Comcast capping bandwidth - will it affect Unbox?

2870 Views 32 Replies 17 Participants Last post by PaJo, Sep 25, 2007

javabird

Discussion Starter · Sep 17, 2007

Has anyone seen this discussion on Comcast capping bandwith usage ?

I've started using Unbox a lot lately and I'm wondering if I need to be concerned about bandwidth. Are Unbox downloads delivered via the wireless network, or are they delivered through the cable connection?

I also use Tivo Desktop to transfer files between my Tivo and Mac over the wireless network. How do these things impact my bandwidth usage?

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

GrondramB

· #2 · Sep 17, 2007

This is just a guess but it would fit the available evidence.

I'd bet that the reason that Comcast won't say what the transfer limits is would be because there isn't a simple limit - that they look at very heavy users to see if they are doing ilegal downloads that might put Comcast at risk.

Unbox, Youtube and other legit heavy band width uses won't get you banned, would be my guess.

SeanC

· #3 · Sep 17, 2007

The type of traffic does not matter to Comcrap.

The only thing that matters is if you are a 1% user or not.

If you are in the top 1% of bandwidth users on your node, then you will almost certainly get the boot.

d_anders

· #4 · Sep 17, 2007

javabird said:
Has anyone seen this discussion on Comcast capping bandwith usage ?

I've started using Unbox a lot lately and I'm wondering if I need to be concerned about bandwidth. Are Unbox downloads delivered via the wireless network, or are they delivered through the cable connection?

I also use Tivo Desktop to transfer files between my Tivo and Mac over the wireless network. How do these things impact my bandwidth usage?

Internal usage of your home network (wired or wireless) is not an issue. You can use MRV/TiVo2Go all you want...It's your network, not Comcasts.

Any downloading and uploading coming in or going out via the internet is subject to Comcasts download rules.

90 Gbps gives you approximately 80+ hours of video via unbox a month. I don't think you have anything to worry about....if you download 10 hours worth of content, you still have a ton of availablity left. Slingbox users probably have more to worry about.

Enrique

· #5 · Sep 17, 2007

I Don't Get this, When I had Comcast I used Much More then 90GB a Month(and they never told me a thing.).

Jolt

· #6 · Sep 17, 2007

Ive been warned numerous times for breaking the TB barrier numerous times. I swear one month i had a through put of close to 5 tb.

aadam101

· #7 · Sep 18, 2007

Even with all the video I download I don't think I could hit 90gb/month. Currently there are about 45gb of stuff downloading. I limit the speed so it doesn't interfere with my own internet usage.

pkscout

· #8 · Sep 18, 2007

This is what happens when content providers also run the transportation system. Comcast can choke of Unbox and then upsell you on VOD because it's available anytime you want it. In the next decade we will likely reach a point where there are regional vertical monopolies on content and distribution.

ccooperev

· #9 · Sep 18, 2007

pkscout said:
This is what happens when content providers also run the transportation system. Comcast can choke of Unbox and then upsell you on VOD because it's available anytime you want it. In the next decade we will likely reach a point where there are regional vertical monopolies on content and distribution.

This is what Net Neutrality issue was all about.

Hexerott

· #10 · Sep 18, 2007

I swear I heard about them doing this maybe 6 years ago or so. What a bunch of BS, they don't tell you what the cap is because they say too many people would then use that amount.... **sniff sniff** smells like meadow muffins to me.

Comcast certainly isn't making it easy for me to want to switch to them...

I wish we had another choice of cable providers. Come on Verizon.

ah30k

· #11 · Sep 18, 2007

ccooperev said:
This is what Net Neutrality issue was all about.

Slight difference here. The VOD and Phone service from your provider may be carved out into a separate spectrum (separate from the internet bandwidth) without violating any kind of net-neutrality concepts. MSOs should certainly be able to protect a chunk of their spectrum if they want to. I think the problem comes in when they snoop on different content or connections on the IP realm. For instance if they single out unbox IP content from some other kind of IP content.

atmuscarella

· #12 · Sep 18, 2007

Net Neutrality was/is about allot of different things and I would say this is certainly of of the them. We have had many threads debating similar issues - basically free market vs consumer protection via government regulations. I am not really sure its worth going through it again as I am fairly certain most peoples minds are made up one way or the other. I really don't see this as any different than when sprint recently dropped customers because they called support to much.

Comcast's and Sprint's actions seems shady to me if you are going to have a policy on when you are going to cut a customers service off seems like it should be the same for everyone, in writing and available to the customers, and easy to understand.

Thanks,

pkscout

· #13 · Sep 18, 2007

atmuscarella said:
Comcast's and Sprint's actions seems shady to me if you are going to have a policy on when you are going to cut a customers service off seems like it should be the same for everyone, in writing and available to the customers, and easy to understand.

And they shouldn't be able to advertise it as unlimited. There is a limit, they just don't want to tell you what it is. Yes, the limit is much higher than most people would use, but that is not unlimited.

Atomike

· #14 · Sep 18, 2007

I'm torn here. There's no reason for Comcast to boot a customer simply based on usage. However, if that user is using P2P to "share" music or the customer is illegally downloading movies, then they most certainly should boot the customer - and report them to the police. Lowlife slime that steal music and movies deserve some hard prison time - that's for sure. I certainly don't want all my bandwidth hogged by some immoral thief stealing music. But legitimate customers - please leave them alone, Comcast.

PaJo

· #15 · Sep 19, 2007

Comcast will do whatever it takes to increase their profitability, they don't give a damn about what you download but if it means less revenue for them, they will find a way to cut it off - always hiding behind the moral excuse the individual must have been doing something wrong. They can not legally cap subscribers for using Comcast's competitors products and or services but they can cap them if they imply the customer is doing something immoral or abusive or god forbid illegal. The PR people will always make it appear that Comcast is just trying to do the right thing, they are not trying to cut back on their competitors services, nope it must be the users fault. Unfortunately there are far too many people that will buy into the whole argument, and will repeat the latest phrases from the PR people.

mr.unnatural

· #16 · Sep 19, 2007

I'm surprised nobody has taken Comcast to court over their false advertising. They claim unlimited downloads but if you hit the fictitious limit they'll threaten to drop you as a customer. I say fictitious because there's no set limit identified anywhere in the service agreement and you won't get it from a Comcast CSR either because it's basically up to their discretion. If they decide you're downloading too much then that's the law.

What Comcast doesn't want you to know is that their bandwidth is extremely limited, regardless of what they claim. You share a node with others on your block and when everyone decides to connect to the internet at the same time then the throughput drops to the cellar. Comcast figures if they can put the scare into you to limit your downloads then that will free up enough bandwidth for the rest of their customers. They just don't want to deal with the headaches when everyone calls in to gripe about the poor internet service.

Switching to FIOS was the happiest day of my life.

See less See more

ah30k

· #17 · Sep 19, 2007

mr.unnatural said:
I'm surprised nobody has taken Comcast to court over their false advertising. They claim unlimited downloads but ...

Are you sure they claim this?

GrondramB

· #18 · Sep 19, 2007

Comcast stopped advertising "unlimited" in summer of 2003. They say that users sent a warning letter use more than 100 times as much as a typical user.

I see their point that one person using that much greatly raises their cost.

I don't know if its true but I read posts claiming to be from Comcast employees that the reason they won't specify a number is that it varies from city to city and even month to month depending on how much spare capacity they have in a given location.

Here is an article from 2004 saying they had already stopped advertising unlimited.
So anybody complaining now has either not signed up due to an "unlimited" claim or else they had three years warning.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7940

pkscout

· #19 · Sep 19, 2007

GrondramB said:
Here is an article from 2004 saying they had already stopped advertising unlimited.
So anybody complaining now has either not signed up due to an "unlimited" claim or else they had three years warning.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7940

Sorry, stopping advertising and informing customers of the cap are two different things. How can I possibly work to avoid the cap if they won't tell me what it is? And I don't give a crap about whether it's city by city or not. Bills and other communications go out city by city, so they can communicate the cap the same way.

Having a secret cap is just a way to abuse customers at whim.

ah30k

· #20 · Sep 19, 2007

pkscout said:
Sorry, stopping advertising and informing customers of the cap are two different things. How can I possibly work to avoid the cap if they won't tell me what it is? And I don't give a crap about whether it's city by city or not. Bills and other communications go out city by city, so they can communicate the cap the same way.

Having a secret cap is just a way to abuse customers at whim.

The point was that someone claimed that they were still advertising unlimited downloads. They are not.

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.