1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Comcast ups data caps, adds tiered pricing

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by javabird, May 17, 2012.

  1. leiff

    leiff Member

    Aug 24, 2005
    SF Bay area
    I believe someone here said at&t uverse has no cap. Last I checked it was 250 gigs.
    for the person who asked how to check your Comcast usage. It can be done on Comcast website when signed in.
    yes I downloaded 1 tb last month. Mostly movie torrenting during a sitewide freeleach. The article seemed to indicate Comcast won't be enforcing caps during transition so do your downloading now.
  2. CoxInPHX

    CoxInPHX COX Communications

    Jan 14, 2011
    Phoenix, AZ
    Depends on the Quality set in My Account:

    Good quality (up to 0.3 GB per hour)
    Better quality (up to 0.7 GB per hour)
    Best quality (up to 1 GB per hour, or up to 2.3 GB per hour for HD)

    2.3 GB per hour for HD x 24 Hrs = 55.2 GB
  3. Series3Sub

    Series3Sub Well-Known Member

    Mar 14, 2010
    And what makes it worse is how "the cloud" is seen my many companies who serve consumers to be the preferred place to access content. If someone is uploading to a service like Carbonite, then may have to download that backed up content, and also uploads photos and videos, and, as the media companies want us to do, put up our movies and other entertainment content in the cloud and keep it there, then just download when we want to view it, and there is Amazon and Google cloud services as just 2 examples, then we add the Netflix and Amazon Instant Video or Prime and Vudu and other similar points in the cloud and now we multiply that by a family with 2 or 3 active users, then, OH MY! I don't know if that would add up to 1TB, but it is enough now to spill over the current limits. Remember UPstream counts against you just as downstream does.

    And, let's not forget that Comcast does not count any of its customers accessing content via Comcast services like Xfinity. No, that is at the very least, not net neutral.
  4. Series3Sub

    Series3Sub Well-Known Member

    Mar 14, 2010
    High or even non-stop use using a bandwidth one pays for is not increase the costs to the ISP nor does it necessarily prevent other from accessing their internet tier service at the bandwidth they pay for. So, the notion that one should pay more based based on volume of traffic on the assumption that it costs the ISP more or negatively impacts other users is FALSE. Or more likely, ISP's are FALSELY labeling ISP rates based on bandwidth that they rarely provide (at full bandwidth) and throttle accordingly, like an airline overbooking a flight. Yes, the airlines can overbook, but if they bump you, there are mandated compensations the airlines must provide. Not so for ISP's who have now been studied to provide the full bandwidth of service as low as 50% of the time (Episode of Revison 3's Tekzilla this week cites a study and weblink to it). So, it seems the consumers are being ripped-off by ISP's who don't provide the bandwidth consumers pay for. It easily could be a case of false advertising or not getting what you pay for that should, one would hope, interest the FTC.

    However, pricing based upon the bandwidth you prefer IS fair and does effect what is left for other users, so it is the "tier" of service, meaning what one's downstream and upstream bandwidth that may cost the ISP more and negatively effect others, NOT the volume of traffic, but that's why we pay MORE for more BANDWIDTH and ISP's, properly, charge more for bandwidth. It's why one pays more for the 2,000 Sq Ft. condo and the next guys pays less in the same complex for the 600Sq Ft. studio. How I use the space I've paid for shouldn't affect (if the ISP's are honest) the poor fellow who has only 600 Sq. Ft of space to live. As for the internet access, frequency of use or amount of "traffic" is irrelevant. But ISP's don't operate fairly or properly in this regard, hence the controversy. Also, ISP's have done a great job fooling people into believing volume of traffic (heavy users) is the culprit. This isn't opinion, but established as fact by several IT and other computer experts and consumer groups (including Consumers Union, I believe), so please don't beat me up on this, as it has been established as a well known fact in IT.
  5. jfalkingham

    jfalkingham Member

    Jul 23, 2002
    New Hampshire
    I have gone over the 250gb cap a few times on comcast in new england. Never got a warning, my guess is they saw the traffic (initial backups) and skipped over me. We average 90gb a month outside of the initial backup sets to crashplan.
  6. johnd01

    johnd01 Member

    Dec 17, 2002
    Sacramento ca
    Comcast does not count VOD from their service. Comcast VOD is limited to their private network. The information came from a news release about San Francisco comcast/TIVO VOD release.
  7. Millionaire2K

    Millionaire2K New Member

    Jun 15, 2008
    They only call the "top offenders per region" that go over 250. I always hit between 250-300gb a month and they never call.
    I see no problems with the new plan. In fact I’m happy. I can now use the internet without having to worry about the call that has never come anyway.
  8. steve614

    steve614 what ru lookin at?

    May 1, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    Is your town immune to satellite beams (Dish, DirecTV)? :p
  9. SullyND

    SullyND L:45-21 TCF Club

    Dec 30, 2004
    Chicago Burbs
    Are they offering phone and internet bundles?
  10. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    Jan 31, 2002
    I used to upload a lot of 720p and 1080p trailers. As well as firmwares and updates for different devices.
  11. Chris Gerhard

    Chris Gerhard Well-Known Member

    Apr 27, 2002
    I am not even sure what my cap is, I am on AT&T U-verse now, just switched from Comcast Xfinity. I understood the cap would be 250GB but I can't find that in my contract and I can't figure out how to determine my usage. I do know it hasn't ever approached 100GB per month, much less whatever the cap might be. As far as 1TB, I will estimate my usage of data from discs, OTA and the internet is very close. I probably play about 20 BD per month on average and at least a dozen DVDs, 30 or 40 CDs, and a handful of SACDs and DVD-As. I also watch about 40 hours of OTA so something close to 1TB each month wouldn't surprise me and if I had to get it from the internet rather than discs and an antenna on the roof, I would be in trouble.
  12. lpwcomp

    lpwcomp Well-Known Member

    May 6, 2002
    U-verse announced a 250GB/mo data cap a year ago but I don't believe they ever implemented it. I think they had problems actually tracking the usage since in my case, and I'm sure many others, the site they had that was supposed to tell you what your usage was never worked. I can no longer find any official mention of the cap on the att website although I would swear I saw it within the last week or so.
  13. MichaelK

    MichaelK New Member

    Jan 10, 2002

    there's a lot in there- I think your point is that if you pay for x mb/s you should get that speed and so if you use that for 5 minutes a day or 24 hours it shouldn't matter?

    If that's your point- you're living in lala land. NO ONE- not even regulated ma-bell builds a network big enough to cover everyone using it at the same time. It's cost prohibitive and we'd all need to pay some crazy amount each month for comcast or whomever to build a network big enough that everyone could use it at 100% at all times. Try to make a landline OR cell phone call when there is an earthquake or a tsumani or a terrorist attack in the area- guess what the lines are jammed because the network isn't built to handle everyone using it all at once. It's just not how they build the networks. Do people complain and go nutz on blogs when ATT can't provide enough landline circuits to call Japan after a tsunami?

    A network engineer has to decide how big is big enough. He can decide to built it to make (made up number) 95% happy and he/she builds it that way. But if someone in the neighborhood uses "excessive" bits THEN only 80% of customers are happy. Then the handful of people using "excessive" affected the others and that in turn will cost Comcast to spend money to upgrade the network.

    So a small group of users can negatively effect others AND therefore push up the cost of the network.

    I think FIOS is close to being able to build such an architecture where you get a certain up/download speed and it IS all yours 100% of the time. But even then- there are bottlenecks on the verizon network where they aggregate all the connections and connect to something bigger. So even all fiber network would have issues too if a some certain amount of folks use "more that normal".

    Now that said- there are some tricky issues in there about how things should be sold and/or advertised. those are some interesting discussions and that should probably be the point that is made. Sounds like maybe this is more your point that they need to be more honest and transparent with it?

    Maybe they should charge in buckets of bits like the cell phone companies are moving? Maybe they should just open all the speed restrictions on the modems and then go to buckets of bits? But then it would be like cell phones and you would never know what speed you might get at any moment (not even the guess speeds we have now that aren't hard and fast).

    Also real good points about moving to the cloud above. I use idrive for backup in the cloud- I've got like 130gigs on it. If my computer where to die (I have redundant drives in my file store computer and a physical backup at my house too- but could be a fire or something...) and I needed to download that whole 130gigs that month I'd probably come close to going over myself.

    and to be clear i quoted "excessive" and those sorts of words because they are surely up for interpretation and grownup discussion.

    (actually thinking about it I think I read that back 'in the day' ma bell built the phone network to handle a single annual event and that they and the regulators agreed that was enough- I seem to recall if might have been mothersday but i can't remember. Maybe that's the solution that the FCC should regulate they need to provide something like 95% of their advertised speeds from 5-10pm each night and if they go below they get fined- but still we wind up with probably we all need to pay by buckets of bits then)
  14. MichaelK

    MichaelK New Member

    Jan 10, 2002

    But notice I was talking triple play and/or broadband. TV is not the issue. The problem around here is the local phone monopoly stinks.

    Satellite doesn't offer phone service. They have crappy internet- want to complain about caps, and poor service- check into that...

    They do bundle with centurylink to provide a bundle through them- but as above centurylink is pathetic they only offer DSL and the CO's are very sparse around here so there are very few people that can even get the max DSL speed they offer - which is half of the basic plan on comcast. I dont know if they have caps or not. The major issue though is the service is just plan unreliable compared to comcast (crazy as that sounds)
  15. steve614

    steve614 what ru lookin at?

    May 1, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    I realize that. I was just calling your "ZERO competition" statement into question. ;)
    From YOUR perspective for the services YOU want, there is only one option.
    I agree that is a problem.
  16. Samantha Kirk

    Samantha Kirk New Member

    Apr 18, 2012
    Hey send me some links to those high definition movies and trailers.
  17. MichaelK

    MichaelK New Member

    Jan 10, 2002

    probably some hyperbole in there- but at least i didn't talk nazi's or anything. ;-)

    it's the internet and all...

    But seriously the proper way to say it would be "there is not a viable alternative that can expect to wrestle any significant market share from cable from consumers interested in either high speed internet or a bundle containing same"

    "zero competition" is so much faster- and well... just plain more fun. LOL
  18. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    Jan 31, 2002
    I deleted them when I changed hosts last month.

Share This Page