OT: Comcast to cap internet use

[Tito]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080828/comcast_ ... .html?.v=2








Just to add to Tito's Post



Comcast Gets PWNED


WASHINGTON - Comcast Corp. is appealing an FCC ruling that the company is improperly blocking customers' Web traffic, triggering a legal battle that could determine the extent of the government's authority to regulate the Internet.

ADVERTISEMENT

In a precedent-setting move, a divided Federal Communications Commission last month determined that the company is violating a federal policy that guarantees unfettered access to the Internet.

Comcast challenged the FCC decision Thursday in the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington.

Comcast executive vice president David L. Cohen said in a statement that the company is seeking "review and reversal" of the FCC order and that the commission's action was "legally inappropriate and its findings were not justified by the record."

The Comcast case arose from complaints by users of a type of "file-sharing" software often used to download large data files, usually video.

Tests by The Associated Press and others found that file-sharing transmissions were aborting prematurely. It was later discovered that the company was cutting off transfers without informing customers.

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 that they "might otherwise watch (and pay for) on cable television."

While the FCC action did not include a fine, it does require Comcast within 30 days to disclose the details of its "discriminatory network management"; submit a compliance plan describing how it intends to stop these practices by the end of the year; and disclose to customers and the commission its new plan.

Cohen said Thursday that the company will comply with the FCC's order. Prior to the FCC action, the company had said it will switch to a management technique that treats all users the same by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, a public interest law firm representing two consumer groups and a California company that benefits from the type of file-sharing software targeted by Comcast filed appeals in New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco.

The legal challenges, filed last week, ask the court to force Comcast to cease its management practices immediately rather than by the end of the year.

The actions were more likely an attempt to avoid the District of Columbia court circuit, which is perceived as friendly to industry. If the cases are consolidated, the venue will be decided by lottery.

The plaintiffs are Consumers Union, in Yonkers, N.Y.; PennPIRG in Philadelphia; and Vuze Inc. of Redwood City, Calif. They are represented by the Media Access Project in Washington.

Comcast has said that it has delayed traffic, not blocked it — and that the FCC's so-called network-neutrality "principles" are part of a policy statement and not enforceable rules.

The FCC action came about in response to a complaint filed by public interest group Free Press and others.

Since the FCC vote, Comcast has announced that beginning Oct. 1, it would institute a broadband usage cap of 250 gigabytes per month for all residential customers. Comcast says to exceed that limit a customer would have to send 50 million e-mails or download 125 standard-definition movies.

[amaron]

IMO this sets a scary precedent.

Today it's 250GB, but what's to say they won't change that to fit their needs in the future?

[Tito]

IMO this sets a scary precedent.

Today it's 250GB, but what's to say they won't change that to fit their needs in the future?

I agree. You always here rumors about charging usage fees,etc. That will probably the wave of the future. Then, it will get so expensive the government will probably come in and give us universal internet use.

[Enigma869]

While I'm never a fan of a company limiting one's internet usage (and for the record, Comcast is my provider), there doesn't seem to be much of a story here. If their cap is 250GB, and their average subscriber uses 2 to 3 GB, it's not going to affect 98% of their client base. The other 2% simply need to stop downloading so much shit and go for a walk


John from Boston

[Tito]

While I'm never a fan of a company limiting one's internet usage (and for the record, Comcast is my provider), there doesn't seem to be much of a story here. If their cap is 250GB, and their average subscriber uses 2 to 3 GB, it's not going to affect 98% of their client base. The other 2% simply need to stop downloading so much shit and go for a walk


John from Boston

True but... next time it may be 150 then 100 then 50 then 10 then 1. Don't give the bastards an inch.

[Saint John]

While I'm never a fan of a company limiting one's internet usage (and for the record, Comcast is my provider), there doesn't seem to be much of a story here. If their cap is 250GB, and their average subscriber uses 2 to 3 GB, it's not going to affect 98% of their client base. The other 2% simply need to stop downloading so much shit and go for a walk


John from Boston

True but... next time it may be 150 then 100 then 50 then 10 then 1. Don't give the bastards an inch.

Easy, cowboy. Put your guns away, big guy.

[JrnyScarab]

While I'm never a fan of a company limiting one's internet usage (and for the record, Comcast is my provider), there doesn't seem to be much of a story here. If their cap is 250GB, and their average subscriber uses 2 to 3 GB, it's not going to affect 98% of their client base. The other 2% simply need to stop downloading so much shit and go for a walk


John from Boston

I'm sure I won't reach no 250GB but my son is always on playing online games. Any idea how many GB per hour online games take?

[amaron]

While I'm never a fan of a company limiting one's internet usage (and for the record, Comcast is my provider), there doesn't seem to be much of a story here. If their cap is 250GB, and their average subscriber uses 2 to 3 GB, it's not going to affect 98% of their client base. The other 2% simply need to stop downloading so much shit and go for a walk


John from Boston

I'm sure I won't reach no 250GB but my son is always on playing online games. Any idea how many GB per hour online games take?

250GB is a LOT of bandwidth. It's essentially 60 dvd's worth of data, which even a 24/7 web surfer will not hit.

This is to stop the people who download movies, games, etc all the time from Torrent sites.

My issue is that there is nothing that says that once the 250GB'ers are gone, they won't start dropping that 250 number.

[Arkansas]

While I'm never a fan of a company limiting one's internet usage (and for the record, Comcast is my provider), there doesn't seem to be much of a story here. If their cap is 250GB, and their average subscriber uses 2 to 3 GB, it's not going to affect 98% of their client base. The other 2% simply need to stop downloading so much shit and go for a walk


John from Boston

No s#it. Turn off the computer and take your a$$ outside.


later~

[Sarah]

While I'm never a fan of a company limiting one's internet usage (and for the record, Comcast is my provider), there doesn't seem to be much of a story here. If their cap is 250GB, and their average subscriber uses 2 to 3 GB, it's not going to affect 98% of their client base. The other 2% simply need to stop downloading so much shit and go for a walk


John from Boston

No s#it. Turn off the computer and take your a$$ outside.


later~

Uh most people set up downloads and then just leave it overnight or go do other things, it's not like they're just sitting there watching the progress bar.

I'm definitely against any Internets restriction. I'd never hit 250gb either but it's like other said... it will just get worse and worse if this happens...

[Rick]

As bad as Comcast sucks, and they do, they used to be my cable provider until it got switched out for Time Warner, and Time Warner sucks circles around Comcast. If Time Warner does ANYTHING, let me repeat A N Y T H I N G, to further reduce the service I'm getting right now, which is very substandard, I'm changing to something else immediately. Time Warner just simply stopped providing NNTP service about 2 months ago, with no warning whatsoever. Did my bill go down? You can answer that one yourself.

[Don]

The more programs get bigger, (like Adobe CS3 Master Collection) I Think the quicker caps will come in. When People start downloading things like 50 gb BlueRay discs, I think that's what they're worried about. It might take a week to D/L but a lot of people leave their torrents running 24/7.

[Rick]

The more programs get bigger, (like Adobe CS3 Master Collection) I Think the quicker caps will come in. When People start downloading things like 50 gb BlueRay discs, I think that's what they're worried about. It might take a week to D/L but a lot of people leave their torrents running 24/7.

That's probably true.

I just read an article on it, and it sounds like most are following suit if they don't already have a cap. So switching probably won't do me a bit of good.

[T-Bone]

Memo To Comcast: Show Us the Meter for Metered Broadband

From gigaom: Comcast is out defending its bandwidth caps and how they are not bad. And how 250 GB transfer is plenty and enough to do whatever we want to do. Of course, in today’s terms that is more than enough, but what happens in the future? Nevertheless, if they are going to put caps, then they need to give us what I think is an acceptable expectation: a meter.

Metered billing needs a meter we can see, use and monitor any time we desire to do so. Water and electric utilities provide that meter (regardless of whether we use it or not), so why not Comcast?

If a customer surpasses 250 GB and is one of the top users of the service for a second time within a six-month timeframe, his or her service will be subject to termination for one year. After the one year period expires, the customer may resume service by subscribing to a service plan appropriate to his or her needs.

Figure out a way to tell us what our monthly usage is, and let us know if we are running up against a 250 GB cap, so that we know when to stop and not pay overage. I want to know at every single minute how much bandwidth I have used.

After all, if someone crosses the 250 GB twice in six months, they are going to get tossed out. The burden of proof lies with Comcast to prove, measure and meter to the most accurate byte of data transferred.

Another Question For Comcast: If you’re going to meter, then please let us know how you are factoring in the overhead associated with TCP/IP. Will this be included or excluded in the cap? After all, overhead includes control messages (session control, packet headers) and this can be as high as 40 percent.

This is where FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has to step up and do something. If he is going to allow Comcast to put caps in place, then the FCC needs a firm bond from Comcast saying that they wouldn’t lower the caps to, say, 150 GB or 100 GB using the same lame excuse of 1 percent people degrading the network.

You want to know why I think they are going to obfuscate the issue and fudge the numbers sooner or later using some Enron math? Just go to the FAQ page that explains their 250 GB cap decision. You will consume 250 GB in a month if you do any of the following:

* Sending 20,000 high-resolution photos,
* Sending 40 million emails;
* Downloading 50,000 songs; or
* Viewing 8,000 movie trailers.

…but then lower down on the same page, they say:

* Send 50 million emails (at 0.05 KB/email)
* Download 62,500 4 MB songs (at 4 MB/song)
* Download 125 standard-definition movies (at 2 GB/movie)
* Upload 25,000 hi-resolution digital photos (at 10 MB/photo)

What is it with you guys? Can’t do the math? Forget that…how about answering a simple question: How many HD movies can you download with 250 GB cap? That’s the only answer I need.

PS: If you believe the 0.05 kb/email then you also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

[Rick]

Memo To Comcast: Show Us the Meter for Metered Broadband

From gigaom: Comcast is out defending its bandwidth caps and how they are not bad. And how 250 GB transfer is plenty and enough to do whatever we want to do. Of course, in today’s terms that is more than enough, but what happens in the future? Nevertheless, if they are going to put caps, then they need to give us what I think is an acceptable expectation: a meter.

Metered billing needs a meter we can see, use and monitor any time we desire to do so. Water and electric utilities provide that meter (regardless of whether we use it or not), so why not Comcast?

If a customer surpasses 250 GB and is one of the top users of the service for a second time within a six-month timeframe, his or her service will be subject to termination for one year. After the one year period expires, the customer may resume service by subscribing to a service plan appropriate to his or her needs.

Figure out a way to tell us what our monthly usage is, and let us know if we are running up against a 250 GB cap, so that we know when to stop and not pay overage. I want to know at every single minute how much bandwidth I have used.

After all, if someone crosses the 250 GB twice in six months, they are going to get tossed out. The burden of proof lies with Comcast to prove, measure and meter to the most accurate byte of data transferred.

Another Question For Comcast: If you’re going to meter, then please let us know how you are factoring in the overhead associated with TCP/IP. Will this be included or excluded in the cap? After all, overhead includes control messages (session control, packet headers) and this can be as high as 40 percent.

This is where FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has to step up and do something. If he is going to allow Comcast to put caps in place, then the FCC needs a firm bond from Comcast saying that they wouldn’t lower the caps to, say, 150 GB or 100 GB using the same lame excuse of 1 percent people degrading the network.

You want to know why I think they are going to obfuscate the issue and fudge the numbers sooner or later using some Enron math? Just go to the FAQ page that explains their 250 GB cap decision. You will consume 250 GB in a month if you do any of the following:

* Sending 20,000 high-resolution photos,
* Sending 40 million emails;
* Downloading 50,000 songs; or
* Viewing 8,000 movie trailers.

…but then lower down on the same page, they say:

* Send 50 million emails (at 0.05 KB/email)
* Download 62,500 4 MB songs (at 4 MB/song)
* Download 125 standard-definition movies (at 2 GB/movie)
* Upload 25,000 hi-resolution digital photos (at 10 MB/photo)

What is it with you guys? Can’t do the math? Forget that…how about answering a simple question: How many HD movies can you download with 250 GB cap? That’s the only answer I need.

PS: If you believe the 0.05 kb/email then you also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

If they can stick with the 250GB cap, which is exceptionally generous for 99 44/110ths% of internet users, then that's fine, but will they? I download big files, a lot, but I seriously doubt I've even crossed the 50GB threshold in a month. I think that 250 will shrink in the next year or two, and more beyond that.

[T-Bone]

I agree... This is a slippery slope. Especially for customers who's ONLY option for high speed internet is Comcast

[texafana]

Peeps hurt by this the most are the addicted pirates. Those that have too much hard drive space and too little outside connection with the real world.

[T-Bone]

Comcast Gets PWNED


WASHINGTON - Comcast Corp. is appealing an FCC ruling that the company is improperly blocking customers' Web traffic, triggering a legal battle that could determine the extent of the government's authority to regulate the Internet.

ADVERTISEMENT

In a precedent-setting move, a divided Federal Communications Commission last month determined that the company is violating a federal policy that guarantees unfettered access to the Internet.

Comcast challenged the FCC decision Thursday in the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington.

Comcast executive vice president David L. Cohen said in a statement that the company is seeking "review and reversal" of the FCC order and that the commission's action was "legally inappropriate and its findings were not justified by the record."

The Comcast case arose from complaints by users of a type of "file-sharing" software often used to download large data files, usually video.

Tests by The Associated Press and others found that file-sharing transmissions were aborting prematurely. It was later discovered that the company was cutting off transfers without informing customers.

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 that they "might otherwise watch (and pay for) on cable television."

While the FCC action did not include a fine, it does require Comcast within 30 days to disclose the details of its "discriminatory network management"; submit a compliance plan describing how it intends to stop these practices by the end of the year; and disclose to customers and the commission its new plan.

Cohen said Thursday that the company will comply with the FCC's order. Prior to the FCC action, the company had said it will switch to a management technique that treats all users the same by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, a public interest law firm representing two consumer groups and a California company that benefits from the type of file-sharing software targeted by Comcast filed appeals in New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco.

The legal challenges, filed last week, ask the court to force Comcast to cease its management practices immediately rather than by the end of the year.

The actions were more likely an attempt to avoid the District of Columbia court circuit, which is perceived as friendly to industry. If the cases are consolidated, the venue will be decided by lottery.

The plaintiffs are Consumers Union, in Yonkers, N.Y.; PennPIRG in Philadelphia; and Vuze Inc. of Redwood City, Calif. They are represented by the Media Access Project in Washington.

Comcast has said that it has delayed traffic, not blocked it — and that the FCC's so-called network-neutrality "principles" are part of a policy statement and not enforceable rules.

The FCC action came about in response to a complaint filed by public interest group Free Press and others.

Since the FCC vote, Comcast has announced that beginning Oct. 1, it would institute a broadband usage cap of 250 gigabytes per month for all residential customers. Comcast says to exceed that limit a customer would have to send 50 million e-mails or download 125 standard-definition movies.