Comcast has made the right call.
dmann on August 29, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Lazy? Do you have any clue as to the infrastructure requirements of such change? Do you have any idea of the massive costs that would be involved?
Bandwidth provision is a zero-sum game. While people were content surfing the net, IMing and emailing, they could afford to be blase about consumption. Advances in the software infrastructure of the Internet have signaled the end to that complacency. Tiered QoS is inevitable and economically astute.
LimeyGeek on August 29, 2008 at 10:58 AM
We shall see.
LimeyGeek on August 29, 2008 at 10:59 AM
The good news is I only download about 245 GB of porn a month! Whew!
Nethicus on August 29, 2008 at 11:00 AM
How about DVR and HD channels? Are the limits designed to offer better TV capabilities over reduced Internet access? I have Comcast provide me HD cable, Internet and phone. Are the people like me overloading the system so they have to limit the Internet in favor of the other two?
jmarcure on August 29, 2008 at 11:02 AM
This is why we need antitrust laws and the enforcement of them.
indythinker on August 29, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Of course they could use bandwidth throttling to solve the slowdown problem - it is not a new technology. Weight the algorithm to maintain a fair average throughput, but favor short bursts by low users over continuous high users. That improves the perception of speed without penalizing too many people. In fact Comcast could take a page from the power companies and implement discounts for volunteers for load shedding when the network bogs down.
deadman on August 29, 2008 at 11:05 AM
This is a stupid idea on comcast’s part. FIOS here I come.
There are people who work using the net, rent movies and purchase software over the net and this cap will affect them.
dogsoldier on August 29, 2008 at 11:10 AM
I use the Internet for surfing and that’s about it. I don’t do big downloads, file swapping or video. In fact I avoid sites with to much video. It would be nice to keep the speed but get a discount or rebate on bandwidth usage.
jmarcure on August 29, 2008 at 11:12 AM
*puke*
Keep your cancerous socialism within your own four walls.
LimeyGeek on August 29, 2008 at 11:12 AM
That’s it. I left AT&T for Comcast… 2nd look at AT&T
Ugly on August 29, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Stupid, stupid idea. Especially stupid when a number of people in less developed areas have no competition in the broadband market. If every consumer could choose between T1, ADSL, Cable or FiOS this would be a different story.
This is like a giant step backwards to the ol’ AOL/Prodigy days where we were granted 20 hours a month of internet time. And when you consider how poor the speed of dial-up is it’s quite clear that they, too, had bandwidth caps.
HebrewToYou on August 29, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I just wish I had a better choice.
sadatoni on August 29, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Relax, people. It’s not going to affect any of you. At all. Unless you’re running a pirate video/music/movie sharing network out of your home.
Unless it affects a significant base of users, it won’t make a darn bit of difference in Comcast’s base of users.
Tennman on August 29, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Here’s a good free net usage monitor, for anyone interested.
Ugly on August 29, 2008 at 11:34 AM
[geckomon on August 29, 2008 at 10:25 AM]
It does seem generous, but it depends. I’ve never been much over 3.8GB/month with mine, but when I add my wife, it’s nearer to 6GB/month. I have little doubt when my son’s home, we might be bumping up against that threshold.
Dusty on August 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Hello AT&T.
mesablue on August 29, 2008 at 11:47 AM
The market place will decide the wisdom of Comcast’s decision. Service vs value, people can vote with their feet.
libertas eternus on August 29, 2008 at 11:47 AM
meh Satellite Internet users have had to deal with this for a long time and they pay a premium and the cap is much lower before they slow you down to a crawl.
boomer on August 29, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Tennman, I connect to my home network from my office all throughout the day. It’s a high bandwidth connection using Apple’s Screen Share technology, also known as Remote Desktop. I would easily throttle that 250 GB bandwidth cap if I were Comcast.
Don’t be so glib. You’re not seeing the big picture here.
HebrewToYou on August 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Crappy service provider that is trying to bump profits a few fractions of a percentage point by not keeping up with ISP technology and bandwidth…
Somehow, this won’t help Michelle’s kids any…
But that judgement is above my pay grade !
RocketmanBob on August 29, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Are you running a Cray or something remotely? 250GB is huge. There’s almost zero way you would “throttle” that amount of bandwidth with everyday screenshare technology. BTW, most of that bandwidth is happening at the remote location, not at your end of the stick.
Tennman on August 29, 2008 at 12:01 PM
It goes both ways. I connect to my office from home when I’m not at the office. And I’m sending huge HD video files back and forth during the connections. I hit 250GB about 80% of the way through any given month. It is what it is.
HebrewToYou on August 29, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Lame. If they expect few people to violate it, why do it at all. As somebody deep in the network industry, this makes no sense to me. It can only end up with negative PR. And I’m a Comcast customer. :rolleyes:
PersonalLiberty on August 29, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Comcrap is acting true to form - acting like unregulated monopolies normally do: let’s face it, for all intents and purposes your local cable provider is an unregulated monopoly using the public right-of-way for its conduit.
I’ve been a customer of 2 cable systems that Comcrap took over. IMMEDIATELY prices went up, the actual service (number of channels in a particular tier, etc.) went down and Customer Service became just a memory. And I became an ex-customer real quickly. BTW, it was because of this exact sort of “customer be damned” attitude that satellite TV has gotten the market penetration it has garnered.
I have been saying for years the cable and telco operations should be broken into 2 components - content provider and bandwidth provider. Bandwidth provider part should be regulated like the common carrier or public utility that it is and the content provider part can compete against Google, etc. for providing content (you have only one cable pipe into your house but you can have numerous content providers on one pipe. It is obvious that Comcrap is setting the groundwork for throttling the pipe to give their content an advantage).
Because of the way cable internet works throttling a specific user node is much more complex than it is with DSL (all the users on a particular cable node are in a common collision domain like a hubbed ethernet connection) so the throttling has to be a part of the user’s terminal equipment (IE: the cable modem). Many of the older cable modems do not have that capability. DSL is laid out like a switched ethernet connection so bandwidth throttling is much easier to do (done at the DSLAM). If someone desires I can give you a long dissertation about why the basic structure of cable internet is fatally flawed for high bandwidth operation - typical of how the cable companies over the years have been very short-sighted on so many things.
Finally - LimeyGeek, I detest socialism as much as you do, but regulating a public utility is necessary to prevent the kind of predatory practices that monopolies are prone to exhibit. It is just an acknowledge that some people, when given the opportunity due to lack of competition, will take advantage of their position. In a perfect world we’d have open rights-of-way that anyone could lay in a fiber strand to service the bandwidth needs of the population, but our present world is not perfect, hence the need for regulation.
Bill_Bowen on August 29, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Wise, wise words, Bill_Bowen. We — the American people — have granted private utility companies special privileges. If they abuse them we need to act quickly and firmly to right such wrongs. Comcast is abusing their position in the industry and they need to be stopped.
This isn’t like Microsoft versus Apple; some people simply don’t have a choice for broadband.
HebrewToYou on August 29, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Hmmm, didn’t know there was a shortage of internets.
We must find new and alternative sources of internets.
I hope the lightworker will imbue us with a new and clean source of internets for all to use.
jharada on August 29, 2008 at 12:23 PM
That’s the thing about the free market, free enterprise and freedomn in general - sometimes people or firms do stuff that you personally wish they wouldn’t. Bandwidth is not costless, capital available for infrastructure investment is not limitless, firms in free markets have a moral and legal obligation to their shareholders to maximize profits. Get over it.
pussum207 on August 29, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Internet access is not a free market, pussum207. There are barriers to entry that cannot be overcome without government interaction. That is the problem. People in the sticks, if they even have broadband in the area, are limited to pretty much one ISP. That makes bandwidth caps all the more troubling.
HebrewToYou on August 29, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Once again Ed Morrissey is way off. Not a big surpise. Net Neutrality is the brain child of a George Soros group. Its one and only purpose is to put the power of Internet control in the hands of the FCC. That way, unelected bureaucrats can dictate to providers. Morrisey would have to actually read a few pages to learn that.
Comcast is pulling the plug on rat college kids who move petabytes of primarily illegal downloads which effects their entire network. They should have the right to do with their cable lines what ever they want. They went to the expense of laying them, and they are private property.
These kinds of cheap shots like Morrisey is giving into plays right into the hands of Soros and the piglets at the FCC.
Would Morrisey rather just switch providers or have Kevin Martin tell him what he can and cannot do on the Net?
revolution on August 29, 2008 at 12:53 PM
That it is. You would be the exception to the rule, I’d think. I’m also thinking that if there are legitimate users needing that bandwidth, there would be exceptions to Comcast’s rule. Glib, yes. Naive? Possibly. Realistic? Most assuredly.
Tennman on August 29, 2008 at 1:01 PM
250GB is pretty generous as a cap. Up here in the frozen bits of North America we only get 60GB unless you want to pay even more through the nose!
I’m completely against the whole concept of a cap, especially since the services are always advertised as Unlimited*… It’s that darned asterisk that gets you.
Hopefully there are enough alternatives to Comcast that their customer base will bleed away and hurt them for this choice. However, if my experience here has been any indication, their competitors will now all move to a cap system too.
*Sigh*… Too bad the capping companies own the infrastructure or else someone could snap up all the irate customers by offering truly unlimited access.
Canucker on August 29, 2008 at 1:13 PM
We’re paying over $100.00 for basic cable and internet connection with Comcast. Can anyone recommend a better, cheaper alternative?
Laura in Maryland on August 29, 2008 at 1:14 PM
See if you have anyone providing FiOS in your area. Sometimes there is unlit FiOS in your area and you can pay for last-mile connectivity. It’s kinda tough to arrange but well worth it.
ADSL speeds have also really improved in recent years. I would recommend Verizon business-class DSL. I use it and am quite satisfied.
HebrewToYou on August 29, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Actually, it is a free market in that there are no government-imposed barriers to entry and retail prices are unregulated. It may not fit the textbook definition of perfectly competitive markets but few markets do. To the extent that there is government intervention in the telecom markets, as in wholesale markets, it has undermined the economics of entry and investment and thus reduced choice.
On the question of rural customers, I would note that the choice of where to live is ultimately up to the individual. Living in rural areas has advantages and disadvantages. For example, among the advantages are vastly lower costs of housing. Among the advantages of urban living are lower costs and better choice with respect to a wide variety of other goods and services, including telecommunications. Providing broadband-capable access in rural areas is much more costly and much riskier due to lower customer density. This is unfortunate in one sense but also an unavoidable result of what makes rural life otherwise so appealing to those who choose it - fewer people, greater isolation, peace and quiet, etc. It is not reasonable for rural residents to want to benefit from all the advantages of rural living and, at the same time, expect others to defray the costs of that choice.
pussum207 on August 29, 2008 at 1:48 PM
I just called Quest and will have their DSL connected.
Helloyawl on August 29, 2008 at 1:50 PM
We’re paying over $100.00 for basic cable and internet connection with Comcast. Can anyone recommend a better, cheaper alternative?
See if you have anyone providing FiOS in your area. Sometimes there is unlit FiOS in your area and you can pay for last-mile connectivity. It’s kinda tough to arrange but well worth it.
ADSL speeds have also really improved in recent years. I would recommend Verizon business-class DSL. I use it and am quite satisfied.
HebrewToYou on August 29, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Thanks for the info. I’ll give Verizon a call!
Laura in Maryland on August 29, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Comcast has a monopoly in many places. I was in my local coffee shop the other day and a Verizon worker came in asking for access to the basement. I asked him when we were going to be able to get FIOS. He said they had already begun wiring. I cannot wait! Bye-bye Comcast!
plum on August 29, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Check out Wide Open West - I’ve had it for 4 years now, and couldn’t be happier. Better, faster, cheaper than Comcrap. They have Cable, HDTV, Internet and Phone sevice.
http://www.wowway.com
RightWired on August 29, 2008 at 2:54 PM
I’m in sales at Verizon’s small business end of the world. This is really good news for us. With more and more areas in Verizon’s territories that are being rolled out with FIOS, cable companies are really feeling our bite.
If you have a small business and want to explore the options Verizon has available, maybe the website people can direct your inquiries to me. I’ll check on the options and let you know.
(I’m feeling pretty good about the Veep pick. How about you? I have my reservations, but she seems pretty impressive, so far.)
Hazythoughts on August 29, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Lazy? Do you have any clue as to the infrastructure requirements of such change? Do you have any idea of the massive costs that would be involved?
————————————–
Yes LimeyGeek, lazy. Their solution is DOCSIS3. That means they ship some new modems to their some of their subsucribers and drop a few new router cards in their POP at the office. Their line infrastructure, eg cable, does not change on wit.
Compared to the work being done by Verizon and AT&T with FTTP; yes it is lazy.
Dr. Dog on August 29, 2008 at 4:43 PM
andwidth provision is a zero-sum game. While people were content surfing the net, IMing and emailing, they could afford to be blase about consumption. Advances in the software infrastructure of the Internet have signaled the end to that complacency. Tiered QoS is inevitable and economically astute.
LimeyGeek
———————————————————
False actually. With the proper investments the bandwidth available is nearly infinite.
* Spread Spectrum roaming for wireless space. 3/4’s of the bandwidth allocations in this country go UNUSED in any instant of time. The DoD already does dynamic spectrum allocation as theatre requirements dictate.
* DWDM can provide a 100x increase in bandwidth over the same fiber that in the ground.
* An Australian research center has an experimental wireless architecture that provides 5Gbs/sec using existing chip systems.
One way to raise rates is to generate a perceived rarity to a resource. Caps can foster that perception.
But by no means is bandwidth a zero sum gain. Especially for wireline services.
Dr. Dog on August 29, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Are the people like me overloading the system so they have to limit the Internet in favor of the other two?
jmarcure
——————————————-
jmarcure, hate to say it but you may not be getting the full benefit of your HD channels now. Another words the applied compression is reducing your HD quality.
As a consumer you should be pushing for a low cost data transport from the carriers. Like $30 from the cable co’s just for transport. Then you go and get your own service layers as you want it, ala carte. There’s nothing technologically to doing this. The Suites just want their channel line ups to pay for the 2 martini lunches.
Dr. Dog on August 29, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »