Export thread

Interesting article on data caps, broadband companies and their level of control. I'm not sure I like his designation of broadband as a "right" but I understand his point even if I might phrase it differently.
The thing that hit me most is that this could happen to any of us who use broadband heavily and thats why it's really an important discussion to have.
Here's the article from Kotaku, It's long but worth the read:
The Day Comcast’s Data Cap Policy Killed My Internet for One Year


andre vrignaud — Today I came home to find my 15 MB down/3 MB up Comcast broadband service had been shut off due to exceeding their 250 GB/month data cap policy.
This had happened the month before, and I called and had a polite but irritated conversation with Comcast's "Customer Security" department (since the regular customer service folks could not help.) According to them I had exceeded their 250 GB monthly cap, and they asked how that might have happened.
I told them the simple truth-–no idea, other than regular people were probably using it a lot for reasonable things. I have roommates, we stream Netflix HD movies and Pandora music incessantly to multiple devices in the home, and I also have an open access point (in addition to a secured AP that I use to access internal network resources) for guests. I asked if they could share what was using the majority of the data so I could go address it directly, but Comcast refused to share any information there (which is probably appropriate).
I made very clear to the gentleman I spoke with that I thought Comcast's data cap policy was arbitrary, unfair, and extremely irritating… and that if I had any decent competitive options in the neighborhood I'd dump Comcast in a heartbeat. Since I don't, I listened to him read his canned warning that if I exceeded their cap again I'd be cut off again. I do not recall details on how long the cut off would be, likely because I spent the next few minutes working with the service agent to add notes to my record about my detailed displeasure with Comcast's policy here. I specifically noted (and asked that it be recorded) that if this happened again I would contact the FCC, various news organizations, and otherwise make a stink. The CS agent was polite and reactivated my broadband. After hanging up I chatted with my roommates, asked them to keep an eye on bandwidth use, and also deactivated the open AP I had maintained for visitors (with regret, but this was the only area I could think of that I couldn't completely account for bandwidth use.) Then I forgot about the whole thing until today when I found I'd been cut off again.
I called up Comcast and went through customer service hell – a Comcast special, I might note. First their regular customer service agent couldn't help me, and sent me to their "Customer Security" group again. The Customer Security agent was polite, and after the standard identification questions notified me I was cut off for a year due to exceeding Comcast's Acceptable Use Policy limits on their bandwidth cap. I asked for details on what had been using bandwidth, and again, Comcast would not share. In a sudden brainstorm, I then asked whether the 250 GB bandwidth cap applied to just downloads (which I had assumed, as the majority of most bandwidth used in households is downstream bandwidth), or download and upload bandwidth. Surprise, surprise! Comcast measures both upstream and downstream bandwidth – and it suddenly clicked for me.
I'm a photographer and audiophile. I shoot all of my pictures in RAW format, and I store the many hundreds and hundreds of CDs I've purchased over the last 20 years or so in a variety of lossless and lossy music formats. In the case of music I rip my CDs to WMA Lossless (for ease of streaming to Windows), FLAC (another lossless format, so I can stream losslessly to my Sonos system), and M4A (also known as Apple's iTunes AAC format, so I can import my music from the media server to iTunes). I'm a big believer in storing the original, lossless digital content so that I can access it in full fidelity in the future no matter how technology evolves. In some ways that makes me a bit archaic as I still buy (used) CDs from Amazon for all of my music so I can rip it losslessly – I'm not a fan of the compressed music formats you buy and download. But the ramification is that I have terabytes of storage in my basement RAID server – each music track is duplicated three times, I have all of my original RAW photos, plus processed JPEG versions of those RAW photos, as well as a variety of other miscellaneous content – documents, spreadsheets, that sort of thing.
This stuff is valuable to me, and I recently purchased a three-year subscription to Carboniteso I could back all of this content up to the cloud. I also recently saw Amazon's announcement of being able to upload unlimited M4A/AAC tracks to their Cloud Drive service, and decided to upload my library there so I could access it when on the road. And it turns out uploading all of this content to the cloud triggered Comcast's bandwidth cap and caused me to be cut off from the internet-–again. It was never clear to me that Comcast measures both upload and download bandwidth, and I suspect many people are going to be surprised by this in the coming years, especially as the cloud continues to become more and more a part of our lives.
Anyway, to close out the Comcast call, I asked to be reinstated and he said it was final-–no appeal. I asked to escalate to a manager so I could explain my situation, and he stated there was no escalation, and repeated there was no appeal. I then asked for customer service email or other contact information so I could CC the company on a blog post (which you are reading now) and letter I would be sending to the FCC, Public Knowledge organization, New Media Foundation, the city of Seattle's Mayor's Office, and my Seattle City Council representative. He said he could connect me to the customer escalation line, but also stated it would not help – they wouldn't consider removing the cap. At that point I said I wouldn't bother wasting my time with the customer escalation line, and that I'd like to cancel my broadband. He politely said he understood, and that he'd transfer me to the appropriate department.
Time to return to Comcast customer service hell! After a few minutes I spoke with another gentlemen in the Technical Support and Billing division I'd been transferred to who, surprise, couldn't help me since I was cancelling my (now defunct) service. He then transferred me to (wait for it!) the Retention department, since they're apparently the only ones who can cancel a Comcast cable account. Yes, after Comcast applied their ridiculous policy and told me they didn't want me as a customer, I was transferred to the Retention department where they insisted on driving through their spiel until I could finally interrupt, say it wasn't going to work, and explain my situation. At which point the agent said: "Oh. I'll take care of it, thank you for calling Comcast ." As of this moment I have no idea if I've been cancelled or not.
My Opinion:

My opinion on all this is simple. The ability to access broadband internet is a right, and should be defined as an essential utility. Just as you're surprised when you flick a light switch and the light doesn't come on so are you surprised when the internet goes away in your house. The internet is used for communication, entertainment, business - an entire panopoly of humor endevours. Just as there are protections to keep water and electricity flowing to your house, so should the internet be protected.
Now the broadband companies would strongly disagree with me here. They're terrified of being turned into dumb pipes that only deliver data. This is why you see such vicious fights over the definition of internet neutrality, and cable companies fighting to be able to restrict services that flow over their pipes, inspect packets, or have the right to charge more for differing levels of service. They try to spin this as protecting the integrity of the network for other customers, and not having to charge more to offer service that some small percentage of their users overuse. However, these same companies are also strangely quiet when you ask them why (as in Comcast's case) they're able to keep boosting my broadband speed tier year after year for no additional charge. Or why their quarterly filings show their cost of providing broadband service continues to drop year after year, while rates keep going up. It doesn't add up.
Ramifications:

Here's what's frightening about all this: today Comcast blocked me from using a potentially competitive music service from Amazon. Even worse, today Comcast disconnected me from the ever-evolving cloud services I use each and every day for life and work.
Amazon deserves a lot of credit for pushing the bounds on what we can do on the internet. Their recent announcement of storing unlimited music in their Cloud Drive service is a compelling alternative to Apple's iCloud solution, and one that many might choose to use-–if Comcast allows it. Are you listening Amazon?
And it gets worse-–I work as a entertainment industry consultant, and depend on cloud services such as Dropbox, Simplenote, Google Apps, and Google Docs for day to day work. I use streaming online services such as Netflix, Xbox Live, Playstation Network, and Pandora every day for both work and play. I send and receive data all the time and have never had a problem with my $60/month broadband plan until A) Comcast added their data caps, and B) I really started engaging in using new cloud-based services (meaning uploading data to those services so I could get value from them).
Comcast will try to spin this, and say 250 GB is plenty for anyone – and in fact, a large percentage of their network users today probably really don't hit this cap right now. What they don't want to say is that streaming services such as Netflix now consume a quarter of network traffic monthly, and is projected to rise – all of which impacts the cable TV services they sell.

The last report in October suggested it made up around twenty percent of internet traffic during prime time, but this time around the stats say it accounts for 30% of traffic during prime time, and 22.2% of daily internet traffic. Sandvine gets the data from ISPs using its broadband technology and now foresees "Real-Time Entertainment" (which includes Netflix) shooting up over 55% of peak internet traffic by the end of this year.
- Engadget: Study finds Netflix is the largest source of internet traffic in North America
​

And in the Netflix case, 99% of that data is downstream data. Comcast doesn't broadly advertise the fact that their cap also counts upload data – and I strongly believe as more and more people begin to "get" the cloud they're going to want to upload their valued data to services where they can engage with it in new and interesting ways. And until broadband is deemed an essential utility, and broadband providers like Comcast can't set an arbitrary limit and cut people off, our shared cloud-enabled future is at risk. To this end, I will be contacting various political entities in Seattle in the hope of trying to encourage either greater competition and choice in the broadband market (break Comcast's cable monopoly, and allow fiber to the home!), as well as greater investment in a citywide, city-run broadband network.
What am I Doing:

Well, first off, I'm writing this post to lay out the facts, as well as my opinion, as to the ramifications of broadband companies like Comcast being allowed to enforce data caps and cut people off from the internet. As I mentioned earlier, I will be sending a copy of this blog post to the following people and agencies:

• FCC: Sharon Gillett, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau
• FCC: Chairman Julius Genachowski; Commissioner Michael Copps; Commissioner Robert McDowell; Commissioner Mignon Clyburn; Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker
• Public Knowledge Interest Group (Their letter to the FCC is here, and good reading.)
• Harold Feld, Legal Director Public Knowledge
• Sascha Meinrath, Director New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative
• City of Seattle Mayor's Office
• Tom Rassmussen, Seattle City Council Representative
• Stop the Cap!

I've also tweeted out a summary of what happened, will tweet a link to this blog post, and will also reach out to a few media folks I know in case they're interested in writing this up. I'll also be exploring what other broadband options I might have in Seattle – but thanks to Comcast's monopoly, my choices aren't great.
That said, if Qwest/CenturyLink (or any other broadband provider) wants to run fiber to my house on the top of the hill in Montlake, Seattle, and put up a broadcast antenna to serve the neighborhood – I'm in. Contact me at the links on this blog, or at andre at ozymandias.com. Seriously.
Andre Vrignaud has worked in the interactive entertainment industry for over 20 years at companies such as Intel, Microsoft Xbox, and Amazon. He currently works as an independent game industry consultant doing game, platform strategy, and media/PR consulting for a variety of firms.

Thoughts?

It is a paid service. If a company impose a restriction on that service (i.e. 250GB), you have a choice to subscribe that service or find something else.

Do I agree? not really, cause such policy wasn't in place when I first sign up, but due to high level of usage, companies need to find a way to cap it cause their network is overloaded.

Man, you guys in the states have it fucking easy compared to the horseshit we are currently dealing with here with our ISPs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/01/31/technology-internet-usage-based-billing.html

Our version of the FCC, the CRTC forced independent ISPs to match the larger companies policies. So, 20 GB caps for everyone. All the while Canadian taxpayers are the ones who foot the bill for the entire fiberoptic network in the first place.

The basic backbone of the internet in the states was paid for by the taxpayers too. I think Qwest did some work on their own later, but most of the infrastructure is tax payer funded here too.

If the government is going to give these companies money to build out their networks and force monopolies in certain areas, they need to be forced to provide a reasonable service also. The idea that their networks are overloaded is bull shit. They just don't like the idea of other companies making money while using their "pipes".

Frankie Williamson said:

Man, you guys in the states have it fucking easy compared to the horseshit we are currently dealing with here with our ISPs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/01/31/technology-internet-usage-based-billing.html

Our version of the FCC, the CRTC forced independent ISPs to match the larger companies policies. So, 20 GB caps for everyone. All the while Canadian taxpayers are the ones who foot the bill for the entire fiberoptic network in the first place.

Click to expand...

They backed off on that, actually. It could very well come back around and happen again, but it's not in place right now.

That guy is off his rocker. He's quite obviously intelligent enough to measure his own bandwidth usage, but after being cut off twice he still refused to figure out why.

Then he goes online and pretends that it's his right to use a disproportionate amount of service from a utility that clearly states the limits of the service.

250 GB per month combined upload and download is a LOT. It equivalent to watching two low quality netflix streams solid for the entire month - 24/7/30. It's enough to download two brand new operating systems a day. It's enough to download or upload over 12 thousand raw photographs per month, or one every 3 minutes, 24/7/30.

Less than one percent of home internet users even come close to the limit.

It is not so much Comcast worrying about you downloading tons of stuff... they are worried about streaming content. They make much more ad revenue through their ads on cable.

I don't buy it. Yes, they sell a competing service, but they aren't cutting this guy off because he's using amazon, they're cutting him off for pushing more data through their pipe than the service is intended for. If he needs that much bandwidth guaranteed, he should spend the $600/mo on a T3, and not settle for dinky home cable internet service.

Yes, they have a business reason to play dirty, but they were caught last time, burned really badly (thus net neutrality, which has turned into something far worse than what it was intended to fix) and they aren't abusing him - he's abusing them.

If he didn't like the terms of the service, then he shouldn't have signed the contract. Now he's breaking the contract and terms of service, and saying it's all comcast's fault.

They've done a lot wrong, but they shouldn't be impeached for this so-called crime.

The us has miles upon miles of fiber optic lines laid out underground that are completely unused. These optic lines are from when Internet companies were promising the FCC the world if they would remain unregulated.

stienman said:

Yes, they have a business reason to play dirty, but they were caught last time, burned really badly (thus net neutrality, which has turned into something far worse than what it was intended to fix) and they aren't abusing him - he's abusing them.

If he didn't like the terms of the service, then he shouldn't have signed the contract. Now he's breaking the contract and terms of service, and saying it's all comcast's fault.

Click to expand...

The terms of service change when these companies feel like it. Nothing is ever signed, they just implement them and tell customers to leave if they don't like them. In areas with little to no competition, that's a problem.

For you Canadians you might be interested in this: http://arstechnica.com

CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein asked why—if Bell was facing network congestion—sister company Bell Aliant has not implemented UBB(Usage Based Billing). Bell argued that Bell Aliant "supported" UBB, but acknowledged that competitive forces and marketplace conditions in Atlantic Canada were such that UBB is currently not needed. Of course, von Finckenstein didn't need to look at Bell Aliant as his example—Bell itself employs different caps in Ontario and Quebec given the different competition from Videotron and Rogers. Their approach isn't a function of congestion, but rather competition. In fact, when Bell was asked whether it planned to keep data caps for its retail customers, it responded that it did, subject to "competitive dynamics." The effects of competition were further confirmed when Telus noted that it doesn't use UBB, it isn't a pressing issue, and that competition with Shaw has led to far more generous plans than those found in other parts of the country.

Click to expand...

Just checked the Rogers site. The cap is 15 gigs right now. That is ABSURD.

Vrii said:

They backed off on that, actually. It could very well come back around and happen again, but it's not in place right now.

Click to expand...

Added at: 14:58

Shakey said:

The terms of service change when these companies feel like it. Nothing is ever signed, they just implement them and tell customers to leave if they don't like them. In areas with little to no competition, that's a problem.

For you Canadians you might be interested in this: http://arstechnica.com

Click to expand...

Yeah, us west side Canadians have it WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than our eastern brethren. We have caps that the companies don't really enforce at all (and our caps are like 200 gbs too). Unless you're doubling your cap 6 months in a row here they don't give a shit. Rogers and Bell on the eastern side though. Holy fucking shit I could not put up with that crap.

Best part is, the CRTC, the agency that regulates and mandates all this nonsense, is made up of former (and future) big 5 telecom executives. Of course, there's no way there's a conflict of interests there.

Shakey said:

In areas with little to no competition, that's a problem.

Click to expand...

That I agree with, although in most areas you have a choice for reasonable speeds - even DSL at 6mbits/sec meets most people's needs.

stienman said:

That I agree with, although in most areas you have a choice for reasonable speeds - even DSL at 6mbits/sec meets most people's needs.

Click to expand...

Reasonable for now, you know as well as anyone how quickly technology can change. The problem is the companies supplying the internet connections are also media companies who directly compete with online companies. It's in there best interest to hold back those companies as much as they can through data caps.

250 gig may seem like a lot now, and it is, but if we don't make sure they don't abuse their ability to put caps on usage they will be able to kill off innovation and competitors. What happens when HD video and having your music collection streamed over the internet becomes the norm? What about when someone wants to upload their home movie collection to a new video streaming site?

These caps aren't needed, and like I said before the idea that their networks are somehow stressed is a flat out lie. They do it because there is little to no competition, and it serves the interests of other areas of their company.

Shakey said:

Reasonable for now, you know as well as anyone how quickly technology can change. The problem is the companies supplying the internet connections are also media companies who directly compete with online companies. It's in there best interest to hold back those companies as much as they can through data caps.

250 gig may seem like a lot now, and it is, but if we don't make sure they don't abuse their ability to put caps on usage they will be able to kill off innovation and competitors. What happens when HD video and having your music collection streamed over the internet becomes the norm? What about when someone wants to upload their home movie collection to a new video streaming site?

These caps aren't needed, and like I said before the idea that their networks are somehow stressed is a flat out lie. They do it because there is little to no competition, and it serves the interests of other areas of their company.

Click to expand...

This sums up my main concerns about the future of digital life and the companies we get our service from.

Chibibar said:

It is a paid service. If a company impose a restriction on that service (i.e. 250GB), you have a choice to subscribe that service or find something else.

Do I agree? not really, cause such policy wasn't in place when I first sign up, but due to high level of usage, companies need to find a way to cap it cause their network is overloaded.

Click to expand...

^^

Yup. Internet access is not a fucking right.

http://www.att.com/esupport/internet/usage.jsp

That is U-verse cap.

250GB is ONLY
10k email
5000 one minute youtube
200 TV shows (high quality) a month
25SD or 13 HD full length movies (plus above items which if you think about it. it is not that much)

So lets say you watch a lot of HD movies (say 20 a month) you could hit the cap pretty easily. Or even better yet, people with roommates watch 40HD movies (each person does 10 with 4 roommates) you can hit the cap VERY easily.

Chibibar said:

http://www.att.com/esupport/internet/usage.jsp

That is U-verse cap.

250GB is ONLY
10k email
5000 one minute youtube
200 TV shows (high quality) a month
25SD or 13 HD full length movies (plus above items which if you think about it. it is not that much)

So lets say you watch a lot of HD movies (say 20 a month) you could hit the cap pretty easily. Or even better yet, people with roommates watch 40HD movies (each person does 10 with 4 roommates) you can hit the cap VERY easily.

Click to expand...

If you watch 40 HD movies streamed a month and you hit the cap, then it's time to order up the next tier service.

Mathias said:

If you watch 40 HD movies streamed a month and you hit the cap, then it's time to order up the next tier service.

Click to expand...

Can't Any tier (I check) I am mid tier service with the SAME cap as top tier service.

U-Verse gets 250GB while DSL get 150GB

Mathias said:

^^

Yup. Internet access is not a fucking right.

Click to expand...

I hate when people say it's a right. It's about ensuring companies don't abuse their control over a market. These companies were once again allowed to have either monopolies or oligopolies. These are huge companies that can use their market position as internet providers to stifle competition for their media companies. If you don't think they will, you haven't paid much attention to their track record.

I'm sure I sound crazy rambling, but you can see what happened in Canada. The data caps aren't there because they don't have the bandwidth to provide. They're there because there is no other competition. When data caps were forced on the few companies without them, data caps suddenly dropped from 250gb to 25gb or less.

I remember days when internet was on a cost-per-minute basis. I understand the frustration in unknown data caps, but this was a known data cap, and perfectly reasonable for home use. The entire reason they have a cap is to prevent exploiting the home network rates for heavy data upstream/downstream.

While I loathe data caps, would much prefer unlimited, and hate the monopoly many isps have in areas that keep you from switching to a competitor, I still have to say GODDAMN 250 GB HOLY SHIT MAN.

That's a lot of goddamn bandwidth. Was he running a professional grade server in his basement?

Frankie Williamson said:

Just checked the Rogers site. The cap is 15 gigs right now. That is ABSURD.

Click to expand...

Bell and Rogers have stupid caps. A lot of smaller companies have none, or much, much higher caps. The CRTC isn't forcing them to use the same structures/pricings. That's what they backed off on.

Oh good.

Ravenpoe said:

While I loathe data caps, would much prefer unlimited, and hate the monopoly many isps have in areas that keep you from switching to a competitor, I still have to say GODDAMN 250 GB HOLY SHIT MAN.

That's a lot of goddamn bandwidth. Was he running a professional grade server in his basement?

Click to expand...

He was Pirate Bay.

250gb really isn't that much, particularly in a situation where you're sharing a house and connection with 3 or 4 other high-bandwidth users. A single movie through Netflix can be 1gb, streaming content is about the same usage per time, downloading a game from Steam can be 7-10 gigs pretty easily...it adds up fast, and I know that if I'm not watching my usage I can go well over 100gb/month without even thinking about it. If I was trying to keep up with 4 or 5 tv shows, watching movies, gaming, I could probably push close to that 200 on my own.

If I lived with a couple other people who use the internet as much, there wouldn't be a whole lot of options for an ISP, at least in Canada.

Vrii said:

250gb really isn't that much, particularly in a situation where you're sharing a house and connection with 3 or 4 other high-bandwidth users. A single movie through Netflix can be 1gb, streaming content is about the same usage per time, downloading a game from Steam can be 7-10 gigs pretty easily...it adds up fast, and I know that if I'm not watching my usage I can go well over 100gb/month without even thinking about it. If I was trying to keep up with 4 or 5 tv shows, watching movies, gaming, I could probably push close to that 200 on my own.

If I lived with a couple other people who use the internet as much, there wouldn't be a whole lot of options for an ISP, at least in Canada.

Click to expand...

250 gigs is 1/5 of my hard drive. It's a lot to use in a month.

Normal people don't use 250 gigs in a month. 4 or 5 TV shows? Someone mentioned 40 movies, earlier. Where the hell do people get the time to watch all this shit? Read a book for Christ's sake!

bandwidth caps are the reason I still collect anime dvds

Mathias said:

Normal people don't use 250 gigs in a month.

Click to expand...

No, absolutely. I'm definitely not trying to say that what I use is the average by any stretch. At the same time, there are people who use that much, without breaking any laws in the process. And as more things are available online, and as more people start to realize the amount of content available to them, the caps are going to start to be an issue for average users, too. To me, that's what the discussion is about here - currently 250gb seems like a lot, sure. But 5 years from now? 10? What are the odds that these companies are going to say 'hey, we're being unreasonable here, let's just increase those caps to 1000gb at no extra cost, so that our users can get as much out of the internet as they want to'?

Over here in New Zealand the top data plans have caps of around 30GB

This is the result of a monopoly over the main/only international data line

mr_thehun said:

I love the internet in Japan.

I hate the Internet in china.

Click to expand...

The internet is so horrible here.

Kovac said:

Over here in New Zealand the top data plans have caps of around 30GB

This is the result of a monopoly over the main/only international data line

Click to expand...

You only have that small amount of internet usage, and you come here?

I consistently (my wife consistently) use for than the comcast 250gb limit and they haven't called me yet which is suprising! He'll last month I used 569gb (read: my wife used like 500 and I used like 69)

CrimsonSoul said:

I consistently (my wife consistently) use for than the comcast 250gb limit and they haven't called me yet which is suprising! He'll last month I used 569gb (read: my wife used like 500 and I used like 69)

Click to expand...

That is a loooooot of porn she's watching.

That's very interesting, and if you're not using the services the article discusses (Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc) then it actually lends a little credence to the theory that Comcast is targeting services which compete with their services.

But most of those contracts are written with a provision that they can cut service back if anyone's particular usage affects their ability to serve their other customers. In your case, your local lines are probably not overflowing with traffic, so they probably don't care.

I suspect the author is in a highly technical area with a lot of people using the bandwidth heavily, so they have to crack down on heavy users.

But these are mere guesses...
Added at: 13:55

MindDetective said:

That is a loooooot of porn she's watching.

Click to expand...

She only reads watches it for the articles music.

That cutting down on heavy users always pisses me off. They sell you on the fact that you get x and x amount of down and x and x amount of up speeds then they bitch that their network can't handle it when everyone they've sold this usage to uses what they've been sold.

Maybe ISPs shouldn't fucking sell what they can't actually handle.

People aren't going to use less as time goes on.

Sounds like someone needed to upgrade to business class, no cap for that tier.

More then 250GB a month is just no longer residential use.

We use Netflix but not very often I usually use it on my phone when I'm at work

Vagabond said:

Sounds like someone needed to upgrade to business class, no cap for that tier.

More then 250GB a month is just no longer residential use.

Click to expand...

Not true at all.

Which part exactly?

Business class from Comcast is $65 a month without a cap in the US.

Could be wrong about tons of people hitting that cap though. But I'm willing to bet a majority aren't, and therefore Comcast doesn't care.

Mathias said:

^^

Yup. Internet access is not a fucking right.

Click to expand...

Not only that but...

My opinion on all this is simple. The ability to access broadband internet is a right, and should be defined as an essential utility. Just as you're surprised when you flick a light switch and the light doesn't come on so are you surprised when the internet goes away in your house.

Click to expand...

Power is not a fucking right either. Try not paying you power bill for two months and see if you're surprised when your light doesn't come on.

I thought that his point was that access to these utilities was a right. For example, I think having access to clean water is a basic right here in the US. Yes, you still pay for it, and that's fair, but you should have the ability to pay for it at all times.

Unless I'm wrong, and this guy is really arguing that unlimited internet access should be free to everyone everywhere. That's a bit much.

Adammon said:

Not only that but...



Power is not a fucking right either. Try not paying you power bill for two months and see if you're surprised when your light doesn't come on.

Click to expand...

Actually in some states there are laws on the book to stop a power company from turning off electricity from non-payment in certain situations. Also for low income households the state will pay a portion of your light bill.

CrimsonSoul said:

Actually in some states there are laws on the book to stop a power company from turning off electricity from non-payment in certain situations. Also for low income households the state will pay a portion of your light bill.

Click to expand...

Same as in Canada, they don't turn your power off if the temperature outside falls below X degrees for a certain amount of time; and we have the same low-income protections here.

That said, if you started using the same amount of electricity as a lumber mill, you'd be cut off pretty fast - and the analogy holds to Mr "I use 250Gb of bandwidth per Month, it's my right to do so" Guy
Added at: 21:00

Tress said:

I thought that his point was that access to these utilities was a right. For example, I think having access to clean water is a basic right here in the US. Yes, you still pay for it, and that's fair, but you should have the ability to pay for it at all times.

Unless I'm wrong, and this guy is really arguing that unlimited internet access should be free to everyone everywhere. That's a bit much.

Click to expand...

The UN has declared that access to clean water is a basic human right, but essentially that just means rich countries will be forced to send money to poor countries for their infrastructure improvements.

I currently use Cox and am uncapped. I've tried to find my usage stats but they can't provide them. Is there a way to find this out through Win7?

Yes, but you don't get to see the previous history. Might want to install a meter on your own computer if you're that curious.

--Patrick

sixpackshaker said:

You only have that small amount of internet usage, and you come here?

Click to expand...

Of course.

This place is great

I'm going to install a mac data tracker to see how much I use monthly on all 3 of my computers (I have to figure out how much my ps3 uses though... thats a toughie... anyone have any ideas?). We download HD movies on a regular basis on the ps3 (which are 6 or so gb) and I know they will ratchet up pretty quick.
I don't think 250gigs is an unreasonable number FYI, I'm just thinking that as more of our life goes online with cloud computing, etc, the more the average household is going to go up in their service, so I'm curious how me, as what I consider, an average high-end user (lots of cloud stuff, lots of streaming and downloading and a good amount of uploading for sharing files with band mates and work stuff, etc), uses.

I don't think I do...

Also I forgot to add in our iPod touches, so I gotta figure that out as well. All in all we have 6 devices using the internet at varying times. It will be interesting to see once I figure out how to track it.

Here's another news article about our neighbors to the north. Shaw's own movie service that uses the internet won't count towards a customers data cap, while every other internet movie service will.

Shakey said:

Here's another news article about our neighbors to the north. Shaw's own movie service that uses the internet won't count towards a customers data cap, while every other internet movie service will.

Click to expand...

I fucking love Shaw. I have never been so happy with an internet provider. We switched from Telus and our treatment and service from Shaw has been outstanding.

mr_thehun said:

yeah but talk about lack of net neutrality.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the problem with net neutrality offering preferential services to other companies/sites? This would then make it harder on the consumer. But in this case, they're making an exception for themselves and it's beneficial to the consumer. Nothing has changed if they use the other services: they pay the fee and it counts towards their limit, just as it always has. But, if they choose Shaw's movie service, they get the perk of not counting toward their data limit. Net neutrality (and antitrust, etc) is designed to protect the consumer, and I don't see how this hurts the consumer. Honestly though, my understanding of this issue is weak, so correct any misconceptions I have.

I think this may go against the competition act but I really don't know enough about it.

Chad Sexington said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the problem with net neutrality offering preferential services to other companies/sites?

Click to expand...

That's part of it.

I don't know the details with this particular case, but let me show you how this behavior can still penalize other sites:

If your monthly cap is pretty low, you might only be able to watch a dozen hours of another provider's HD programming, whereas you can watch unlimited HD from your cable provider.

In other words, it hurts your choice unless you get a higher level of service with a bigger cap - essentially making you pay more so you can access someone else's service over the same pipe where you get unlimited local service.

It wouldn't be a problem if the company providing the internet service was not also trying to deliver entertainment.

It's quite possible that the cap is high enough on every plan that it has no real effect, but that won't necessarily always be true, and allowing them to do this now may lead to problems later.

The author wrote a follow up that, I think, is much better than his original post. He tries to answer a lot of questions that were emailed him (and asked here). It's long but worth the read, he brings up some things that are really relevant to our current digital world:

WHY DIDN'T YOU USE COMCAST BUSINESS SERVICE? THEY DON'T HAVE DATA CAPS!!!!
I didn’t use Comcast Business service in the past because it was significantly more expensive, and I didn’t believe I needed their advertised features. I used a standard $60/month 15 Mb down/3 Mb up plan for 9+ years without the slightest issue. Only in the last several months as I began to use cloud-based services such as Carbonite’s online backup and Amazon’s unlimited cloud music storage did I have a problem.
Looking forward, I’ll first say that I’d be hesitant to use Comcast for anything ever again for obvious reasons. However, the marketplace really isn’t competitive in Seattle for what I define as highspeed (>10 Mbps) broadband – Comcast is the only real gig in town. So I decided to look into what a Business plan would cost me if I were to choose that option.
Comcast Business has four plans:

• Deluxe 100/50 – 100 Mb down/50 Mb up for $395 a month
• Deluxe 50/10 – 50 Mb down/10 Mb up for $195 a month
• Premium 22/5 – 22 Mb down/5 Mb up for $105 a month
• Starter 12/2 – 12 Mb down/2 Mb up for $65 a month

The only plan that’s even close to my $60/month 15 Mb up consumer plan is the Starter 12/2 plan for $65 a month. So at first blush I’d be paying slightly more for slightly less speed, but no data caps.
But wait – it’s “new service” with “specialized hardware”, so they can’t just turn on the plan. Instead I have to choose from a plan commitment tier. If I commit for the shortest period of time (one year), my install/setup fee is $199. If I go and commit to three years with Comcast Business, they’ll reduce that fee down to $49.
All right – so let’s discuss what the hardware is. The sales rep suggested that no matter what tier I really want I start with the Deluxe 100/50 plan so I get the “higher-end hardware” – which I can keep even if I call and downgrade to a different tier the day after the install. That set my spideysense off, and so I pushed a little bit on what exactly this “higher-end” hardware is. Turns out it’s a DOCSIS 3.0 modem. Ok… but I already own my own modem, a Motorola SURFboard eXtreme Broadband Cable Modem-SB6120, and I don’t want to lease another.
Sorry, that’s not an option. You cannot self-install, and cannot use anything but the Comcast supplied endpoints. Now I’ll grant there might be good reasons around manageability and the higher quality of service Comcast is promising to use their hardware. But I’m pretty darn sure that if I were to swap out their modem with mine and somehow able to activate it on the network it would work perfectly. (And in fact, a Broadband Reports forum poster claims that “Some have been able to beg/negotiate using a standard cable modem with a dynamic IP Business Class service, but that is a rare exception to the rule.”)
Now, let’s say all this hasn’t put me off from coming on board, and I want to sign up for the Starter plan and pay more for less service, all to remove an arbitrary data cap. Can I?
Nope! Turns out that once Comcast has cut your broadband account for violating their data cap policy you are verboten from being a Comcast customer for 1 year. That’s right:
After being cut off from Comcast’s consumer internet plan due to using too much data, I’m told I’m ineligible to use Comcast’s recommended solution, their business internet plan that allows the unlimited use of data — solely because I made the mistake of actually using “too much” data in the first place.
As the sales rep said in my Google Voicemail message, “what’s interesting is that if you would have started off on the business side of the house, since we don’t have a cap limitations [sic] you would’ve been fine.”
Fascinating.
But wait… it keeps going. Just this afternoon in discussions with a TV reporter I found that Comcast’s Business service requires you to have a Taxpayer Identification Number (or TIN) to prove that you’re a “real” business. And Stacey Higginbotham’s Gigaom articleincluded this nice snippet:
Problem 1 — the work I am doing is currently supporting other consultants, and I have not actually created my own, personal business and applied for a TIN. Remember, until a few months ago I worked at Amazon. I see conflicting reports on the net about whether or not I could get a business class account from Comcast using my name and Social Security Number, and it doesn’t even seem as though Comcast knows for sure.
Problem 2 — how exactly does Comcast believe that a Business class internet account is an option for their consumer internet subscribers who use more than the allotted data cap? I’m an edge case, and might actually go off and get a TIN; 99 out of 100 of Comcast’s average consumers never will. And that’s completely ignoring the fact that Comcast won’t even allow past data cap offenders to migrate over once they’ve been cut off.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN INTERNET SHOULD BE DEFINED AS A LIFELINE UTILITY, AND A RIGHT?!? COMPANIES AREN'T REQUIRED TO OFFER YOU THEIR SERVICE IF THEY DON'T WANT YOUR BUSINESS!
This is the actually the crux of my “internet should be a right” point.
Many utilities are considered to be protected, and have laws in place to protect consumers:
Today the internet is effectively a requirement to do a job search, find information, and stay connected. Commenters on my original post highlighted that there are food stamp programs completely managed via the internet – in other words, no internet access, no food. Some colleges require online access to register or do administrative functions – and to be clear, these aren’t internet-only/online schools. Even the United Nations believes internet access is a fundamental human right.
Libraries and other public facilities can only go so far toward satisfying this need, and as such I do strongly believe that all human beings have the right to access the internet, and that that right should be protected as an essential utility service.

YOU ARE A BITTORRENTING BASTARD WHO REFUSES TO PAY FOR CONTENT!!! ADMIT IT!!!
Not really. I happily pay for content when it’s available, including a three disc Netflix/streaming subscription, a two disc Gamefly subscription, DirecTV, Pandora One (higher quality audio streams), downloadable game purchases from Steam, Xbox LIVE, and PlayStation Network, iDevice apps for my iPhone and iPad, as well as one-off streaming movie rentals from Xbox LIVE and PSN. However, in the spirit of full disclosure, I’m a Doctor Who fan and due to BBC America’s inability to release current episodes in a timely manner in the US (to either DirecTV or Netflix), I did grab the first two episodes of the current season from bittorrent earlier this month. However, that accounts for about about 1 gigabyte of data total – doesn’t explain the other missing 249 gigabytes. This is why it’s frustrating that Comcast either can’t or won’t share with me what applications were using the data they claim was used. I can’t trace the source back, and hence have to assume the issue is the uploading I was doing to the cloud.

YOU READ COMCASTS TERMS OF SERVICE AND AGREED TO THEM. YOU WERE WARNED AND THEN YOU GOT CANCELLED. YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GOT!
I don’t remember the Terms of Service I assume I viewed eight or more years ago when I first signed up for Comcast. It’s reasonable to believe Comcast had some clause somewhere that I agreed to that allowed them to change those terms at will, and I’ll admit I missed the change. I’ll also admit that even if the new data cap policy had been explicitly called out to me, I would have likely accepted it as A) I wouldn’t have thought it would affect me, and B) I had no other competitive options available to me. I’ll even go so far as to say that I should have connected the dots sooner and realized my uploading data to Carbonite’s backup service and Amazon’s Cloud Drive would count against the data cap. However, I didn’t.
I suspect I didn’t make the connection because I believe most people think of broadband bandwidth in terms of “download,” and have not really internalized the new requirement of “upload” to really be able to use the new wave of cloud services.
This is understandable since, until recently, doing almost anything on the broadband internet required having a fat download pipe to you. And so logically, broadband companies have focused on that aspect in their marketing — here’s a screenshot I took off Comcast.comthis morning as an example:

​

This “download speed is the only thing that matters” perception problem is further aggravated because Comcast misses many opportunities to disclose their data cap (and educate customers as to the combined effects of uploading and downloading data on that cap) in their order flow.
Ok, let me be a bit blunter. I can’t find Comcast’s data cap policy disclosed anywhere up to the final “Review and Submit” option in the order flow. Don’t take my word for it – try it for yourself, starting here.
The closest I get is a “Call for restrictions and complete details” sentence at the bottom of the “Details and Restrictions” pop-up:

​

You can also find similar “Call your local Comcast office for restrictions and complete details about service, prices, and equipment in your area” language on the bottom of the “Review and Submit” page. But that’s all I can find in the order flow up to this page.
Now, I’m sure Comcast discloses the data cap in some fashion after this point. Perhaps it’s on click-through agreement page they send you later, or on the installer paperwork you sign. My main point is that the entire online ordering process appears to be designed to highlight and promote download speeds while obfuscating disadvantages such as a data cap policy. And that lack of data cap policy disclosure during this process does nothing to raise awareness in consumers that both upload and download data consumption is measured and capped, and could affect your use of the new wave of cloud services.

WOULD YOU EVER USE COMCAST AGAIN?
Maybe.
While I am not happy with the decisions Comcast’s executive team makes, I have been surprised by how polite and helpful different individuals at Comcast try to be. They’re often hampered by Comcast’s backend systems and policy decisions, and rarely have the power to make any significant decisions on their own, but they do try. And I appreciate those I’ve spoken to who have expressed sympathy and sly agreement with my irritation at Comcast’s policies.
I’ve also always been happy with the overall stability and performance of my broadband service from Comcast. I may not like the company, the obtuse billing, limited promotions, and general aggravation to get things set up, but once it’s running it just works. And that counts for a lot in my book.
To sum up, I’d prefer to have truly competitive broadband offerings here in Seattle so I could pick and choose based on price and performance. And if Comcast won in a fair fight, I’d use them. But the sad reality is that today Comcast is the only game in down for >10 Mbps broadband service to the home. So depending on my experience with other competitors, there’s a reasonable chance I’d come back to them – irritated and grumpy – if only to just not worry about having fast and stable internet access. And hey, with no data cap I might even go into business and stream HD cat juggling videos to the world 24/7… you know. If that’s what you’re into.

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO COME FROM ALL THIS? WHAT'S NEXT? WHAT CAN I DO?
My hope is that this discussion is one more feather of awareness added to the “broadband is an essential utility” side of the scale. And that over time, a combination of experiences such as mine, your comments, and public opinion help change Comcast’s policies and/or the laws in this country and protect what I believe is a right to connect to the internet.
I also hope that companies like Comcast change their data cap policies in particular. Comcast doesn’t need to completely cut off people who are (in theory) stressing the network. Just to toss out some ideas:

• Throttle data speed after reaching whatever a reasonable, transparent data cap is. Note that this is different than Comcast’s pre-2008 policy of arbitrarily throttling data speed at any time; I’m specifically saying the ISP would only throttle data after the customer has in theory impacted the network, if needed to protect other users’ experiences.
• Double or triple the data cap, or justify why 250 GB is the “right” number. This 250 GB data cap was set in 2008 without customer, FCC, or government input, and has not changed since. This is in spite of dropping costs and ever expanding bandwidth.
• Charge for blocks of add-on data for any data use exceeding a previously disclosed and discussed-with-the-community data cap. But whatever you do, don’t cut people off from the lifeline of the internet.
• Adjust your policies to incorporate the new reality of large-scale upload-required cloud services. Many of these services require a one-time large burst of data to get the initial backup done; data use afterward will be relatively small to update changed files and upload new content. Consider “looking away” at data destined for services such as Amazon’s Music Cloud Drive, or backup services such as Carbonite.

In short, I don’t understand Comcast’s argument that they need to cut people off from broadband service for overuse when the cost and availability of that service continues to drop and expand respectively. Nor do I understand why they don’t use alternative solutions such as those suggested above.
Comcast has other, more customer-friendly solutions available that they seem to shy away from. And Occam’s Razor seems to suggest the path they have chosen is to protect their existing TV business and hinder the growth of competitive streaming solutions such as Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, and others. I actually think being blocked from using data-heavy cloud services such as Carbonite or Amazon’s Cloud Drive is a side-effect of their goal of protecting their existing business, and not an explicit goal in itself. But it impacts consumers all the same.
So what’s next?
Well, first off, I’ve got to go do some real consulting work, and so won’t be able to spend quite as much time as I have on this for a few days. I have existing projects to land, and interestingly, several other opportunities have popped up thanks to this whole discussion. So if you want some consulting done around your games, platforms, or entertainment and technology products (including media positioning and messaging), drop me a line! Might as well turn the time I’ve spent on this into something that feeds the dogs. (And believe it or not, that includes you Comcast. We may disagree on a lot, but I’m willing to help you with your customer perception problems if you’re sincerely looking to make changes in the right direction.)
Beyond that, in the long run I’m not worried. The public (you!) know what’s right and what’s wrong, and you elect the politicians that will eventually see the light. The majority of people who have read this blog, sent me mail, and commented agree that internet access is a critical aspect of life today. Intuitively we all know this, and the more that situations like mine occur, the more light is cast upon anti-competitive practices such as Comcast’s current data cap policy.
It’s already happening. Just look at the Wired article that was just published on this topic. Comcast has moved from ignoring the subject to bringing out their spokespeople. It’s theStreisand effect, and the more you keep the issue alive, the more Comcast has to react, which perpetuates the PR flywheel. They’ll change their policy in time – we can just hope it’s not too long a wait. And I mean this sincerely: I hope we can all work with them to land on reasonable solutions that work for everyone

He doesn't address the fact that this was his third time being cut off, and he had two explicit opportunities to measure his own traffic and usage, and failed to do so. Color me unsurprised that he's still trying to defend himself and blame comcast.

Chad Sexington said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the problem with net neutrality offering preferential services to other companies/sites? This would then make it harder on the consumer. But in this case, they're making an exception for themselves and it's beneficial to the consumer.

Click to expand...

Actually, it isn't. Whenever choice is restricted, customers suffer...one way or another. I could probably put together dozens of examples, but here are a few:

-In the USA, government subsidies to certain key agriculture lobbies ensure that specific types of food (corn, potatoes, soy, beef) are cheap and plentiful. The result? You can buy about 525 calories worth of Big Mac for $5, but that same $5 will only buy you about 210 calories worth of apricots or cashews.*

-Wal-mart has a lot of customers. Wal-mart therefore does a lot of business with vendors. Before Kodak closed down its overnight photo labs (and while I was still working there), Wal-mart contracted with them to do their film processing. At first, they were just a customer. Within a year, they demanded (and got!) preferential treatment that mandated we process all the Wal-mart film ahead of everyone else. How did they get this? They probably accounted for 15-20% of the facility's business and threatened to pull out if they didn't get their way. But this means cheaper services for Wal-mart's customers, right?

...I suppose a really good analogy would be as follows. Let's assume I am the owner/operator of a toll bridge into town. There are others, but they're all really too far away from where you live for you to really consider using them. All vehicles pay toll based on their net weight, and once you reach a certain cargo total I cut you off until next month. Right next to this bridge, I also have a sort of duty-free strip mall set up where I have a bunch of stores. The prices are reasonable, but you are limited to stock on hand. Anything I don't carry, you will have to go into town to purchase. This is in addition to the trips you make into town for work, visiting friends and relatives, etc. Plus since I charge by weight, these trips for things I don't (or won't) have in stock make you reach your cargo total faster, and once you hit it I will deny you passage to your job, your family, etc. until the following month (if ever!). This means that you either have to give up anything in town that is not essential in order to make sure you stay under the limit, or else you have to make do with only the stuff I have available. Additionally, every year I take my profits and upgrade the bridge to be bigger, wider, and stronger, and the town grows exponentially as well, but I still maintain my original arbitrary limit even though my bridge could obviously handle more traffic now and there is so much more to do in town than before. Plus your family is larger now, so you need more food, more clothing, more services, etc. but my selection hasn't really changed that much.

I think it would be better if the service rates were advertised based on what the company was willing to actually deliver rather than what they could theoretically deliver. If you're going to put a 250GB/month cap on your service, then don't advertise your service as 6Mb down/1Mb up, advertise it as 50kb down/50kb up like it really is. Yes, I said kilobits/sec. Why that amount? Because 50k/50k (or 75k/25k, or however you want to split it up) is the fastest/most data you can stream per second constantly over 30 days and still stay below the 250GB cap. Actually, that's not true, since the two numbers have to add up to 96.4, not an even 100.

Don't treat us like idiots, TelComs. We know why you're doing it.

--Patrick

*EDIT These numbers are nowhere near exact and are for illustration only, I couldn't find the website where I first saw the breakdown per dollar before I finished composing the post.

I'd say another good analogy would be power companies alowing unlimited use of electronics manufactured by them, but limiting the use of other companies electronics. Why would you not buy from the power company.

We already went through this with the telephone companies telling us what phones we could plug into our jacks. Was it really that long ago that we've forgotten already?

Don't forget that the power company used to give you free light bulbs if you turned in your old ones. I'm sure that was a fight between Westinghouse and Edison, or something.

--Patrick

This guy rubs me the wrong way.

Someone said that the idea that Comcast's infrastructure was being stressed was bull. On what grounds? It seems likely to be true.

fade said:

It seems likely to be true.

Click to expand...

I would say that the burden of proof for that one is on Comcast, but here's a decent summary with links from folks who disagree with the "exaflood" idea.

EDIT: More links.