• Welcome to the Off-Topic/Schweb's Lounge

    In addition to the Mac-Forums Community Guidelines, there are a few things you should pay attention to while in The Lounge.

    Lounge Rules
    • If your post belongs in a different forum, please post it there.
    • While this area is for off-topic conversations, that doesn't mean that every conversation will be permitted. The moderators will, at their sole discretion, close or delete any threads which do not serve a beneficial purpose to the community.

    Understand that while The Lounge is here as a place to relax and discuss random topics, that doesn't mean we will allow any topic. Topics which are inflammatory, hurtful, or otherwise clash with our Mac-Forums Community Guidelines will be removed.

Comcast to put cap on internet usage...

Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
1,760
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Location
Leicester, England
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook, iPod Classic, 8GB 3G iPhone, Time Capsule
250GB isn't too bad but terminating your service for going over it twice in 6 months seems a bit extreme!
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
103
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
2008 MacBook Pro 15.4" 2.4GHz 4GB, 19in Viewsonic LCD, Mac Alum keyboard, Razer Diamondback 3G
Hmmm glad I don't have to worry about that in about 1 month...just have to worry about campus limits on file sharing...glad I go to a tech school :D
 

cwa107


Retired Staff
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
27,042
Reaction score
812
Points
113
Location
Lake Mary, Florida
Your Mac's Specs
14" MacBook Pro M1 Pro, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD
250GB isn't too bad but terminating your service for going over it twice in 6 months seems a bit extreme!

It is if you plan on downloading HD content on a regular basis - like watching movies on an AppleTV. Of course that's a boon to Comcast, since I'm sure they don't put similar caps on renting their "on-demand" movies through the normal cable TV service.

Hopefully the FCC steps in at some point and sees this practice for what it really is... anti-competitive behavior.
 

cwa107


Retired Staff
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
27,042
Reaction score
812
Points
113
Location
Lake Mary, Florida
Your Mac's Specs
14" MacBook Pro M1 Pro, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD
Wireless carriers do it, too.

But most wireless carriers don''t advertise the service as "unlimited", nor are you locked into service with one particular vendor. In this country, it's mostly rare that more than one broadband service is available in a given area.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2007
Messages
5,658
Reaction score
159
Points
63
Location
*Brisvegas*
Your Mac's Specs
17 inch 2 GHz C2D imac (5,1) with 3GB DDR2 RAM, X1600 (128MB memory) GPU - OSX 10.6.3
250GB bandwith is a lot. But say they implement this. Fine. But what if say a year later they say hey this isn't working. We need to downsize the limit to 100GB then even less. Who's to stop them?

For that reason I am against the idea.
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
3,169
Reaction score
164
Points
63
Location
North NJ
Your Mac's Specs
i dont have no mac's
comcast keeps getting beaten up for trying to implement this sort of thing. Instead of embracing new technology comcast is trying to push it away by imposing caps on what you can do and how much you can do it. as people drop their comcast internet service with their tv and phone plan as well...comcast will realize that this is a bad idea.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
191
Points
63
Location
Tucson, AZ
Your Mac's Specs
Way... way too many specs to list.
250GB bandwith is a lot. But say they implement this. Fine. But what if say a year later they say hey this isn't working. We need to downsize the limit to 100GB then even less. Who's to stop them?

For that reason I am against the idea.
250GB is a lot NOW. It won't be in 3 years. Who's to stop them? No one, but you have options.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
56
Reaction score
1
Points
8
But most wireless carriers don''t advertise the service as "unlimited", nor are you locked into service with one particular vendor.

Not sure what you mean by "vendor." Do you mean carrier?

Until recently, most wireless carriers that offered flat-rate, unlimited-use data plans used the word "unlimited" in their marketing, even if it had an asterisk after it. AT&T Mobility is one example, and I know because only recently did they start mentioning a 5 GB cap.

Another example is Sprint. Their Simply Everything says unlimited, although you have to read the fine print to find out that they don't want you running a server.

In this country, it's mostly rare that more than one broadband service is available in a given area.

If you mean the United States, that's incorrect. According to a January 2008 NTIA, report, 91.5 percent of Zip codes are served by at least three competing broadband providers.
 

cwa107


Retired Staff
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
27,042
Reaction score
812
Points
113
Location
Lake Mary, Florida
Your Mac's Specs
14" MacBook Pro M1 Pro, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD
Not sure what you mean by "vendor." Do you mean carrier?

Yes, carrier.

Until recently, most wireless carriers that offered flat-rate, unlimited-use data plans used the word "unlimited" in their marketing, even if it had an asterisk after it. AT&T Mobility is one example, and I know because only recently did they start mentioning a 5 GB cap.

Another example is Sprint. Their Simply Everything says unlimited, although you have to read the fine print to find out that they don't want you running a server.

But does that make it right?

If you mean the United States, that's incorrect. According to a January 2008 NTIA, report, 91.5 percent of Zip codes are served by at least three competing broadband providers.

Sorry, but I won't accept that report as gospel. My company deploys hundreds of work-at-home employees in home offices throughout the country and in the vast majority of cases, only one broadband provider is available (and I'm intentionally excluding Satellite and wireless providers, since those services bring with them a ton of caveats).
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
56
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Yes, carrier.

But does that make it right?

Sorry, but I won't accept that report as gospel. My company deploys hundreds of work-at-home employees in home offices throughout the country and in the vast majority of cases, only one broadband provider is available (and I'm intentionally excluding Satellite and wireless providers, since those services bring with them a ton of caveats).

Unless you've got an unlocked phone or can get the unlock code, you're stuck with the carrier that subsidized your phone's retail price. In the industry, that's known as "subsidy lock."

I don't have a problem with AT&T's 5 GB limit because they don't enforce it unless you go waaaay over that. I know because I regularly use twice that much per month, and I've never heard anything or been charged extra. Same thing for Sprint: For years I've been using my PPC-6700 as a radio by listening to stations' streams, and Sprint has never complained or charged me extra.

If you exclude wireless and satellite ops, of course it's going to be less than three or less than 91.5 percent. Personally I don't have a problem with cellular broadband in terms of speed or pricing. In fact, in some places, it's faster and a better deal than what you get from, say, CenturyTel.

On the wired side, 32 percent of rural service providers have deployed FTTC or FTTH, nearly triple from 2005. So even in the boondocks, you often can get multi-megabit service.
 

cwa107


Retired Staff
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
27,042
Reaction score
812
Points
113
Location
Lake Mary, Florida
Your Mac's Specs
14" MacBook Pro M1 Pro, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD
Unless you've got an unlocked phone or can get the unlock code, you're stuck with the carrier that subsidized your phone's retail price. In the industry, that's known as "subsidy lock."

My point is that this isn't an apt analogy. In the wireless phone world, you might have to pay a penalty to get out of your contract, but at least you have the ability to leave under protest and go to multiple carriers of your choosing. This is not always true of the broadband market. So, in some markets you're locked into one provider and have limited choice.

I don't have a problem with AT&T's 5 GB limit because they don't enforce it unless you go waaaay over that. I know because I regularly use twice that much per month, and I've never heard anything or been charged extra. Same thing for Sprint: For years I've been using my PPC-6700 as a radio by listening to stations' streams, and Sprint has never complained or charged me extra.

I'm sure it's not a big deal in that industry - but the many and varied uses for broadband keep on growing, so instead of beefing up their infrastructure, Comcast has chosen to crack down on utilization. To me, that's wrong - especially when one of the primary benefits of broadband has historically been "unlimited" service. I can certainly understand if Comcast wants to offer tiered service for less money. But to take an existing service and subtract value from it, without lowering the cost is a problem for me.

If you exclude wireless and satellite ops, of course it's going to be less than three or less than 91.5 percent. Personally I don't have a problem with cellular broadband in terms of speed or pricing. In fact, in some places, it's faster and a better deal than what you get from, say, CenturyTel.

My problem with it is that it's too unreliable. There are too many factors that can cause a connectivity drop or increase latency. That's a problem when you're running session-based protocols that require low latency. So, to me, it's just not in the same class as landline-based broadband service.

I just want to be comparing apples to apples here.

On the wired side, 32 percent of rural service providers have deployed FTTC or FTTH, nearly triple from 2005. So even in the boondocks, you often can get multi-megabit service.

I find that surprising. I live in Middletown, PA - just outside of the state capital, Harrisburg. Middletown is known for being the home of Three Mile Island, and although there is still a bit of farmland in the area, it's not what I would classify as rural. FTTC/FTTH is nowhere to be found until you get closer to Harrisburg. Now, this is anecdotal at best, but looking around in my neck of the woods, I'd say penetration is very limited.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
56
Reaction score
1
Points
8
My point is that this isn't an apt analogy. In the wireless phone world, you might have to pay a penalty to get out of your contract, but at least you have the ability to leave under protest and go to multiple carriers of your choosing. This is not always true of the broadband market. So, in some markets you're locked into one provider and have limited choice.

Again, it depends on the types of networks (e.g., DSL, sat) that you're willing to limit yourself to. I'd love to have FiOS, but it's not available in my area. So I content myself with cable, which is about 12 Mbps down.

I'm sure it's not a big deal in that industry

It's a huge deal. For example, in a suburban or urban area, if the carrier has enough high-bandwidth users, it either has to add radios and more backhaul to each cell site, or it has to start splitting cells to add capacity, at $100K-$250K per base station. That's part of the appeal of WiMAX, which supposedly has a cost structure three to five times lower than 3G: They can cater to heavy data users without charging more than the cellular ops -- or at least that's what WiMAX ops hope.

but the many and varied uses for broadband keep on growing, so instead of beefing up their infrastructure, Comcast has chosen to crack down on utilization. To me, that's wrong - especially when one of the primary benefits of broadband has historically been "unlimited" service. I can certainly understand if Comcast wants to offer tiered service for less money. But to take an existing service and subtract value from it, without lowering the cost is a problem for me.

Or Comcast, et al are adding limitations to an existing service rather than raising prices, which they probably can't do in many markets because of the competitive environment.

How do you know that Comcast hasn't beefed up its infrastructure? You can find out by looking through their SEC filings to see what their capex is. Somebody has gotta pay for that, and I don't think shareholders are going to be willing to foot that bill. Neither are most customers, so caps might be their only option to make the numbers add up.
 

cwa107


Retired Staff
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
27,042
Reaction score
812
Points
113
Location
Lake Mary, Florida
Your Mac's Specs
14" MacBook Pro M1 Pro, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD
Again, it depends on the types of networks (e.g., DSL, sat) that you're willing to limit yourself to. I'd love to have FiOS, but it's not available in my area. So I content myself with cable, which is about 12 Mbps down.

Sure, but in the context of forming an analogy between wireless providers and broadband providers, my point is that in general, there is less consumer choice when comparing broadband providers that provide the same degree of service.

It's a huge deal. For example, in a suburban or urban area, if the carrier has enough high-bandwidth users, it either has to add radios and more backhaul to each cell site, or it has to start splitting cells to add capacity, at $100K-$250K per base station. That's part of the appeal of WiMAX, which supposedly has a cost structure three to five times lower than 3G: They can cater to heavy data users without charging more than the cellular ops -- or at least that's what WiMAX ops hope.

Agreed.

Or Comcast, et al are adding limitations to an existing service rather than raising prices, which they probably can't do in many markets because of the competitive environment.

How do you know that Comcast hasn't beefed up its infrastructure? You can find out by looking through their SEC filings to see what their capex is. Somebody has gotta pay for that, and I don't think shareholders are going to be willing to foot that bill. Neither are most customers, so caps might be their only option to make the numbers add up.

I could care less how they foot the bill. If it weren't profitable, they wouldn't be in the business. My problem with Comcast is that the product was sold as one thing, but morphed into another and many consumers are left in the lurch as a result.

Clearly Comcast isn't willing to invest in the appropriate infrastructure to maintain the established performance level without limiting consumption. That may be a wise move from a shareholder's perspective, but it's still anti-consumer.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
56
Reaction score
1
Points
8
I could care less how they foot the bill. If it weren't profitable, they wouldn't be in the business. My problem with Comcast is that the product was sold as one thing, but morphed into another and many consumers are left in the lurch as a result.

Clearly Comcast isn't willing to invest in the appropriate infrastructure to maintain the established performance level without limiting consumption. That may be a wise move from a shareholder's perspective, but it's still anti-consumer.

Exactly how many are left in the lurch? I haven't seen any numbers in the press.

Plus, Comcast and the other ISPs can add all of the capacity they want, but unless the big backbone providers do likewise, we'll have the same situation: a minority of bandwidth hogs deteriorating service for everyone else.
 

cwa107


Retired Staff
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
27,042
Reaction score
812
Points
113
Location
Lake Mary, Florida
Your Mac's Specs
14" MacBook Pro M1 Pro, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD
Exactly how many are left in the lurch? I haven't seen any numbers in the press.

Do you work for Comcast or something? I only ask because it seems like you're taking a really hard line on this.

I just think it sucks for all of the reasons I've outlined in previous posts. I'm really not prepared to produce statistics here, just express my opinion, myopic as it may be.

Plus, Comcast and the other ISPs can add all of the capacity they want, but unless the big backbone providers do likewise, we'll have the same situation: a minority of bandwidth hogs deteriorating service for everyone else.

I can agree from that standpoint, but I don't think the limitations of the backbone providers are the cause for this action on Comcast's part, do you? I mean, Verizon has yet to impose similar limitations and they're supplying quite a bit more bandwidth in some of their FIOS tiers.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
56
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Do you work for Comcast or something? I only ask because it seems like you're taking a really hard line on this.

I just think it sucks for all of the reasons I've outlined in previous posts. I'm really not prepared to produce statistics here, just express my opinion, myopic as it may be.

I can agree from that standpoint, but I don't think the limitations of the backbone providers are the cause for this action on Comcast's part, do you? I mean, Verizon has yet to impose similar limitations and they're supplying quite a bit more bandwidth in some of their FIOS tiers.

No, I don't work for Comcast. I just cover the telecom industry.

Verizon has said that it prefers the idea of charging based on usage (e.g., tiers of GB). Lots of other ISPs (e.g., AT&T, Time Warner Cable) are considering that alternative. Rogers (60GB cap, $1.25-$5 per additional Gigabyte) and BendBroadband are among the ISPs that have gone that route.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top