PDA

View Full Version : Comcast to Place a Cap on Internet Downloads



Nitro
08-31-2008, 10:15 AM
Comcast to Place a Cap on Internet Downloads

Comcast, one of the country’s largest Internet providers, said this week that it would place limits on customers’ broadband usage.

Beginning Oct. 1, Comcast will put a 250 gigabyte-a-month cap on residential users. The limit will not affect most users, at least not in the short-term, but is certain to create tension as some technologies gain traction.

A Comcast spokeswoman, Jennifer Khoury, said 250 gigabytes was about 100 times the typical usage; the average customer uses two to three gigabytes a month. Less than 1 percent of customers exceed the cap, she said.

Many Internet providers reserve the right to cancel the service of the most excessive users. The 250-gigabyte cap is Comcast’s way of specifying a longstanding policy of placing a limit on Internet consumption, and it comes after customer pushed for a definition of excessive use.

But on the Internet, consumer behavior does not stand still. As the technology company Cisco stated in a report last winter, “today’s ‘bandwidth hog’ is tomorrow’s average user.”

Some commentators were quick to characterize Comcast’s decision as having a chilling effect. Om Malik, the founder of the technology Web site GigaOm, called the cap “the end of the Internet as we know it.”

DSLReports.com, a Web site about consumer broadband information, said it indicated “a significant shift in the U.S. broadband market that won’t be reversible.”

In recent months Comcast and other companies have considered clamping down on their most active subscribers, saying the limits were necessary to ensure fair access to the network for all.

Comcast’s cap does not amount to Internet metering, the charging of different prices for different broadband speeds or usage, but the change to Comcast’s policy does not rule out metering in the future.

In June, Time Warner Cable began a metering trial in one Texas city by offering various monthly plans and charging extra when consumers exceeded their bandwidth limit. AT&T has said that it is considering a similar pricing plan. The concept is not a foreign one; consumers already pay by usage for water and electricity. But broadband access has seemed unlimited, and any stifling of that is sure to concern some customers.

Until now, Comcast had not defined excessive use, but it had contacted customers who were using the heaviest amount of broadband and asked them to curb usage. Most do so willingly, the company said. The ones who do not curb their usage receive a second notice and risk having their accounts terminated.

Although the 250 gigabyte cap is now specified, users who exceed that amount will not have their access switched off immediately, nor will they be charged for excessive use. Instead, the customers may be contacted by Comcast and notified of the cap. The company did not say how 250 gigabytes was selected.

According to Comcast, a customer would have to download 62,500 songs or 125 standard-definition movies a month to exceed the caps. But high-definition video and video gaming require a higher amount of bandwidth. S. Derek Turner, the research director for the nonpartisan media policy group Free Press, said broadband caps could create a disincentive to view online video.

“As media companies put content online, consumers can bypass the cable companies and get their content directly from the Internet,” Mr. Turner said. “A 250 gigabyte cap may seem very high — and it is for today’s Internet use. But it’s essentially the equivalent of four hours of HD television a day.”

Critics have charged that Internet providers are trying to protect their cable TV and telephone businesses by stifling Internet access. Comcast says Fancast, its online video Web site, will count against the 250 gigabyte limit, but its digital voice service will not.

Comcast said there was no link between the caps, announced Thursday, and the Federal Communications Commission’s finding on Aug. 1 that the company was improperly inhibiting customers who used BitTorrent, a popular file-sharing program.

But Andrew Jay Schwartzman, the president of the Media Access Project, said the caps appeared to be a direct result of that finding. Mr. Schwartzman’s group represented Free Press in its complaint against Comcast about the file-sharing controls.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/technology/30comcast.html?em


Anyone going ot get affected by this? I say you change your ISP asap and hopefully millions of others will as well so that they will get the message that customers will not pay for such inferior service.

Bingo
08-31-2008, 01:30 PM
I have to admit that I really don't have a problem with this.

The limit they are putting on is amazingly high to me. I can't see how someone could blow through this unless they were doing something that either was a commercial-scale operation or was approaching that level.

Nitro
08-31-2008, 02:47 PM
DSLReports.com, a Web site about consumer broadband information, said it indicated “a significant shift in the U.S. broadband market that won’t be reversible.”

and

As the technology company Cisco stated in a report last winter, “today’s ‘bandwidth hog’ is tomorrow’s average user.”


It's true, this will not effect anyone right now, essentially, for now but it is alarming since they will probably try to see how much they could get away with and keep imposing stricter and harsher bandwidth limits.

Pure_Evil
08-31-2008, 02:52 PM
They provide the service, they can dictate, 250 per month, that's pretty reasonable to me.

OUTLAWS high ping camper
08-31-2008, 06:55 PM
I'd have to be unemployed to have enough time to download over 250 gigs a month. And quite frankly I am finding less and less "things" worth downloading.
The current music, movie, and gaming industries are producing lack luster products (in my humble opinion). :)

FUS1ON
08-31-2008, 10:58 PM
That's BS HPC because I heard that Rapidshare had banned yo ass for excessive usage. :P

OUTLAWS WHOCARES
08-31-2008, 11:08 PM
That's BS HPC because I heard that Rapidshare had banned yo ass for excessive usage. :P


It's all the Porn and pictures of bugs he sends to me that give me nightmares.

OUTLAWS high ping camper
08-31-2008, 11:36 PM
Shhhhhhh......you 2 hush up! :D

Heh heh I thought of you last night Who, there was a huge green and white striped beetle where I work. *just googled it : It was a June bug. Here's a pic of it:



**sorry for going off topic (in the off topic section)

OUTLAWS WHOCARES
08-31-2008, 11:58 PM
Dude that thing has fur. I would let out a yelp like a little girl and run with my arms flapping in the wind.

OUTLAWS high ping camper
09-01-2008, 12:39 AM
lol......lol don't worry, I won't put it in an envelope and mail it to you..... :)

Mr Clean
09-02-2008, 04:23 PM
Well, the FCC already smacked Comcast down last month for their "data management" policies they had employed. While that ruling didn't say much about bandwidth caps, I expect this latest move by Comcast will also be heavily commented on by people and then reviewed by the FCC as well. It will be interesting to see what happens with this...

BobtheCkroach
09-02-2008, 04:33 PM
I'm a Comcast customer, I'm on their crazy 16 meg service, and I'm fine with it.

If 2-3 gig is "average", than the quote about a "bandwidth hog" that nitro is using might very well mean something like 10 gig, or 15. 250 might be into the "bandwidth hog of 4 steps down the road" timeframe.

Either way, it's not like teh limit is set in stone. If they start shrinking it, I'd get nervous. If it stays there for a while, then moves to 300 or 500, I don't see the big deal. It's too early to get up in arms about this.

This is like getting mad because the "All you can eat buffet" kicked you out when the store closed after you had been there since noon, even though you weren't done. At some point, they're losing money on you. Sure, the thing is a balancing act - for every one of you that costs them money, there's a grandma out there that checks her email once a day and makes them a ton of money, but there's a point at which you're just costing a bunch. Makes sense to me to charge for excessive use, especially when the "limit" is 125 times the average usage.

JIMINATOR
09-02-2008, 05:32 PM
250gb is 50 DVDs a month. I download a lot of stuff for viewing, but I doubt I come close to that.

Nitro
09-02-2008, 09:52 PM
Yea seriously..who exactly uses that much bandwidth a year? Are they streaming HD video or something? What could even use up that much bandwidth outside hardcore satellite real time imaging and other high tech tools.

ME BIGGD01
09-03-2008, 11:44 AM
I don't know, I see no reason to limit anything. Even though I probably dont use that much bandwidth, I see no reason to put on a limit. HD content in transfer can add up. I would rather they open the pipe more to be honest.

Mr Clean
09-04-2008, 07:39 PM
Comcast just filed suit against the FCC on its ruling about their "data management" policies. Apparently Comcast feels the FCC is legally unjustified in their ruling. This is going to have a big impact on the future of the net as we know it possibly...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26546897/

FUS1ON
09-22-2008, 11:24 PM
I just got this


Dear Comcast High-Speed Internet Customer,

We appreciate your business and strive to provide you with the best online experience possible. One of the ways we do this is through our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). The AUP outlines acceptable use of our service as well as steps we take to protect our customers from things that can negatively impact their experience online. This policy has been in place for many years and we update it periodically to keep it current with our customers' use of our service.

On October 1, 2008, we will post an updated AUP that will go into effect at that time.

In the updated AUP, we clarify that monthly data (or bandwidth) usage of more than 250 Gigabytes (GB) is the specific threshold that defines excessive use of our service. We have an excessive use policy because a fraction of one percent of our customers use such a disproportionate amount of bandwidth every month that they may degrade the online experience of other customers.

250 GB/month is an extremely large amount of bandwidth and it's very likely that your monthly data usage doesn't even come close to that amount. In fact, the threshold is approximately 100 times greater than the typical or median residential customer usage, which is 2 to 3 GB/month. To put it in perspective, to reach 250 GB of data usage in one month a customer would have to do any one of the following:

* Send more than 50 million plain text emails (at 5 KB/email);
* Download 62,500 songs (at 4 MB/song); or
* Download 125 standard definition movies (at 2 GB/movie).

And online gamers should know that even the heaviest multi- or single-player gaming activity would not typically come close to this threshold over the course of a month.

In addition to modifying the excessive use policy, the updated AUP contains other clarifications of terms concerning reporting violations, newsgroups, and network management. To read some helpful FAQs, please visit http://help.comcast.net/content/faq/Frequently-Asked-Questions-about-Excessive-Use.

Thank you again for choosing Comcast as your high-speed Internet provider.

Nitro
09-24-2008, 01:20 PM
Seems like Comcast is the most restrictive ISP out there, effectively censoring your internet.

Lights out for Usenet access through Comcast

Comcast has become the latest ISP to shut down access to Usenet newsgroups as part of a voluntary agreement to try and fight child porn online. Users of the ISP giant found themselves unable to access Comcast's newsgroups over the weekend, and the company has posted a notice on its web site saying that its newsgroup service has been discontinued.

Comcast, along with 17 other cable providers across the US, first announced that it would no longer offer Usenet access to subscribers in July of this year. The voluntary measures were part of an agreement among the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), and the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) in order to take part in an "industry-wide attack on child pornography."

The cable providers that made the pact cover 87 percent of US homes, so this is no small agreement—everyone from Comcast to Time Warner to Cox has signed on. Additionally, Verizon announced that it was going to block access to the entire alt.* hierarchy in June, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger asked members of the California Internet Service Provider Association to consider blocking newsgroups that contain child porn as well.

Usage of Usenet has declined significantly in recent years—it was much more popular in the early days of the Internet in the 80s and 90s—and has largely been replaced by message boards and mailing lists. Amid the warez and other binaries groups rife with copyrighted content is still a lot of perfectly legitimate, innocent, and relevant dialog occurring across the newsgroups, however, with only a few problem areas causing headaches. As we have suggested in the past, this form of overzealous approach could turn into a trend that enables governments to regulate content that is arbitrarily deemed harmful to the public good or even commercial interests.

In fact, Comcast's Help & Support section makes it clear that its move to block newsgroups is more about offloading responsibility than actually trying to fight child porn. In response to a question over whether Comcast offers newsgroups service, the company advises interested subscribers to choose from one of several third-party newsgroup providers. Of course, you'll have to pay extra for that and Comcast's monthly fees won't be going down in order to compensate for the loss of a service that's not being replaced (a Comcast spokesperson told Ars that it was considered a "complimentary service" that has seen a decline in popularity), but you can still get access to newsgroups if you really want them for a few more dollars a month and a little bit of extra effort—two things we don't see stopping child pornographers anytime soon.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080922-lights-out-for-usenet-access-through-comcast.html

Now they're using the argument of child porn as a reason to censor internet. What's next? Censoring "anonymouse blogs" like the EU is talking about?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/3059617/Euro-MPs-to-vote-on-anonymous-blog-ban.html

OUTLAWS high ping camper
09-24-2008, 07:24 PM
Making someone pay to gain access to newsgroups just makes it easier to see who's using them. Which in turn helps to catch the child porn deviants.

Mr Clean
09-27-2008, 07:05 AM
I remember all the nets from back in the day. FungusNet and UseNet and so forth and so on. Of course back then it was more mainstream instead of inhabited by deviants. Still, they need to tread lightly. I am all for catching child pornographers, but it needs to be done without squashing Net neutrality...