Comcast Officially Caps Broadband That It Had Already Secretly Capped
from the fair-enough dept
As was rumored back in May, Comcast has finally come out and officially announced that it's capping its broadband at 250 GB per month as of October 1. Despite earlier reports, there was no confirmation of any overage fees for those who go beyond that. While I still think that tiered broadband is an overall mistake, Comcast's plan is a lot better than most other ISPs who are putting in broadband caps that are often ridiculously low. And, since Comcast has already had a secret cap, all this new plan does is finally reveal what that cap is. So, realistically speaking, this is a step in the right direction, in that Comcast is actually revealing what its secret cap is and it's made the cap so high that it shouldn't impact most users.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband caps
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
At Least It's Reasonable
What I would like to hear is their plan on how that cap will increase over time as more bandwith heavy services come along or are more widely used. Comcast still has an obligation to it's customers to continually improve their capacity.
Now we'll have to see how the other major ISPs react and hope the industry doesn't act like the airlines and just match whoever made a change first. It's time to start seeing some actual competitive differences as more ISP choices come available over the next few years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I read some were that: You get a warning on your 1st offense and if you go over the limit a 2nd time with in 6 month you get disconnected for a year, but they are considering charging extra for the extra bandwidth.
now with the "bad part" of the deal, comcast doesn't provide any tools for its users to monitor there transfers: Personally i expect them to lie and cheat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a secret too.
If I had a lease on my car that said I could have 20,000 miles per year, and then they changed the terms of the lease to only include 10,000 miles a year, they should brace for a class-action lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have a secret too.
they cant change the terms of the contract after the fact, you just have to send them a copy of the document you signed.
(I think)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have a secret too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I have a secret too.
"they can change any of it whenever they want?"
then ur the only person to blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I have a secret too.
"they can change any of it whenever they want?"
then ur the only person to blame."
Find a cable contract, cell phone contract or any general lease that doesnt say that . . . in the US anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have a secret too.
This is more, the dealer *advertises* 20,000 a year and then the deal (contract) is really only 10,000 a year.
Comcast supposedly has had this 'cap' for a while now. Also, you'd be surprised what you can do with 250gb/month. As long as you aren't seeding a ton of torrents anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A tiered plan is one where I can pay my $75/mo and get 250gb... But if I pay $150 I can get 500gb.
What comcast has is a set limit. I can pay 75 a month and get 250gb. I can not pay more. I can not get more. I get that and only that. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many Different Tiered Plans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Many Different Tiered Plans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the crap?
For example, see the complaints in "BayleySuit", C-3117 (consent agreement) (September 30,1983) [102 F.T.C. 1285]; Figgie International, Inc., D. 9166 (May 17, 1983) and 87 F.T.C. 421, 497 (1976), aff'd, 605 F.2d 964 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 934 (1980), modified, 100 F.T.C. 500 (1982)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is awful...
I dont think many of you realize how fast you can burn through 250 gigs with 100% legal use. Hopefully this is the rise of the T1 in home. Cable internet companies have officially become cell phone bastards... the net is going down the tube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is awful...
With a T1 you would have to constantly over 30 days utilize above 50% of your theoretical traffic capability to hit the 250GB limit. I don't think you realize the difference between MB and Mb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
250GB is low?!
The guy with "work from home" have no idea what he talking about. For almost any work-from-home activity even dial-up connection will be fine. Unless you transfer huge files, in which case you should be asking yourself wtf are you doing it in a first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 250GB is low?!
Sure, but do you think it will always be 250GB?
Let's say Comcast adds more subscribers, and then what happens? "Hi Friends, so we can better serve you, we need to lower to caps to 100GB so we can continue to squeeze more people on your node."
Then they announce an unexpected increase in subscribers. Then what happens? "Hey guise, we need to lower caps again."
Think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 250GB is low?!
mkam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 250GB is low?!
Think about HD movie downloads. If I don't go with TWC for my HD moving streaming, I could use my Tivo to download HD content from Amazon unbox. Each movie is anywhere from 4-40 GB. So you can watch 5-10 movies a month?
We are in Europe right now, so the slingbox is running constantly. That must slowly add up as well.
At least 250 is somewhat reasonable. The incremental cost to double should not be excessive IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 250GB is low?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 250GB is low?!
The 250GB/month is more than adequate for 95% of the users, but if they keep going down, there will be a revolt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 250GB is low?!
I work from home, and am responsible for 9 servers that are all co-located. I am connected to these servers nearly 24x7, and hourly pull incremental backups off them to a local system. Once a week and once a month I pull full backups which are 35g each.
My guess is that if I am not hitting the 250gb limit I am pretty close to it. I guess I'll wait and see what comcast does to me, I'm on their highest speed package, and pay top dollar for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 250GB is low?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 250GB is low?!
I can't believe all the whining I hear from home users about how expensive their bandwidth is and how offended they are by this cap. Try buying bandwidth for a business sometime where you pay $400+ for a basic boring T1/DS1 line, or over $3,000 for a DS3 line which is about twice as fast as a standard cable connection except for the upload speed of course.
My only worry about the cap is that 250GB which is sufficient for most users today may be way too little tomorrow as we start to stream more and more video and expect hi-speed connections to our office and around the world.
I also worry if this is a combined total - upload and download. This could be an issue, but if just download shouldn't be an issue.
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 250GB is low?!
The best you can hope for in that situation is to open a remote desktop connection to a PC that's actually in the office, so the only thing getting pumped through your tiny pipe is screenshots of the remote console. And believe me, even that is hopelessly slow. I know, because I've done it before. There are times you click on one thing and wait for 2-3 minutes for the whole screen to get itself updated. And of course slow connections like that are often unstable, so you could continuously lose your connection (again, it's happened to me). Even web-based apps are no help, because they won't be any faster than basic internet websites over a dial-up connection. In fact, they'll be even slower due to the VPN connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 250GB is low?!
Not really. I work from home and don't use a VPN. Secure CVS and file copy, email, Skype, web. I'm not saying I don't need broadband, of course I do, just that not everybody working from home uses a VPN connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 250GB is low?!
If you think most "work from home" jobs can be done with dial-up, you *really* don't know what you're talking about. People telecommute all the time for a plethora of different careers.
I think somebody is behind on technology.
And just to let you know, 250gb is a decent amount. However, I know a lot of people who believe that streaming movies and streaming HD as well, are the future. This is gonna put a hamper on that. The future is in high-bandwidth usage services. This is going to severely harm that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come to Australia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come to Australia
LMAO, but the beaches . . . OMFG the beaches
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calculate this
Try running windows update, or any other for that matter, over dial-up. Last week I installed Windows XP and development software on a computer. Downloaded SP3 (324MB). Downloaded drivers (75MB). Downloaded Visual Studio SP1 and MSDN update (2GB). Downloaded other development tools and updates (4GB). While that was going on I ran Windows update on my dad's computer, my mom's computer, and my nephew's computer (25-40MB each in incremental updates). You obviously like math, calculate how long all that would take over dial-up (28 to 56Kbps) and at 100KBPS.
I also transferred a set of photo proofs for a layout - 65 photos at ~45MB each. Add to that all the web browsing I, my dad, my mom, and my nephew did in that week - average 10 hours each for them, 25 for me. Consider how graphic intensive most web pages are these days, what's average? Calculate the time to download all that ove dial-up and at 100KBPS. Over dial-up the browsing alone would have been impossible.
My dad occassionally likes to stream sports video from ESPN because they don't offer it over the satellite (blackout rules). Impossible over dial-up, less than ideal over 1.5Mbps dsl if others are surfing simultaneously.
Yosi obviously uses the Internet like a 75 year old blind man who fears computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this cap count . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does this cap count . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does this cap count . . .
I knew this is just Comcasts way of forcing me to watch thier crappy G4 network to get my YOUTUBE fix!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Figures
On the other hand, my brother visited for a week just before his fall semester started. He was up most of the night and sleeping most of the day and I found out why later. He downloaded a lot of material - naughty movies and candid photos to the tune of 150+GB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business class
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business class
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop complaining!
Believe me, I am no fan of Comcast, but if you need more than 250gb a month, that means you are constantly pirating large files, or too cheap to buy the bandwidth you need for your "legal" purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop complaining!
People that are working online with graphic intensive file swaps are legal. Get real. 250 G is nothing when you are doing things legally, such as purchasing music, video, Sling, etc.
So fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stop complaining!
I would say that Netflix via cable modem would be a legal use for this, wouldn't you?
I am also led to believe that Netflix via cable modem would cut Comcast out of Pay-Per-View revenue, wouldn't you?
Wise up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop complaining!
That's great if it's possible. Is it? Some people are saying Comcast isn't offering any higher caps for a higher price, just 250GB for everyone, period. Do you have a source indicating customers can pay more for a higher or nonexistent cap? Or are you saying people should move to another provider if they don't like Comcast? Some people have that option, some don't, and for some Comcast is the best option despite their flaws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stop complaining!
Are you saying that Comcast has some societal obligation to supply more then that? Do they have an "obligation" to supply broadband at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast offeres it's users 12Mb/s max speeds.
that'd yield a sustained transfer rate of 1500KB/s
You'd basically be able to use your max speed for under 2 days before you get cut off.
Correct me if i'm wrong.
I don't think you have to go out of your way to hit that cap... try going to HULU.com and watch some HD-TV for 2 days and see how long you've got internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is GOOD
This is MUCH better than "secret" caps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is GOOD
The important question is, how can I monitor my usage? Because "just keep going and we'll tell you when you're over" doesn't cut it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boycott Campaign
sam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah right, and 512K memory should be enough for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Utitlization
Optimistically, I would love the bandwidth war between ISP to offer the most bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to chef:
I understand that some people's jobs require them to use a large amount of bandwidth....but guess what: Comcast's $50 residential plan is not for you!
So since you "legally" purchase 250gb of media per month, which I am estimating must cost you upwards of $200-$400, why not upgrade your bandwidth, and stop complaining on how you are being ripped off.
All I'm saying is that if you need more than 250gb a month, then you need to pay more than the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to chef:
I work at home and my connection has become vital. However, I would have give it up if the connection cost anymore than it currently does.
And yes, I do work a lot with graphics heavy documents and pp presentations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh No!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Hogs
Regarding your comment "Yosi obviously uses the Internet like a 75 year old blind man who fears computers." That may be true, but you and your family are internet pigs.
May all your torrents and streaming be throttled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet Hogs
1) There is no problem for the rest. If you don't use 250GB/month, you have no problem. 2) IMO it's lack of competition that causes problems. If there's healthy competition, companies serve their customers' desires or go out of business. If there's little or no competition, companies tell their customers what they're going to get and for what price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But is it really unintended? Of course the cable companies would love to kill off the net. They want us to watch their content not surf. Let's face it, with unlimited broadband access you would no longer need cable TV. You could watch your favorite shows from the broadcasters' websites or from bittorrent. You could watch movies from iTunes or Netflix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
772 Kbps
Technically they should be allowed to advertise anything greater than 772Kbps.
GB/Month -> Kbps is not a complex math problem. Where does the fudge factor enter in there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not an expert, so I don't know, but would that activity eat into this cap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Cap
See, I signed up for 2 years of service so I could get a Wii. Now, since they changed the terms of service, I can legally get out of the contract and keep the Wii.
Woot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.comcastsucks.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, I checked the Comcast site (I still have access to my account though 2 weeks ago I had Verizon install FiOS at my residence), and in their FAQs for the limits, they advocate that users install a bandwidth monitor from a third party.
My problems with that solution is that a bandwidth monitor has to be installed on each computer/device connected to the network. Things like AppleTV, NetFlix Roku, Vudu, Fyrebox, SlinBox, and many others are not something a monitor can be installed on. And because of that, you won't ever have an accurate picture of your usage.
Verizon does have a bandwidth monitor tool accessible via this link:(http://netservices.verizon.net/portal/link/help/item&objId=22828), but verizon is reporting at (https://netservices.verizon.net/portal/link/main/onlineusage?linkflag=user_fios_primary_east_undeci ded) that:
"We are sorry, but your current Internet connection service does not monitor online usage."
That seems to mean that FiOS users (at least as of August 2008) are not subject to bandwidth limits from Verizon.
Dial-Up and DSL users probably are, so the link for the tool is there for them.
In my mind, Verizon has done this right--they have a bandwidth cap, and they provide a tool that shows usage by account.
Comcast needs to do better, and its customers should report the lack of a unified account usage monitor to the FTC, FCC, and their elected representatives.
Ditto for any other ISP that has usage limits and doesn't provide an easiy accessed report or monitoring tool.
Now, while I think 250GB is a pretty liberal limit, that is for now.
250GB is the standard HDD size most manufacturers put in their default configurations for laptops.
But as bandwidth increases, so will default HDD size, and as they move up, so should the bandwidth limit. (If they don't, it's probably a good indication that the ISP isn't doing anything to improve their network infrastructure.)
Also, if the bandwidth cap doesn't apply to offerings from the ISP (viewing video on your PC via the Internet), but it does to a competitor, then that is also an issue.
Woadan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.panhandleparade.com/index.php/mbb/article/comcast_settles_with_attorney_generals _office/mbb779610/
Comcast Settles with Attorney General’s Office
08/29/08 - 11:51 AM
Attorney General Bill McCollum
Tallahassee, Fla:
ATTORNEY GENERAL REACHES $150,000 SETTLEMENT WITH COMCAST
~ Settlement resolves concerns over disclosures related to bandwidth use ~
TALLAHASSEE, FL - Attorney General Bill McCollum today announced his office has reached a $150,000 settlement with Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC and its affiliated entities resolving concerns over disclosure issues related to bandwidth use policies. Comcast will reimburse the state $50,000 for the costs of its investigation and will contribute $100,000 to fund future investigations on behalf of Florida consumers.
The Attorney General’s Economic Crimes Division began investigating the enforcement of Comcast’s high speed internet “Acceptable Use Policy” which, in part, prohibited the excessive use of bandwidth or downloading. According to the policy, the company would notify customers of excessive use and if a customer’s bandwidth usage did not significantly decrease, that customer faced the discontinuation of his or her high speed internet service. Comcast, however, allegedly did not inform consumers of a specific bandwidth limit, which led to concerns about the proper disclosure of the terms of usage.
Under today’s settlement, reached with Comcast’s full cooperation, the company has agreed not to enforce the excessive use policy without prior clear and conspicuous disclosure of the specific amount of bandwidth usage that would be considered in violation of the policy. The new policy will take effect no later than January, 1, 2009.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have Comcast & here are the facts.
In it, they explicitly say that nothing has changed since they announced the 250gb limit. As it has always been their policy, they look at the top bandwidth users each month and notify them via a phone call that they are using too much. (NOTE: These calls are where the whole 'invisible cap' issue came up b/c of people using the BitTorrent protocol excessively, forcing Comcast to use sandvine. The FCC hearing was about Comcast using sandvine without telling the customers. Then, these two issues got merged when the FCC said they had to disclose more information about their network practices and stop using sandvine. But in fact, they are two separate issues that all got resolved at once, with help from the FCC.) This equates to less than half of 1% of their customers in any given area. These users have ALWAYS used WAY more than 250GB/month. All the "cap" did was set a threshold that they will NEVER call/complain about.
If you do not go over the limit, you have nothing to worry about.
If you go over it, and are not one of the top users, you will not get a call. Period.
If you go over it, and are one of the top users, you will get a call.
So, in effect, their policy HAS NOT CHANGED. This cap/limit was just put out there to make the FCC (and some stupid users) shut up about the false advertising BS.
Anyone that HAS been contacted by Comcast for excessive usage, IS overwhelmingly using the service against the TOS/UA. PERIOD.
If they contact you; and, you tell them you are using it for business purposes, they will cut off your service and make you upgrade to Business Class (which has no limit that anyone is aware of...why would it?).
And yes, for those of you that still want to argue, Comcast specifically said that NOTHING HAS CHANGED ON THEIR END WITH REGARDS TO CALLING CUSTOMERS ABOUT EXCESSIVE USAGE, AS NO ONE THEY HAVE EVER CONTACTED USED LESS THAN 250GB. If you can't follow that logic, then: they will continue calling the top users, and only the top users, regardless of how many people actually go over 250GB/month.
This is a fake cap that is used for no purpose other than to make you guys shut up. Nothing has changed on Comcast's end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One last point.
They do not put a quota on your cable modem's MAC address. If you hit 249,999,999KB then download a 2KB e-mail, you will not be shut off half-way through the e-mail. Your internet will still work. And, as long as you aren't one of the top, top, top users, you will never hear a thing from Comcast.
Have you heard anything from them yet? Then you still won't, because their practices of contacting top usage customers has not and will not change.
I hope this has gotten through because reading your comments almost made my head explode from all the idiotic rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]