Comcast limits internet usage at home

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Comcast has made it official: Home Internet service customers are limited to 250GB of data per month. According to the company, the move is in response to heavy usage by some customers that can cause network congestion.

 

The new policy was posted on Comcast's Web site early Friday, and the meter starts running on Oct. 1.

 

Charlie Douglas, director of corporate communications for online services, said, "The amount of data measured is aggregate monthly usage of uploads and downloads."

 

And Comcast has added some teeth to the usage limit -- the first time the limit is exceeded, the offending customer will receive a phone call from a Comcast representative. The second violation will result in a shutdown of Internet service for one year.

 

The amended service policy states in part: "It's no secret we've been evaluating a specific monthly data usage or bandwidth threshold for our Comcast High-Speed Internet residential customers for some time." The threshold is high for the majority of Comcast users.

 

Examples of what a 250GB limit equates to are cited in the amendment, such as sending 50 million e-mails, downloading 62,500 songs, 125 standard-definition movies, or uploading 25,000 high-resolution digital photos. The policy says the median monthly usage for residential Comcast customers is 2GB to 3GB per month.

 

Some observers say Comcast has a reasonable argument. The company has expanded rapidly into business and residential phone service, meanwhile maintaining its large cable-television enterprise. There is only so much available bandwidth at any given time.

 

Comcast is moving data, voice and television and high-definition video over the same pipes. It only takes a few peer-to-peer file-sharing applications to cause unexpected congestion.

 

Comcast's previous efforts to address the problem brought a rebuke from the Federal Communications Commission. Comcast was caught throttling down the connections of BitTorrent P2P users on its network without their knowledge.

 

When the matter came before a congressional subcommittee, Comcast admitted to the practice and was ordered to stop gating individual connections. The FCC and Congress felt the targeting of individual accounts without notification was the main issue.

 

In its new policy Comcast is not limiting bandwidth on the sly, nor is it keeping its policies private. In fact, the company is posting a banner ad on its home page and sending flyers detailing the new policy to each of its customers in September. The company has also posted suggestions for using download-metering software that will track usage, much like the minute counters on cell phones.

 

Douglas emphasized, "This does not affect our commercial customers." Comcast has been aggressively moving into unified data services for commercial accounts, and some, especially those involved in backup and disaster recovery, could go over the 250GB limit, but that service is separate from residential accounts, said Douglas.

 

"We need to remember that the amount of usage we are talking about, more than 250GB a month, does not apply to more than 99 percent of our customers. So the less than 1 percent who are notified today receive a phone call from Comcast asking them to moderate their usage, which the vast majority of them do voluntarily," Douglas said.

 

Other broadband providers are also likely to publicize limits.

 

Better start downloading.

[MrRant 0]

If you can download 250GB a month than congrats. I think on my heaviest days I was only at 6GB and 6 X 30 days = 180GB.

[Guest Smues]

I hate usage limits, but 250gb is not unreasonable AT ALL.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I know that's not bad, but fuck a usage limit.

 

This would make me switch to Verizon, if only they could actually break into the Portland market. My only other solution is to move to the burbs. Fuck.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

It's bad PR, regardless of how few customers (if any) will use that much.

[Jaxxson Mayhem 0]

This is bullshit. Fuck a comcast for this shit. 250 gig is alot, but there should be no limiting the usage, especially if the people don't have a choice with what service they use. Fuck em.

[MrRant 0]

You have a choice. Dial up, DSL or Sat. Also, it hasn't been marketed as "unlimited" in years.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Qwest it is, then!

 

(yeah, right.)

 

Verizon is the better option, it seems, if it's available. Way faster, better service, and none of this usage limit b.s..

[Matt Young 0]

This could cause problems for people who do a lot of online gaming.

[Guest Vitamin X]

That's what I was thinking. Not to mention that things in that arena, among many others, are going towards downloadable content and online streaming of movies and such. Don't fuck with my Netflix Instant feature, Comcast.

[El Psycho Diablo 0]

I wish we could get Verizon FIOS here, but due to something with AT&T, it isn't happening. The cities around Houston itself are, though..which kind of ticks me off.

 

IMO, the service here has only gotten worse since Comcast took over..so we were planning to switch providers anyway.

[MrRant 0]

Are you people fucking stupid? Do you know how little bandwidth online gaming uses in comparison to other things? Even running Netflix's Instant Watch (which I have) 24/7 won't get you to the limit.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Are you people fucking stupid?

So is this just standard procedure for how you guys talk to customers, or what? Settle down there, corporate cheerleader.

 

People aren't going to feel comfortable with a usage limit no matter how high or low it was. It's about principle, not so much that they're going to exceed it or get to it, but the very fact that there's a cap on it, and that it's not an industry-wide thing- and worst off, we don't have a choice between cable providers in our areas, and satellite isn't an option. DSL could be, but it's impractical and costs a ton of money, and is usually much slower, so why? The thing is, Comcast customers are miffed at this and they don't really have a say in the matter because of the federally regulated regional monopolies you're allowed to have. Sure, it's 250GB now, but that could set a precedent for other companies doing a similar thing, and then if Comcast feels the need to do so, lower it in the future. History has also shown that the amount of data in programs and documents has gotten much bigger, not smaller, over time, which is the reason why we have 500GB and even 1TB hard drives available now as opposed to a few years ago when having 40GB was huge. Downloadable online content is also rapidly becoming more and more of a mainstream thing, and that is just going to make internet usage keep going up. 250GB may seem a lot now, but it may not in a couple years and there's no telling whether Comcast is going to revisit their customers or just bring in usage limit pricing tiers into the fold to find another avenue to profit off of.

 

So see, it's not so much that we're freaking out that we're going to hit the limit or exceed it (torrent users will probably have something to worry about here, I'd imagine) but that this could be the beginning of a very, very negative trend. The internet is one of the last few vestiges of unregulated, open transfer and exchange of information and data, and those of us who would like to keep it that way have the right to be wary of a company like Comcast making this move.

[Matt Young 0]

Are you people fucking stupid? Do you know how little bandwidth online gaming uses in comparison to other things? Even running Netflix's Instant Watch (which I have) 24/7 won't get you to the limit.

 

Everything I've read suggests that online gaming uses more bandwidth than just about anything else you can use the internet for.

[MrRant 0]

Are you people fucking stupid?

So is this just standard procedure for how you guys talk to customers, or what? Settle down there, corporate cheerleader.

 

People aren't going to feel comfortable with a usage limit no matter how high or low it was. It's about principle, not so much that they're going to exceed it or get to it, but the very fact that there's a cap on it, and that it's not an industry-wide thing- and worst off, we don't have a choice between cable providers in our areas, and satellite isn't an option. DSL could be, but it's impractical and costs a ton of money, and is usually much slower, so why? The thing is, Comcast customers are miffed at this and they don't really have a say in the matter because of the federally regulated regional monopolies you're allowed to have. Sure, it's 250GB now, but that could set a precedent for other companies doing a similar thing, and then if Comcast feels the need to do so, lower it in the future. History has also shown that the amount of data in programs and documents has gotten much bigger, not smaller, over time, which is the reason why we have 500GB and even 1TB hard drives available now as opposed to a few years ago when having 40GB was huge. Downloadable online content is also rapidly becoming more and more of a mainstream thing, and that is just going to make internet usage keep going up. 250GB may seem a lot now, but it may not in a couple years and there's no telling whether Comcast is going to revisit their customers or just bring in usage limit pricing tiers into the fold to find another avenue to profit off of.

 

So see, it's not so much that we're freaking out that we're going to hit the limit or exceed it (torrent users will probably have something to worry about here, I'd imagine) but that this could be the beginning of a very, very negative trend. The internet is one of the last few vestiges of unregulated, open transfer and exchange of information and data, and those of us who would like to keep it that way have the right to be wary of a company like Comcast making this move.

 

I for one am not happy with any caps, however, consider that COX has a 60 GB (or it may be 40) cap and the one that is in place looks generous. Trust me when I say that I'm a larger user of bandwidth than probably anyone else on this site. I have 10 devices that connect to the internet at any given time (PS3, Wii, 360, iPhone, desktop, laptop, 2 Tivos, Roku box, server) and looking at my records I haven't gotten past 100GB in on month in the last year.

 

1 - Online gaming is around 10-20 MB of data per hour down and up, so, if you play online 8 hours a day for 30 days you are only using 5GB at the high end on average.

2 - Video Streaming (using the Roku box as an example as it's generally the highest bit rate at 2.2mbps) that equals about 1 GB per hour. So lets say your watch it 4 hours a day X 30 = 120GB (again, this is one of the high end streaming devices).

3 - Music downloads at 128kps encoding. Well since each file would average about 4-5MB per song and an album is say 9 songs per album and you downloaded 20 albums you would be at less that 1 GB. If you want to double the encoding then you are talking ~2GB.

 

So far I still have ~125GB a month to download my porn, files, e-mails, more music etc. Even BitTorrent isn't so much a problem from a download perspective but people who don't understand the technology and have it run 24/7 saturate the upstream bandwidth and cause issues for others and depending on their queue could saturate the downstream but there are more downstream channels compared to one upstream.

 

This is a *residential* product and not commercial. You can get a T1 with 1.5 up/down and no caps for $250-500 a month. Right now you are paying no more that $55.

 

And don't give me the monoply thing because clearly you don't understand the laws in place regarding cable companies. If it were a monopoly than why can Click! overbuild us in Tacoma? Why can Wide Open West overbuild us in Denver? Explain it. I'll wait.

 

Oh, it's because it's is *expensive* to build a cable network. Billions of dollars in capital. The reason drives keep getting cheaper is because it gets cheaper and cheaper to make the parts as production comes online. Look at the latest drives and they are expensive, wait a year and they go down in price so if you can put in a 500GB drive for $20 more than a $250, WTF not? I don't know many people who max out a 500GB HD besides those with RAW pictures and digital video.

 

So, you are more than welcome to come back and discuss this when you and Matty boy understand something out the cable system, the laws regarding it, actual bandwidth usage by 99% of the people on our network and we can discuss it.

 

Or I can come down and we can go to a bar and discuss it over a beer (or 3).

[Guest WhackingCockDick]

Man, Rant is a true believer.

[Guest Smues]

Up here the only cable company gives you... FIVE gigs. Now THAT is horseshit. And as far as I know the only way to get unlimited is with the ultimate package that includes phone and tv and such. Not a bad package, but it's the only way to get unlim cable internet. Otherwise if you want unlim you go with ds snail (god those commercials are annoying.) Yes limits suck, but 250 is beyond reasonable.

[MrRant 0]

I'd have the same argument no matter my employer. It is hard to defend something when you can't really go in depth with people here due to that fact and the fact that most of this board doesn't understand some of the tech behind it nor do they have the the knowledge of the costs of the plant. I've seen the amount that is spent just on infrastructure just for Washington and it's a pretty penny.

 

That is what happens with you kids being more worried about arguing about the merits of Franz Ferdinand.

[Guest WhackingCockDick]

Who gives a shit about Franz Ferdinand?

[Matt Young 0]

What's gotten into Rant? To impart his knowledge is one thing, but he's being a borderline obsessive douchebag about it. We get it, Ranty boy. No need to get all premenstrual on us.

[Jaxxson Mayhem 0]

Rant's being a dumb fuck. Its not about the size of the cap, it's the cap itself. It's the principal.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I for one am not happy with any caps, however, consider that COX has a 60 GB (or it may be 40) cap and the one that is in place looks generous. Trust me when I say that I'm a larger user of bandwidth than probably anyone else on this site. I have 10 devices that connect to the internet at any given time (PS3, Wii, 360, iPhone, desktop, laptop, 2 Tivos, Roku box, server) and looking at my records I haven't gotten past 100GB in on month in the last year.

 

What about for those of us who are trying to get web servers up and running at home and can't afford the $250-300 for a T1? I guess I should be paying for a web hosting service, which would be more affordable, but this is just a personal little site I have been trying to get going on the side. And there's several caveats to this, which I'll get into in a second.

 

2 - Video Streaming (using the Roku box as an example as it's generally the highest bit rate at 2.2mbps) that equals about 1 GB per hour. So lets say your watch it 4 hours a day X 30 = 120GB (again, this is one of the high end streaming devices).

Is the Roku box the one that has the Netflix capability? Just curious. Because I will have no problem matching that once the capability comes out for the Xbox 360 this fall.

 

3 - Music downloads at 128kps encoding. Well since each file would average about 4-5MB per song and an album is say 9 songs per album and you downloaded 20 albums you would be at less that 1 GB. If you want to double the encoding then you are talking ~2GB.

 

This is a *residential* product and not commercial. You can get a T1 with 1.5 up/down and no caps for $250-500 a month. Right now you are paying no more that $55.

That's not really true. If you don't have your cable service, it comes out to a bit more than that. Luckily, I'm receiving a discount thanks to some helpful retentions lady which is pretty much the only reason I'm sticking with Comcast, anyways.

 

And don't give me the monoply thing because clearly you don't understand the laws in place regarding cable companies. If it were a monopoly than why can Click! overbuild us in Tacoma? Why can Wide Open West overbuild us in Denver? Explain it. I'll wait. Oh, it's because it's is *expensive* to build a cable network. Billions of dollars in capital.

Here's a funny thing. Verizon can't come into the inner Portland area because of some agreement they have with Qwest, whereas they compete with Comcast out in the 'burbs. There's clearly a market for other digital cable service here, and yes it is expensive, but the profit to be gained from additional competition in the area is huge. And if I don't understand the laws in place, then please, kindly explain them to me because there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of reason why every single city I've ever lived in (and if you know me, I've lived in quite a few) have only had one or two companies to choose from. Fine, it's not a monopoly; it's a federally regulated cartel. Which seems to make sense, given the prices and what we get for them.

 

The reason drives keep getting cheaper is because it gets cheaper and cheaper to make the parts as production comes online. Look at the latest drives and they are expensive, wait a year and they go down in price so if you can put in a 500GB drive for $20 more than a $250, WTF not? I don't know many people who max out a 500GB HD besides those with RAW pictures and digital video.

Of course, but the data usage has gone up significantly since then as well, which was my point that I believe you're trying to address here. For example, in 2000 or so, downloading music was the big thing and DSL and even dial up were a more than capable fit for most people since they were only getting albums that were some megabytes and that's about it. Enter the current year, and those two technologies are too slow for many of the thing the net is used for today from downloading movies and warez (a term that's fallen by the wayside but I like it because it makes me sound all old school l334 hax0r) to online gaming, whether on a PC or on an Xbox.

 

And I know several people who can fill up a 500GB hard drive; not just from DV and work-related stuff like me, but from games and other apps for the PC. Your typical netsurfing dude or dudette probably doesn't need more than 150GB now- but again, that could change.

 

What I think happened here is that you're arguing about why it's stupid to get pissed about this now with current usage rates and all that. Believe me, I understand what you're talking about and would almost want to see if I could hit the limit just for the hell of it. (I can picture that phone call: "Sir, you can't download anymore." "YES! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!") Give it a couple to a few years and it won't be as stupid. If downloading videos becomes as standard as downloading graphics in the 90's (which jumped connection technologies to necessitate moving to 56k for consumer use), to downloading music at the turn of the century (which started to get people switching from dial up to take advantage of 100Kbps-1MBps) to now video and all the online streaming that's available, plus downloadable content. I mean, I can't be the only person here who a few years ago was like, "SHIT? A 4GB drive? Who needs THAT much room?!"

 

And the concern with all of this is that it might set a precedent for the future where there might not be a cap on usage. I've been using the internet long enough now to remember when you would get charged by the minute or by data usage and then a lot of companies (AOL leading the way, if I remember correctly) started getting customers by offering them "unlimited usage!" and so there we went. I guess we'll have to see how everything goes, but the fact they're willing to do this in the first place is what has people upset, and you guys should try to understand that.

 

Or I can come down and we can go to a bar and discuss it over a beer (or 3).

But hey, I'm always down for this.

[Guest WhackingCockDick]

Who's still downloading MP3s at 128 kb/s? 192 bare minimum, 256, 320, or VBR when possible.

[Guest Smues]

Non audiophiles like me. 128 sounds just fine to my untuned ear.

[MrRant 0]

Who's still downloading MP3s at 128 kb/s? 192 bare minimum, 256, 320, or VBR when possible.

 

iTunes is by default 128 and Amazon is 256 VBR. Since that is where a grand majority of people are downloading music, that is my basis for pointing out downloading 20 albums at 128-256 encode.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Seriously? I would've thought most people were still getting their music through file-sharing, not iTunes and Amazon.

[AnonymousBroccoli 0]

Bell and Rogers have had bandwidth caps for a while now. I'm pretty sure it's 90GB for Rogers' "Extreme" line, and 60GB otherwise for high-speed. Here's what Bell gives you. Yes, that's 2GB for a half-gigabit line.

 

I use a DSL re-seller, and even they've got a 200GB cap. It's $10/mo extra for unlimited.

[Golgo 13 0]

250GB is hardly a cap at all. I'd rather have that than alternatives like a lower cap or throttling. If they already do that, I hardly notice it.

 

Yeah, I don't get 128. It bewilders me that others still use it when drive space and high-speed accessibility aren't huge issues anymore.

[At Home 0]

250GB is hardly a cap at all. I'd rather have that than alternatives like a lower cap or throttling. If they already do that, I hardly notice it.

 

Yeah, I don't get 128. It bewilders me that others still use it when drive space and high-speed accessibility aren't huge issues anymore.

 

High-speed accessibility should be an issue, because we don't have it. Some southeast asian countries have free ISPs that regularly clock at 50MB/s. What do most people have, 2MB/s? Those southeast asian countries are getting 25 times the internet we are, and for free!

[IllustriousOne 0]

Any idea if they're going to relax on their "what you can and cannot download/upload" policy as a result, or will that stay the same?