Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Technology

Comcast To Remove Data Cap, Implement Tiered Pricing 329

Posted by timothy
from the kevlar-trial-balloon dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comcast To Remove Data Cap, Implement Tiered Pricing

Comments Filter:
  • by CSFFlame (761318) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @05:15PM (#40033763) Homepage
    Come on Google (and Sonic.net too). I don't trust Verizon, they're too shifty.
  • Most won't notice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MikeRT (947531) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @05:16PM (#40033797) Homepage

    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. If Comcast is smart they'll use this as a basis to actually fund the development of a more powerful and competitive network instead of just milking it for short term gains.

    • Re:Most won't notice (Score:5, Informative)

      by WilliamGeorge (816305) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @05:22PM (#40033873)

      I was getting worried about our usage at home, since the kids now watch a few hours of Neflix a day along with out other internet usage. I called Comcast because I was having trouble finding where on our account management page the data was about how much we actually used each month - and when they showed me where to find it I was amazed at how little it was. 30-70GB a month on average, occasionally peaking past 100GB. So even in what I would consider a moderate to heavy internet usage household we were way under the existing cap, and will still be with a 300GB limit.

      The only problem I can see here is if they don't notify users when they approach that cap. If something happened and I went way over, but was never warned till the bill came, I would be upset.

      • 300 GB will eventually begin to seem small as video data transmission rates continue to increase, but for the time being, 300GB / mo. is very generous.

        I'll bet that at least half of all Comcast users watch video online on a frequent basis, and they all probably feel like they are in the top 5% of users. This is why everyone is so worried about data caps. In reality, most people will be shocked to see how far they are away from th limit.

        • Re:Most won't notice (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Jaktar (975138) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @06:24PM (#40034801)

          Around 2008, my local ISP was formed. Sometime around 2009 they implemented data caps of 600 MB/day, as most users didn't exceed that amount. Today, the cap is exactly the same as was first implemented.

          300 GB might seem like a lot right now. Give it a few years...

          • Re:Most won't notice (Score:5, Interesting)

            by _KiTA_ (241027) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @06:52PM (#40035095) Homepage

            Around 2008, my local ISP was formed. Sometime around 2009 they implemented data caps of 600 MB/day, as most users didn't exceed that amount. Today, the cap is exactly the same as was first implemented.

            300 GB might seem like a lot right now. Give it a few years...

            Comcast, Verizon, etc -- they're all banking their entire futures on this very idea. They're hoping to get in a reasonable -- for now -- cap, and then in 5 years when our bandwidth usage is way more commonplace, welp, their hope is to get us right around the $50 a month mark... and $50ish in over usage fees a month, every month, until some external market force economically forces them to stop.

            Think about it. In 5-10 years, we won't have Cable, we'll have HD Video on Demand Networks, something like Hulu or Netflix instead.

            Imagine when Hulu (or rather, a Hulu competitor, since Hulu has been compromised [gizmodo.com]) gets the bright idea to make "channels" where you get X number of shows at differing points of the day, all streaming via a Roku box or something similar, with the option to switch back and forth in the channel's timeline if you want. All the benefits of a standard Cable Channel for Mom and Pop ("The news is on at 7, then it's Cops, and Letterman"), with all the benefits of Video on Demand ("We missed Cops, we'll watch it right now and Letterman later tonight").

            Sounds great, right? Well, it won't be once you get the $50 a month ISP bill + $50 a month Overusage bill, every month, for the rest of your life. Which the Bandwidth Middlemen are literally banking their futures on.

            • Re:Most won't notice (Score:5, Informative)

              by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @08:22PM (#40036045) Homepage Journal
              Think about it. In 5-10 years, we won't have Cable, we'll have HD Video on Demand Networks, something like Hulu or Netflix instead.

              The future is now. My house lives on Netflix and Vonage. We went to my fathers house to watch TV, and the kids couldn't understand why they kept missing their show because of these "commercial" things. And when their pappy said "I need to change the channel real quick to see the weather", the look of confusion on their face can only mildy be explained as hysterical.
      • by cpu6502 (1960974)

        Maybe they're using low-quality feeds? I watch Hulu and Youtube at 240p, which is only ~200 megabyte per hour streamed. So it doesn't add up to a lot even over a month of viewing.

        BTW comcast has a disincentive to provide unlimited: They don't want you canceling their TV service.
        Ditto Time-Warner, Cox, Cablevision, Verizon, ...
        Now I just watch my TV free off the antenna.

        • Maybe they're using low-quality feeds? I watch Hulu and Youtube at 240p, which is only ~200 megabyte per hour streamed. So it doesn't add up to a lot even over a month of viewing.

          Even a high quality feed on Netflix doesn't eat up that much data. It doesn't even come close to saturating my 12mbit DSL connection when I watch it, and even though I watch maybe 10h of Netflix a week, my monthly usage has only gone up by about 30GB.

        • Interestingly, I also tried to call up this month to cancel our cable TV service. We rarely use it any more, mostly depending on Netflix + Hulu (the free stuff) + Amazon Prime (wish there was a Media Center plugin!). I thought it would be a great way to save $10-20 a month... and boy was I wrong!

          You see, as long as I pay for cable TV - even the most basic package which we have been using, at around $15 a month - we get a discounted rate on cable internet. Our total bill is ~$70 or so with taxes.

          However,

          • by jackbird (721605)

            Interesting - Verizon FiOS is about $46/mo less if you drop cable from a phone/tv/internet bundle (note to pedants: I'm including the set top box "rental" fees).

          • by tsotha (720379)

            The channels like ESPN and HBO that you have to get individually or on higher tiers get paid on a per subscriber basis to provide content. But channels like HSN pay the cable company to provide them viewers. So if you cancel your service HSN pays your cable company less money. Since they already need to do hookups and maintain the infrastructure to your house if you have an internet connection, that HSN money is just gravy. So it makes perfect sense for them to charge you more.

          • I called up my cable company and told them I was seriously thinking of canceling my service due to the costs being so high. I pointed out that new users get one rate and are quoted that they will save $X. I pointed out that the rate I pay is much more than $X more than the new user rate. They locked me into a much better rate for a year. Next year, I plan on calling back and threatening to leave (again) if they don't reduce my rates.

            Meanwhile, I'll also be working out a system to not have to have cable

            • by adolf (21054)

              This trick has worked for decades with all manner of subscription-oriented, consumer-related companies. Glad it worked for you, but don't stop with the cable company: There's a good chance you're paying too much for other things that you use around your house, too.

              Typically, you don't even have to make a comparison to a competitor or another pricing scheme -- just mention that you want to cancel because it's "too expensive," and viola! It gets cheaper.

              Some money is better than no money.

              Hell, some compani

      • What device are they using to watch? Mine use their PC or our Wii, but I can just about guarantee my PS3 uses significantly more bandwidth than either. Plus, you look at a household where it's not just a few hours a day, but rather 4 rooms all streaming different programs to 4 different devices? These are the houses that require a fast enough pipe to keep up with all that traffic, and they're also the houses that'll gobble that 300 GB cap like a Saltine cracker (the teenage years are a bitch, man).
      • yeah, I had a 250GB cap (with a different ISP) and I was surprised that I didn't come close to it.
        I was trying to use it (although with absolutely no cap, I might have done more torrent seeding)

    • by Linsaran (728833)
      Really now? When have you ever known a publicly held company to prioritize development and long term results, over short term profits. Shareholders are far too concerned with making that profit number bigger for the next quarter to worry about what's coming down the pike in a couple years. Take solar panels as a prime example. A company that put commercial grade heating/energy panels on their office building could save huge amounts of money in energy/heating costs. Solar energy is essentially free, the main
      • by cpu6502 (1960974)

        >>>When have you ever known a publicly held company to prioritize development and long term results, over short term profits.

        When they are facing competition from another company that could steal-away their customers. I know a lot of people who jumped to FiOS because it was faster than Comcast.

        Anyway: I think the pricing being based on "use" is good. It's just like a phone plan..... you pay for X number of minutes per month, and then get charged for each additional minute.

      • by Gerald (9696)

        Really now? When have you ever known a publicly held company to prioritize development and long term results, over short term profits.

        Well, Comcast is doing that very thing right now [comcast6.net]. The company is an enigma. They're moving the state of the IPv6 art forward in a tangible way. Their business class service is great. Every salesperson and tech I've dealt with has been sharp, helpful and friendly. At the same time they throttle traffic, then deny that they're doing it. They maintain low (even at 300GB) caps. Their CPE quality (from DVRs to routers) is astoundingly awful (even business class).

    • by oddjob1244 (1179491) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @05:46PM (#40034273)

      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.

    • It's sane until you look at the charge for going over the cap. I can lease a dedicated server where bandwidth beyond the 5TB monthly cap is $1.15/TB. Comcast's marginal bandwidth rate is $200/TB. Admittedly, Comcast may be paying a bit more for bandwidth than the dedicated server hosting company, but 173 times more? They're just sticking it to people who use more while trying to make it sound like they're being fair.

    • by MightyYar (622222)

      This actually seems like a pretty sane plan for most people who aren't diehard pirates or Netflix users.

      It's only sane if you are Comcast trying to maximize profits. They are trying to have it both ways: a minimum price that they collect from everyone regardless of usage and a per-GB price as well.

      In cell-phone land this is acceptable because very low-usage customers can switch to a pay-by-the-minute plan that saves them a lot of money every month - I think T-Mobile has a $100 prepay charge that lasts a whole year and gives you $0.10/minute, so you could conceivably only spend $100 for the entire year if you

      • by tsotha (720379)

        They are trying to have it both ways: a minimum price that they collect from everyone regardless of usage and a per-GB price as well.

        That's not completely unreasonable. They have fixed costs that don't change whether you use one bit or 10TB. They also have variable costs that change based on data usage.

    • by jythie (914043)
      It is the Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime users they are going after. The 'pirate' excuse gets trotted out a lot, but they loose a lot more money to people choosing to use other services then they do to the (decreasingly significant) bandwidth usage of bittorrent. That is what gets the net neutrality people (well, the level headed ones at least) fired up since it represents local ISP monopolies abusing their position to force customers over to their other (media) services and stifle competition... which t
      • by tsotha (720379)

        I would be hard-pressed to hit 300Gb watching streaming services. They don't stream at blu-ray resolutions. I don't watch broadcast television, but I watch (too much) video using crunchroll and Amazon prime through my Roku. On a heavy month, when I got hooked on something with lots of episodes, or I was home sick with the flu for a week and didn't do anything else, I hit maybe 100GB. And that includes downloading games from Steam and watching the odd youtube video.

        They trot out the pirate excuse becaus

    • Someday everybody who consumes video will be a diehard Netflix (more accurately: streaming) user. The simple success of Netflix, Hulu, and the like are pretty powerful heralds of the streaming age. Plus, as a former CenturyLink shill, I can tell you that about 75%* of the bandwidth speed increases I'd sell were *exclusively* to improve streaming services. It's possible I was just good at selling it for that, but it was uncanny.

      A huge pipe + hefty fees for going over the limit = nasty, nasty overages
  • by Scutter (18425) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @05:17PM (#40033807) Journal

    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.

    • We already have this in Canada. Shaw has a 200GB limit with $2/GB (that's 100X Comcast's overage) after that.
      • by compro01 (777531)

        Shaw theoretically offers unlimited plans, though apparently in very select areas. I don't know anyone who can get one.

    • by Guspaz (556486) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @05:54PM (#40034365)

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by log0n (18224)

      " 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 eco

  • by GSloop (165220) <networkguru AT sloop DOT net> on Thursday May 17, 2012 @05:24PM (#40033919) Homepage

    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

    • by Cimexus (1355033)

      Yeah I agree. In countries where they generally have always had caps, plans are often delivered at "whatever speed the infrastructure can support", and you pay for the download limit you want. The situation with Comcast differs in that you are being charged for speed tier, as well as volume downloaded. Furthermore, there isn't a range of different caps to choose from as there are in some other countries.

      For instance, I'm on an ADSL2+ connection in Australia and have a cap. However, plans don't have any part

  • I Hope Not (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MoldySpore (1280634) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @05:27PM (#40033939)

    I really hope that people won't give in without at least expressing their anger to Comcast by finding another ISP if available, when they implement tiered pricing. I hope Comcast users push back like us TW users did.

    One of the MAIN reasons these ISP's are introducing tiered pricing is simply to avoid the costs of upgrading their infrastructure. Instead of modernizing their networks and equipment to handle today's higher demand for more and more bandwidth, they simply implement overage fees and/or tiered pricing to keep people's usage within the confines of what their infrastructure can handle. It really is a scam on so many different levels. This is why the US is so far behind in broadband when looking at other country's broadband statistics.

    Money hungry as ever, the largest ISP's over here just don't see the need to provide a higher level of service to home users when it means investing hundreds of $Millions, possibly more, to do it.

    In addition to that, you have places like Rochester, NY where no competition can EVER break into the market because 1 or 2 ISP's have monopolized the space for new fiber and/or copper runs, effectively creating a stagnant market where users have no choices for service (ISP's such as EarthLink give the ILLUSION of choice, but really only lease space on another larger ISP's lines, such as Time Warner).

    • Re:I Hope Not (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @05:54PM (#40034391)

      >>>This is why the US is so far behind in broadband when looking at other country's broadband statistics.

      False. According to speedtest.net, the average U.S. speed is 1 Mbit/s faster than the average speed for the E.U. And yes there are some EU states that have very fast internet, but there are some U.S. states that also have very fast internet: Like New Jersey. New York. Washington.

      Vice-versa there are EU states like Greece and Spain and Portugal that have internet slower than the U.S. average. Thank your lucky stars you don't like there. (Or in the UK where they have decent speeds, but are censoring the net.) The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence, but rarely is.

    • by weave (48069)

      One of the MAIN reasons these ISP's are introducing tiered pricing is simply to avoid the costs of upgrading their infrastructure. Instead of modernizing their networks and equipment to handle today's higher demand for more and more bandwidth, they simply implement overage fees and/or tiered pricing to keep people's usage within the confines of what their infrastructure can handle.

      Sorry, it's really the opposite. They have little economic incentive to expand capacity now. If they charge for overages, they

    • by vawwyakr (1992390)
      I think its more to eliminate competition. They don't want to provide you access to the competition they want you to pay them for their entertainment services.
    • by mattdm (1931)

      I really hope that people won't give in without at least expressing their anger to Comcast by finding another ISP if available, when they implement tiered pricing.

      "If available" is the catch here. Comcast has a near-monopoly on broadband service in many parts of the country. Some places have the luxury of a second cable provider like RSN, but mostly, the other choice is more expensive and much slower DSL. Some places have Verizon FiOS, but apparently they're pulling back on that as well.

    • I found your post most appropriate to reply to, so forgive me if it seems misdirected. I currently get cable access through Atlantic Broadband. If you shuffle though the 3rd party contracts and open your eyes, it is pretty obvious they are a partner/subsidary of Comcast... as in, thet is where they get their content. When I called up for internet access they asked me about my usage. I told them I had 40 internet connected devices and had no intentions of using a real landline or TV service. They offered me
  • Every time my promotion expires and I have to play the threaten-to-cancel game, I tell them, "I will not pay more than $100/month for TV and Internet". So I don't care how they cap or meter the service. If I don't get what I want for $100 or less, I'm gone. Period.

    Verizon's phone/DSL/DirectTV bundle is less than that, so I'm being pretty generous.
  • by MacGyver2210 (1053110) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @05:38PM (#40034149)

    "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.

  • FTC and unlimited (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17, 2012 @05:50PM (#40034329)
    So the FTC will bust Sketchers for advertising shoes that don't give you a great butt (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/cases/skechers/index.shtm), but they have no problem with carriers that advertise limited data plans as unlimited?
  • "internal traffic"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dahamma (304068) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @05:54PM (#40034381)

    I'd love to see someone implement a bittorrent client with an option to limit peers to other Comcast customers, and then see how they start redefining "internal traffic"...

    • Everyone is arguing about data usage but seems to have skipped over the whole "Well, of course our service that competes with NetFlix is going to get preferential treatment" which is essentially the opposite of network neutrality.

      I guess the solution was just to do it, and give everyone the finger in the process.

    • I think Comcast's definition of internal traffic as their VOD/Streaming services.
    • I can't comment on Comcast (I live in Australia), but we frequently have these caps, and frequently have exemptions for internal traffic. In our case, it's because traffic transmitted out of Australia is far more expensive than local traffic, which is frequently peered. People here did exactly what you suggest, and modded P2P clients that only shared with others on the PIPE peering network sprung up. The ISPs were perfectly fine with that (The anti-piracy goonsquad not so much, and took down the modded P2P

    • by Eil (82413) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @07:27PM (#40035439) Homepage Journal

      "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.)

  • Boggles (Score:2, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366)

    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 -

    • Re:Boggles (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fnj (64210) on Friday May 18, 2012 @03:24AM (#40038561)

      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"?

  • by jtownatpunk.net (245670) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @06:46PM (#40035041)

    Comcast put me on probation last year. I move a lot of data. All non-commercial. I asked if there was a service plan that would allow me to move more data. The conversation went something like this:

    "No."
    "I'm willing to pay more money to be able to move more data."
    "That isn't an option."
    "What about business service? I know you also provide service to businesses and charge more for the SLA and heavy traffic."
    "I don't have any information about the caps on business service plans but you can't change your plan or open a new account when you're on probation. In six months, you can inquire about business service."
    "That's ridiculous. I didn't know there was any problem with my usage until 15 minutes ago. That's the first I heard that there was an issue. I'm offering to give you more money for a higher level of service. You're in business to sell the service I'm that I'm trying to buy. Why would you not want to take my money?"
    "I'm sorry, sir, you cannot change your service while on probation. If you go over the 250 gig limit at any time while you're on probation, your account will be closed and you won't be able to open another account for 12 months."

    It baffles me. If they'd offered me 50 gig chunks of data at $10, I would have taken it. It's not cheap but it's not outrageous and it's better than being banned from purchasing their services for a year. My only other options here are "up to" 3 meg DSL and satellite. Oh, and 3G cellular. Hell, they would have made a lot of money from me because I would have said, "Screw it, it's only another $10." Probably would have been paying an extra $20-40 every month.

  • I'm running smokeping on my home computer in order to show Comcast that their service actually does drop out at regular daily intervals and that it is not internal. The interesting trend that I see is in pinging the DNS servers. A ping to the comcast DNS server, presumably internal to their network, has a rtt of ~50ms. A ping to a Google server, presumably external to their network has a rtt of ~20ms. This has been consistent for about four months now. So how can they claim internal is easier?

  • I usually have to make extra effort to stay under 250, i think i would be very comfortable with around 275-300 so them changing the base cap to 300 and allowing me to pay for more I have no problem with. I use data a lot more than the average user i'm willing to pay extra now and then for more but the current policy is an outright service termination if you frequently go over I would rather pay an extra $10 every few months than worry about them turning me off.

  • But lately most of my games have been digital downloads and some of those can get pretty hefty. I probably went up over 100gb a couple months ago just installing stuff and downloading patches on a new computer.

    Of course, my town just got permission to lease out its dark fiber and otherwise use it for commercial purposes in the last election, so I'm just waiting for them to come up with a plan to offer fiber to all the houses in town. It's not like I have any particular brand loyalty to Comcast.

  • by Ralph Spoilsport (673134) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @08:33PM (#40036155) Journal
    "will they once again balk at a perceived bilking?""

    No, they will balk at getting fucked like they have been getting fucked by Comcast and the rest of them as usual. There's no "perceiving" involved. It's just a dag blasted fact.

  • by abrotman (323016) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @09:00PM (#40036381)

    The article doesn't say they're definitely implementing tiered pricing for everyone, they're trying it in a few markets.. In markets where tiered pricing is not being trialed, the caps are completely removed.

    http://blog.comcast.com/2012/05/comcast-to-replace-usage-cap-with-improved-data-usage-management-approaches.html

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...