Comcast To Remove Data Cap, Implement Tiered Pricing 329
StikyPad writes "Comcast is reportedly removing its oft-maligned 250GB data cap, but don't get too excited. In what appears to be an effort to capitalize on Nielsen's Law, the Internet's version of Moore's Law, Comcast is introducing tiered data pricing. The plan is to include 300GB with the existing price of service, and charge $10 for every 50GB over that limit. As with current policy, Xfinity On Demand traffic will not count against data usage, which Comcast asserts is because the traffic is internal, not from the larger Internet. There has, however, been no indication that the same exemption would apply to any other internal traffic. AT&T and Time Warner have tried unsuccessfully to implement tiered pricing in the past, meeting with strong push back from customers and lawmakers alike. With people now accustomed to, if not comfortable with, tiered data plans on their smartphones, will the public be more receptive to tiered pricing on their wired Internet connections as well, or will they once again balk at a perceived bilking?"
Fiber needs to move faster... (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
What's wrong with tiered? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd much prefer a flat-rate unlimited plan, but I also recognize that a small percentage of users consume a disproportionate amount of bandwidth and that has to be managed somehow. I don't want a data cap. I'd much rather have the option of an affordable tier if I go over that cap, provided I'm given easy-to-use tools to see what my current utilization is. What I don't want is for that next tier to be ridiculously expensive as a disincentive to use it. I don't think $10 for an additional 50GB is unreasonable, although cheaper would be better.
I can only speak for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only speak for me...but the scummy thing I see is they really want it both ways.
1) You can pay more for higher speeds
2) You can pay more for more bandwidth.
And we'll be really slow about moving the boundaries so as to capture as much money as possible.
Higher speed should just be included, and fine, charge a reasonable amount for bandwidth.
OR
You charge by the speed tier and however much bandwidth I consume you live with it.
[The pricing seems high too, IMO.]
But no, they want to make you pay both ways. [And pay again when you can't stream data (without meter) from other vendors - you have to pay extra to CC.]
Wireless carriers do it like this too.
Them: "No, you can't tether, that costs extra."
Me: "Why? You're capping my data consumption anyway. If it's not unlimited, then I should get to choose where I use my data - the phone, a tablet, or my laptop."
Either it's unlimited to a single device, in which case, I can stream netflicks 24x7 - or I pay for X amount of data and I can use it in any way, with any device I like.
But no. We'll pick the terms we like when it benefits us, and then mix and match to make even more.
Screw you customer! Just keep forking over the cash.
-Greg
Re:Even better - just meter the whole damn thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Gas, power, and water utilities manage to deliver and upkeep what's arguably a more complicated infrastructure with the same model, why should data be any different?
Because gas, power, and water can be saved for another day. Any bandwidth we don't use right now is lost forever. It's actually more economical on a dollars per byte basis to keep your network near saturation. If you discourage people from using the network, you're increasing everyone's per byte costs.
The right way to deal with contention for network resources is to build out infrastructure. If ISPs are allowed to profit from network congestion, there is no incentive to build out infrastructure.
Metered internet access provides exactly the wrong incentives for *everyone* involved.
No complaints from me... (Score:1, Insightful)
Granted, it would be better if it were unlimited and I didn't have to ration my Netflix usage at the end of a heavy usage month, but $10/50gb seems reasonable enough to me...
Well, that does it. (Score:5, Insightful)
"First, we fucked them with television. We fucked them too much and they don't watch television on cable anymore.
Then, we fucked them with advertising online and through what TV remained, but we advertised too much, and now everyone ignores our ads or pirates our shit.
We tried to fuck them with BitTorrent, but even the government wouldn't let that slide. We had to unfuck BitTorrent. Apparently it isn't just for pirating shit.
Now they want internet, so we're going to fuck with internet a bit and see if we can't squeeze a few more cents out of them."
What the fuck, Comcast? Get a clue.
Re:Most won't notice (Score:4, Insightful)
This actually seems like a pretty sane plan for most people who aren't diehard pirates or Netflix users. Most users don't use 300GB.
I just hope they give the option to shut off buying extra bandwidth automatically. I'll buy the 300gb a month, but I don't want anymore. If I hit the cap, cut me off to just a Comcast website where I can buy more. None of this, "For an extra $10 a month we'll give you parental controls to limit the automatic purchase of more bandwidth" crap that cell phone companies pull with text messaging.
they also have certified meters (Score:4, Insightful)
they also have certified meters and most of the ISP meters are off and bill you for overhead and ARP data.
FTC and unlimited (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with tiered? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't generally have a problem with tiered, but $10 for 50GB is completely unreasonable. It's the equivalent of $64 per megabit, which is nuts for a home connection.
It's enough to make third-party IPTV unsustainable; if a household watches, between all TVs/people, 6 hours of TV per day at 4Mbps, you'll end up paying more than $60 a month just in bandwidth overage, above and beyond your TV bill! And 4 meg is a pretty damned conservative bitrate for IPTV.
$10 should be getting you 100-200 gigabytes per month. It's a reasonable cost, and it's roughly what existing large ISPs like Shaw are charging.
Re:What's wrong with tiered? (Score:3, Insightful)
" but I also recognize that a small percentage of users consume a disproportionate amount of bandwidth and that has to be managed somehow"
And managed why exactly?
Leave your [cable] TV on for all 720ish hours in a month. You don't get penalized (outside of electricity bill) with overage charges for going over some arbitrary viewing cap. Hell, leave it running for an entire year and it doesn't cost any more (or less) than it would if you left the TV off entirely.
What's wrong with tiered is that it is an economic invention, not a practical or technical limitation.
Re:How can they complain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in rural Manitoba we get 7Mbps down / 768Kbps up for $46 + tax for a 60GB cap. Fucking sense of entitlement.
I realize it's fun to play songs on the hate parade when talking about Americans, but entitlement is not the word. At the next town over they can get unlimited service with a different provider. That's an issue of value, not entitlement.
Boggles (Score:2, Insightful)
As a Canadian, where 100GB data caps are insanely high and most run between 30 and 60-ish, the thought of having 250 or 300 GB to play with _PER MONTH_ boggles my mind. I literally don't know how I'd come close to tapping that out without making a concerted effort to do so. As it is, I typically run under 30-ish per month and I use the internet quite extensively. Ah, it amuses me how some people see a problem when others see glorious unlimited freedom...
(Not trying to be a smartass, though I often am one - I literally mean it - I truly don't know how I'd burn 300 GB a month)
Re:"internal traffic"? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Internal traffic" counts only towards Comcast's own content services like Xfinity. All other traffic (including to your neighbor) will whittle away at the cap.
Remember, data caps are not about network or quality management. They're about keeping the provider from becoming a "dump pipe" for premium content elsewhere. (In Comcast's case, high-def streaming TV.)
Re:How can they complain? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why we can't have nice things.
Re:Boggles (Score:4, Insightful)
Boggle on. You're not very imaginative. There probably should be a cheapo option for customers like you whose demands are so minuscule. For my part, I can easily get up dangerously close to 250 GB within HALF a month without half trying, and I then have to curtail my usage for the rest of the month.
I'm not even going to say what kind of stuff I do to pile up the GB. It's not particularly daring or esoteric. There are so many ways. Look, I've got a pipe that flows a sustained 2 MB/s - that's 120 MB/min, 7.2 GB/h, 172.8 GB/d, 5184 GB/mo. And you seriously think using an average of 4.8% of that capacity "boggles the mind"?