Comcast bandwidth cap official

[TV-VCR 15]

Comcast to make monthly Internet use cap official

Friday August 29, 7:10 AM ET

Comcast to set official limit on Internet use to deter bandwidth hogs

NEW YORK (AP) -- 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.

height=250 width=300 border=0/> if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['8vFOBdj8Yms-']='&U=13f70lh4t%2fN%3d8vFOBdj8Yms-%2fC%3d549852.12886685.13155552.1435155%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d5455377%2fV%3d1'; <img width=1 height=1 alt="" src="http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=F9WpOUSOxCYeKInASIuk1wH2RZjNaki4ON0AAaJc&T=1dr02akdh%2fX%3d1220032733%2fE%3d8988914%2fR%3dfin%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d2424533649%2fH%3dY29icmFuZD0iPGEgaHJlZj1odHRwOi8vdXMucmQueWFob28uY29tL2ZpbmFuY2UvbmV3cy9hcGYvU0lHPTEwa2Ztb2ZvbC8qaHR0cDovL3d3dy5hcC5vcmcvPjxpbWcgYm9yZGVyPTAgc3JjPWh0dHA6Ly91cy5pMS55aW1nLmNvbS91cy55aW1nLmNvbS9pL3VzL2ZpL2dyL3BhcnRuZXJfbG9nb3MvYXAyXzE3MHgzMy5naWYgYWx0PUFQPjwvYT4iIGNhY2hlaGludD0iODk4ODkxNCIgY2FjaGVoaW50PSI4OTg4OTE0Ig--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3dBAC28E44&U=13f70lh4t%2fN%3d8vFOBdj8Yms-%2fC%3d549852.12886685.13155552.1435155%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d5455377%2fV%3d1">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.

"We've listened to feedback from our customers who asked that we provide a specific threshold for data usage and this would help them understand the amount of usage that would qualify as excessive," the company said in a statement on its Web site.

Customers who go over the limit are contacted by the company and asked to curb their usage.

"We know from experience the vast majority of customers we ask to curb usage do so voluntarily," the company said.

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

Curbing the top users is necessary to keep the network fast and responsive for other users, Comcast has said.

Comcast stressed that the bandwidth cap is far above the median monthly usage of its customers, which 2 to 3 gigabytes.

Very few subscribers use more than 250 gigabytes, it said. A user could download 125 standard-definition movies, about four per day, before hitting the limit.

The cap is also above those of some other ISPs. Cox Communications' monthly caps vary from 5 gigabytes to 75 gigabytes depending the subscriber's plan. Time Warner Cable Inc. is testing caps between 5 gigabytes and 40 gigabytes in one market. Frontier Communications Co., a phone company, plans to start charging extra for use of more than 5 gigabytes per month.quote>

 

[Easy Bakes 253]

250G is a LOT.Its also says Traffic that means up and down loading.

How much do you use when playing MMO's?

[Explodingsims 3]

Ugh...Looks like they're taking the route of Texting...

A set limit and charging extra if you go over....

Frankly I find this completely arbitrary. I don't want to have to worry about how much internet I've used this month.

Even if it is a lot, I still thing it's not needed.

[Zelgadis 638]

Good lord, 250 gigs??? 80% of the people on the internet will never come within even 10% of that and I'd be surprised if another 14% came within half of that.

No worries on this one...

ISF

[bwatterud 7]

All I want to know is what this is going to mean for my Xbox Live, but I doubt it will be an issue.  I mean seriously, the limit's bigger than my freaking hard drive. 

[Easy Bakes 253]

Online gaming may be an issue.

How much traffic is generated playing Xbox or an MMO game, were your moving from zone to zone. some traffic  must be generated when that happens since the enviornment is always changeing when people enter and leave areas.

[Stewy13 0]

250GB may be a lot but this is still crap. I loved high-speed internet when I first got it since with dial-up you were only allowed to be connected for a certain length of time. It's just annoying to think that you have a limit on your internet when you're so used to it being unlimited. It only makes me worry more about net neutrality and whether we really do have something to worry about soon.

[830point35 8]

We should all be worried about this one. It smells like a trial balloon. If they get away with taxing the high cop. users, they will incrementally cut it down to where we are paying for every little thing again. Like all the silly little charges on your phone bill. And Stewy is correct about net neutrality: if we allow the control of capacity, then they think we will allow ultimately total control of content. Once a precedent is set, you can never go back, only forward.

[Deathtoall 28]

You people are giving out over only 250gb?!!!! The biggest download plan here(for home use) is only 150gb and it's pretty damn expensive! I'm on 20gb! And is a small fortune! Between 4 computers! But it doesn't run out atleast considering the use it gets. But 250gb! thats massive! Stop complaining you have it so good!

[hym 358]

Frankly, I'm not surprised that this day has come, but it is still sad that it has.  For tech geeks, it's a bit like seeing a dear old friend murdered in front of you.

P2P can use a fair amount of network resources, which is actually one of the common methods used for finding excessive P2P users on a network.  Verizon is said to have experimented with P4P, which was a P2P protocol that would have actually talked with the ISP servers to attempt to reduce load on the network.  One wonders if P4P might ever be implemented or not.

Obviously, it's too earlier to predict how future "traffic shaping" plans might be implemented, but given Comcast's actions plus the fact that they are considering a tiered level bandwidth system like the one Time Warner is presently testing, one can safely assume that this is where we're heading.

Originally posted by: zelgadis Good lord, 250 gigs??? 80% of the people on the internet will never come within even 10% of that and I'd be surprised if another 14% came within half of that.

No worries on this one...

ISF

quote>

250GB might be a lot, but it does also interfere with two very legitimate--and growing--internet activities: buying HD movies online and performing online hard drive backups.  250GB per month isn't much if you use the internet for stuff like that.

Originally posted by: Deathtoall You people are giving out over only 250gb?!!!! The biggest download plan here(for home use) is only 150gb and it's pretty damn expensive! I'm on 20gb! And is a small fortune! Between 4 computers! But it doesn't run out atleast considering the use it gets. But 250gb! thats massive! Stop complaining you have it so good!quote>

I realize that for some parts of the world, this is a standard method of internet operation.  Problem is, this isn't standard for the US.  It's fairly new, and something that frightens some tech geeks and enthusiasts.  Announcing that you're (meaning the ISP) going to start controlling how your customers use the internet is something that doesn't sit very well with some people, myself included.

[panthersimcity4 162]

OH NOEZ!!!111einz

Well, I have Cox. (I actually hate them because of their stupid and unfunny commercials. Then again Comcast has those too) So I probably don't have to worry about reaching that hugely large amount that I would never reach anyways. Honestly, I think the whole purpose of this is to scare away sheep, I mean people who think that this is some kind of sign of the Apocalypse.

[Ntq€310 1]

:/ 250 gigs sounds like alot, and i doubt ill reach that anytime soon, but the whole fact that the internet is being regulated is what get's me.

[Shadow Assassin 336]

I realize that for some parts of the world, this is a standard method of internet operation. Problem is, this isn't standard for the US. It's fairly new, and something that frightens some tech geeks and enthusiasts. Announcing that you're (meaning the ISP) going to start controlling how your customers use the internet is something that doesn't sit very well with some people, myself included.

quote>

Get used to it. Keep in mind that they're not controlling how you use the internet. It's not as if they force you to only visit certain sites, you know.

Comcast actually have always had a cap on bandwidth in place; they just don't advertise it. If I recall correctly, they have a "rolling cap" of 250GB... if you go over, you get warned, second time, you get disconnected. Now they just charge you... but in the case of my ISP, they just shape your connection down to 64k.

I'm in Australia, and we've had this for years, and we're just fine with it. It's a part of life.

Be happy that you're not being asked to pay $150/GB when you go over.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Hmm.. 250 gigs is a lot for me. One time I transferred a hard drive (not using the internet) that had 140 gigs on it.

That is safe for me.

However, we should be worried and keep tabs on this and other similar events, as this may be the precursor to an unfavorable chain of events.

- Patricius Maximus

[Hamish 1,370]

This is probably how this are going to end up in the future. But at a lower size than 250GB. You could probably get more with a large sum of money.

But then, think of advertising issues. You can't say "Unlimited internet usage" any more...

[Tia-may 0]

For me, Comcast could be among the list of ISPs to avoid in future. But that's no problem as I live in the UK. Already, they have net neutrality to address first.

[SimRabbit 48]

Not a problem for the average user who watches Youtube videos, Myspace etc etc. But it is worrying for pirates who download every movie and episodes from popular tv programs.

I just hate it when my "shared connection" is slowed down by these people. Cable broadband is shared among your neighborhood btw.

[Haljackey 17,402]

Geeh 250GB? That's huge!

My ISP (Rogers Canada) puts a 60GB cap on me. Last month I went over (62GB), so I had to pay $5 more ($2.50 each GB over).

I could upgrade to 90GB (and a faster speed) but that would cost more per month. 90GB is Rogers' cap, and its only for its fastest, most expensive connection.

I would kill to be able to use 250GB! Consider yourselves lucky!

[cnelson 0]

Please make a note; This is the first in the down fall of the internet. I know it sounds over the top, but once they can cap how much usage you're allowed, than they will cap where/when/what type of website we are allowed to see. The days of a free internet are over.. just like the days of a free country..

[Hamish 1,370]

The days of a free internet are overquote>

What, when has it ever been free???

Ooh, but I suppose you don't mean price do you?

Do they mean cap as in, if you go over you have to pay more. Or do they mean cap as in, thats it, no more for you this month?

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Shadow_Assassin

I realize that for some parts of the world, this is a standard method of internet operation. Problem is, this isn't standard for the US. It's fairly new, and something that frightens some tech geeks and enthusiasts. Announcing that you're (meaning the ISP) going to start controlling how your customers use the internet is something that doesn't sit very well with some people, myself included.

quote>

Get used to it. Keep in mind that they're not controlling how you use the internet.quote>

Actually, the ISP's wording says that even they consider it dictating how the end users may use their service.  "Traffic shaping" stems from the idea that the ISP has the right to control how the user's data travels across their network.  As such, they have the right to do things like impose speed caps (which is normal even now), deliberately force some data traffic to be processed at slower speeds, monitor/filter data flow and terminate connections that are hogging too much bandwidth (P2P throttling comes to mind), and in some case, flat out act as internet censors of sort.  Obviously, because it is their network, they have the right to do stuff like this.  However, it can still be disconcerting that an ISP is adopting the philosophy of putting further restrictions on how its network can be used.

It's not as if they force you to only visit certain sites, you know.quote>

There have been discussions about ISP's and search providers censoring parts of the web in the name of being "good internet citizens" and other nonsense like that.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I said that this can progress to an unfavorable chain of events. Laws in the developed world must be passed to ensure that ISP's cannot limit the number of websites you visit, or block out websites.

250 gigs is a lot, but this opens the door for other things, things like corporate control of every news item we see from the news corporations. I believe this door must be closed, locked, and barricaded.

- Patricius Maximus

[Shadow Assassin 336]

Actually, the ISP's wording says that even they consider it dictating how the end users may use their service. "Traffic shaping" stems from the idea that the ISP has the right to control how the user's data travels across their network. As such, they have the right to do things like impose speed caps (which is normal even now), deliberately force some data traffic to be processed at slower speeds, monitor/filter data flow and terminate connections that are hogging too much bandwidth (P2P throttling comes to mind), and in some case, flat out act as internet censors of sort. Obviously, because it is their network, they have the right to do stuff like this. However, it can still be disconcerting that an ISP is adopting the philosophy of putting further restrictions on how its network can be used.quote>

Well, didn't that whole traffic shaping thing of certain protocols actually backfire on them? It seems that companies like Comcast won't try that again in a hurry, but capping one's connection is well, a part of life.

Personally, I think 250GB is a little too generous.

Something like 120GB is more than reasonable... if the user wants more, they buy more. That simple, really.

[hamsterTK 93]

Oh noes, now some asian kid in San Jose can't upload all 5691 seasons of his crappy Naruto fansub! Our rights are being squashed!

Really though to avoid any kind of restriction on the net what we need is widespread wireless ISP's to proliferate everywhere and break the duolopy of geographically limited Cable and DSL services

[Tia-may 0]

I believe in a fairer solution which is a reasonably priced pay as you go service. All ISPs need to implement that.

[Shingure 56]

Iam on Verison right now. It seems that if Verison did this...I would have no internet at all...Because their charges have a tendency to double for no reason. So If that happens then I won't be seen around any longer on any site because internet has gotten too high...

[Ded 30]

Broadband in New Zealand is capped (at a ridiculously low level, may I add). At which point, you're slowed down to dial-up speed... Or can pay extra for X amount you go over your bandwidth limit...

[WC_EEND 9]

Originally posted by: Ded Broadband in New Zealand is capped (at a ridiculously low level, may I add). At which point, you're slowed down to dial-up speed... Or can pay extra for X amount you go over your bandwidth limit...quote>

Ihave more or less the same problem with Telenet in Belgium, if you pass your (ridiculously low) 20GB down AND uploadlimit you're either tossed on dial -up or you need to pay extra wich is very expensive