# Comcast Considering 250GB Cap, Overage Fees



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

From Broadband Reports:

*Comcast Considering 250GB Cap, Overage Fees*
Insider provides details of new 'protocol agnostic' solution


> A Comcast insider tells me the company is considering implementing very clear monthly caps, and may begin charging overage fees for customers who cross them. While still in the early stages of development, the plan -- as it stands now -- would work like this: all users get a 250GB per month cap. Users would get one free "slip up" in a twelve month period, after which users would pay a $15 charge for each 10 GB over the cap they travel. According to the source, the plan has "a lot of momentum behind it," and initial testing is slated to begin in a month or two.
> 
> "The intent appears to be to go after the people who consistently download far more than the typical user without hurting those who may have a really big month infrequently," says an insider familiar with the project, who prefers to remain anonymous. "As far as I am aware, uploads are not affected, at least not initially." According to this source, the new system should only impact some 14,000 customers out of Comcast's 14.1 million users (i.e. the top 0.1%).


FULL ARTICLE HERE

Gee, 250GB sounds like a lot.... until you consider on-demand video content.  Absolutely Comtastic.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

$15 for 10GB. At really good compression rates, 10GB will give you about 5-9 hours of HD content (H.264 to DivX codecs).

I'm *so* glad I have fiber.


----------



## Trurida18 (Jan 29, 2008)

ive had it with comcast....they are throttling like crazy.....

Here i come DSL until FiOS is available in the next 6 months


----------



## Rob-NovA (Jan 10, 2008)

Is there any way to check your usage? I'd be curious to see what my volume looks like now that my wife has found the VOD feature... It's great for kids programs!


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You know, I'm expecting to see more of this sort of thing in the coming years. For a long time, increases in bandwidth were paid for by cheap purchases of dark fiber left over from the tech bust of '02. Now that those resources are drying up and it actually costs money to increase bandwidth, you're going to see companies trying to get that investment to pay off. 

This is where the providers are just being selfish. Comcast is going to need to add bandwidth for HD anyway, and telcos (verizon/AT&T) are way ahead in their plans to get fiber to the home. 

I see a big backlash when people start getting charged for something they've paid a flat fee for in the past.


----------



## OverThereTooMuch (Aug 19, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> This is where the providers are just being selfish. Comcast is going to need to add bandwidth for HD anyway, and telcos (verizon/AT&T) are way ahead in their plans to get fiber to the home.


http://www.comcast.com/About/PressRelease/PressReleaseDetail.ashx?PRID=748http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?...-US&lang=en-US&w=971e9b75,c3ff3860&FORM=CVRE7

Comcast - 13.2m internet customers

http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2008/verizon-to-expand-its-revoluti.html

Verizon - 1.8m FiOS customers

AT&T UVerse (that's their high speed offering, right?) - can't find subscriber numbers, except http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6497700.html that mentions 126k UVerse tv customers.

Comcast doesn't have to worry about the telcos for a while still.


----------



## Juggernaut (Apr 5, 2007)

Seems like this is a done deal. DoD users beware....

http://www.comcast.net/terms/network/amendment/


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

Honestly if you have an issue with this... call them, say you have a home based business and change your account to a business account for $10 more a month... not only will you not have a bandwidth cap, you will also get 16 mbps down... You will not want to do this however if you have TV service as well... your TV bill will triple...


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I just hope that FairPoint (who bought all of Verizon's ME/NH/VT land assets) doesn't decide to do something like that with the Fios customers (like me) that they bought. If it were still Verizon, I would be pretty confident. With these yahoos? Not so much.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

as I said over in the Directv forum,



rahlquist said:


> a HR2x with 320 Gig of which 220 is avail to you(isnt that the figure folks use) to use will get you 50 hours of recordings in HD, thats 25 movies a month in HD assuming 2 hours per movie.
> 
> May be high for a couple but for a family with kids also using the connection for other uses this could add up fast!
> 
> Add in things like Superfan where you are streaming some sports etc too.


 So anyone using a satellite on demand service, or Netflix on demand etc is going to start to suffer.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

rahlquist said:


> So anyone using a satellite on demand service, or Netflix on demand etc is going to start to suffer.


I'm Comcast Free since '03 .. 

Sorry to hear it's become policy now, though.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

Juggernaut said:


> Seems like this is a done deal. DoD users beware....
> 
> http://www.comcast.net/terms/network/amendment/


How does this affect the Department of Defense?

Just kidding 

I helped my brother (Oxford Ct) dump Comcast Internet when his service became so poor the browser would time out before connections could be established. Like most customers, he's just into email and the web. They lost about $500 a year when he dumped them. Multiply that by a thousand other lost customers and we begin to talk substantial money.

Maybe they can upgrade their infrastructure but if they did the business and bandwidth hogs would devise some new service to overload the net. Progress?

If I were a Comcast subscriber this wouldn't bother me; especially if it results in better response for common ole web browsing. My complaint with them would be their lies, cover-ups and deceit that preceded the official announcement.

And, there seems to be some perception of the Internet being invented to do things 'On the cheap'.

--- CHAS


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Comcast :nono2:

They may as well just shut down and go home now...


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

250GB cap? That's huge compared to what Frontier is doing to their DSL customers, how would you like a 5GB cap instead? Bjamin has it right. If Time Warner ever impliments caps in my area, I'll just move over to Road Runner Biz Class.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

The worrisome thing is that this business approach by Comcast, if it stays in place, is likely to spill over to other providers doing the same thing and lead to tiered usage rates being used by providers who are not affected by bandwidth issues. 

Is there a way to monitor or measure the amount of monthly GB bandwidth I'm using on my entire network to see if I'll eventually have a problem if my provider adopts caps?


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

Hansen said:


> Is there a way to monitor or measure the amount of monthly GB bandwidth I'm using on my entire network to see if I'll eventually have a problem if my provider adopts caps?


If they want to be fair they should provide you with a means to check your usage .. a web page with the pertinent data or a daily email stating 'biteage' consumed when it's projected that you will exceed the limit.

But, it will be difficult to convince the Comcasts to be 'fair'.

--- CHAS


----------



## Rob-NovA (Jan 10, 2008)

Hansen said:


> Is there a way to monitor or measure the amount of monthly GB bandwidth I'm using on my entire network to see if I'll eventually have a problem if my provider adopts caps?





HIPAR said:


> If they want to be fair they should provide you with a means to check your usage .. a web page with the pertinent data or a daily email stating 'biteage' consumed when it's projected that you will exceed the limit.
> 
> But, it will be difficult to convince the Comcasts to be 'fair'.
> 
> --- CHAS


In reading the FAQs on the Comcast site, they tell you to do an Internet search for bandwidth monitoring tools, and then have the further audacity to tell you that it is the customer's responsibility to measure for every PC/host on your network. If Comcast has the means to figure out that I've exceeded 240GB in a month, surely they have the means to be able to allow customers to monitor the same.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

Rob-NovA said:


> In reading the FAQs on the Comcast site, they tell you to do an Internet search for bandwidth monitoring tools, and then have the further audacity to tell you that it is the customer's responsibility to measure for every PC/host on your network. If Comcast has the means to figure out that I've exceeded 240GB in a month, surely they have the means to be able to allow customers to monitor the same.


You presume they dont want to charge for overages. Mwuhaha.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

Rob-NovA said:


> In reading the FAQs on the Comcast site, they tell you to do an Internet search for bandwidth monitoring tools, and then have the further audacity to tell you that it is the customer's responsibility to measure for every PC/host on your network. If Comcast has the means to figure out that I've exceeded 240GB in a month, surely they have the means to be able to allow customers to monitor the same.


That does seem ridiculous that they provide the user with no means to monitor it and require the user to find a solution themselves. The problem with using a monitor on each computer is that it does not resolve the issue of internet appliances in the household such as HR2x using DOD, Blu ray players using the 2.0 standard, and AV receivers that can stream audio from the net, and so many other things. The monitoring really needs to take place at the gateway or router that all devices go through. I bet that'll be a feature we see router manufacturers adding to their product lines and then marketing it for a higher product dollar.


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

Left them over a year ago when they startled this whole throttling mess. It wasn't just P2P either. I couldn't even have an iChat with my dad anymore due to the throttling. Everytime one of us spoke it would freeze up.

Left them for Qwest DSL. I get 5.5MB download for $36 a month. I was paying $63 a month for 4MB with Comcrap.

Very happy with the speed and price for life from Qwest.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

A 250GB cap should be of any concern for the next several years... and by the time it actually becomes of some concern, there will no doubt be a solution.

I download an enormous amount of material between movies, DoD and software from the TechNet site and I have been watching how much bandwidth I have been using for a couple of months now because of this issue.

I am running around 160GB for a month's time. That's a lot, and it will probably go up as more 1080P material becomes available, but other things will drop so it may be a wash. I don't see a 250GB cap as a problem any time soon.

One piece of useful information, that perhaps the mods could get for us would be an approximation of the download size of an hour of 1080P material.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> A 250GB cap should be of any concern for the next several years... and by the time it actually becomes of some concern, there will no doubt be a solution.


With all due respect Larry, I totally disagree. It's my belief once they start charging by the bucket for bandwidth instead of by the pipe it will NEVER leave us.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

250GB isn't much if you watch video or stream audio a lot.


----------



## Rob-NovA (Jan 10, 2008)

Hansen said:


> That does seem ridiculous that they provide the user with no means to monitor it and require the user to find a solution themselves. The problem with using a monitor on each computer is that it does not resolve the issue of internet appliances in the household such as HR2x using DOD, Blu ray players using the 2.0 standard, and AV receivers that can stream audio from the net, and so many other things. The monitoring really needs to take place at the gateway or router that all devices go through. I bet that'll be a feature we see router manufacturers adding to their product lines and then marketing it for a higher product dollar.


My point exactly. Maybe it's time for me to start playing with DD-WRT and see if that solution has a bandwidth monitor. I've got multiple PCs, HR2X and 2 Vonage lines. I don't think I'm anywhere close to the cap right now, but my wife loves On Demand and as more HD stuff rolls out, who knows?

Of course, I've also been looking for an excuse to upgrade to Wireless-N!... Hmmm... :lol:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

New York Times


> 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.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I'm sure Comcast will be happy to take payment from companies like DirecTV who wish to have their traffic not count against subscriber totals.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> 250GB cap? That's huge compared to what Frontier is doing to their DSL customers, how would you like a 5GB cap instead? Bjamin has it right. If Time Warner ever impliments caps in my area, I'll just move over to Road Runner Biz Class.


I think it will end up that if you have Frontier and use Dish, you'll be fine. Use DirecTV and it will count. If you backup your system with Carbonite, no problem, but use Mozy and they get you. They are already talking about excluding their partners from the limit. Whatever happened to Net Neutrality?


----------



## minorthr (Mar 18, 2003)

Looks like I'll be buying one of those Dlink gaming routers with the screen that tells you how much traffic has been going through it.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

dpeters11 said:


> .. Whatever happened to Net Neutrality?


If Net Neutrality means you you can get on and do whatever your want with no restrictions, then I would suggest it's a Utopian concept.

--- CHAS


----------



## btalbott (Oct 15, 2006)

I could envision this coming, especially since other service providers are riding on their backbone.

I don't know if there is a viable solution, especially since Directv is depending upon the broadband connection for getting content.

This is going to get interesting.

Bill


----------



## grover517 (Sep 29, 2007)

Ken S said:


> I'm sure Comcast will be happy to take payment from companies like DirecTV who wish to have their traffic not count against subscriber totals.


Or just kill any innovation by their competitors. I always suspected Comcrap was responsible for my DOD incomplete download issues and their "throttling"....

Comcast appeals FCC Web-blocking decision


The FCC noted Comcast's network management practices were "discriminatory and arbitrary" and that the company's practices "contravene industry standards and have significantly impeded Internet users' ability to use applications and access content of their choice."

The agency also noted that the type of traffic Comcast is blocking has become "a competitive threat" to cable operators because it is used by people to view high-quality video (from D*) that they "might otherwise watch (and pay for) on cable television." :nono2:


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

How many GB would a 1 hour HD program be from DOD? I'm currently using Comcast internet.


----------



## Slip Jigs (Oct 20, 2006)

But there appears that there won't be a limit on how many Comcast OnDemand HD movies I can stream, or any other Comcast content for that matter. Bandwidth is bandwidth, right? All coming in the house over the same pipe - what makes one protocol more valuable than the other?


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Exactly. But Comcast has to pay for access to the Internet backbones so the more they keep you 'in house' and not accessing 'the rest of the world', the cheaper it is for them.


----------

