Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use

12160.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 288 posts

Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use

#31

Post by ryannielsen »

wccrawford wrote: post #15

I totally disagree about broadband being a right. And neither is electricity, insurance, or clean water. However, I do agree that it's a necessity for modern living, just like the rest of the above. As such, I think it should be protected in the same ways.

Presumably you're also paying a fixed monthly fee for "unlimited" broadband. It's likely you're paying per amount used for electricity and water. I'd bet your insurance is a fixed periodic fee with coverage capped at a certain amount. If my assumptions are correct, then your broadband services is already treated very much like your insurance service.

How do you propose things change?

Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use

#32

Post by peapicker »

Seriously, this is a technology company? If they mean to cap at 250GB per month, just halt service during the month when 250GB is hit. Don't let the customer go over, warn, go over, and then suspend them for a year. Seriously, if they are metering it, they can implement a technology solution to halt when the cap is hit that month and not even have this ridiculous abuse of customers having to 'self monitor' the behavior of all the software they have running.

If they want to cap, they need to cap customers with a technical solution.

Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use

#33

Post by paran »

rudle wrote: post #16
Dylan16807 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't comcast's policies themselves, it's the monopoly situation. And that seems like an FCC situation to me.

What, exactly, does Comcast have a monopoly on? Basic internet access might be considered a necessary utility, but an unlimited 15MB line is certainly not. Also, http://www.google.com/search?q=high+speed+internet+seattle+w...

So why stop the service, charge more for more data use. Or perhaps throttle your speeds. I think he means monopoly in the terms of disallowing service, I guess he should be ok if they charge him more money for more data usage. Either way I believe there is a monopoly where as locations and service providers are concerned and many a times caps such as 250GB are extremely arbitrary. I mean really whats the technical reasoning for a uniform cap of 250GB whether you are in downtown NY of Seattle? Also I would read this... Extremely thought provoking... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2709834

Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use

#34

Post by megaman821 »

bradleyland wrote: post #24

The author had me up until the moment he claimed that internet access is a "right". Ok, so let's say internet access is a "right". Rights often come within a framework. You have many rights that are yours for the losing. Your freedom to come and go freely, for example. If you break a law, you lose your freedom by being put in jail. To say something is a "right" is to say that it ought to be available, or that the gov…

Your water and electricity utilities most likely also have caps on how much water or electricity you can use before they cut you off. Except if you go over a few times they won't ban you from their service for a year. They just want you to curb your use, which is exactly what this guy was willing to do.

Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use

#35

Post by rbritton »

rudle wrote: post #4

> My opinion on all this is simple. The ability to access broadband internet is a right, and should be defined as an essential utility. Yawn... first world problems. Broadband is assuredly not your "right", it's a privilege. If the terms of the contract are broken (and they were, twice ) you have very little recourse. More to the point, get a Comcast business line. You will get hassled less, and I hear it may actuall…

I have a Comcast business line. While I've never tested the unlimitedness of it, it does have its own sets of pros and cons:

    + Constant, consistent price. There are no promo deals of any sort.
    - More expensive by $15-20 per month.
    + Cable modem is provided (they call it the Comcast Business Gateway) at no additional charge.
    - They call all of the freaking time trying to upsell you on voice service. Seriously, like 6-7 times per week. I finally blocked their number from being able to dial my phone.
    + TV is "only" $5 per month more for the basic channel lineup

Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use

#36

Post by recoiledsnake »

crs wrote: post #17
naner wrote: post #6

I listened to him read his canned warning that if I exceeded their cap again I'd be cut off again. Ok. Sure, the data cap sucks, but this guy broke a Comcast policy, got a warning, and then broke the policy again. I'm not surprised he got cut off. I do not recall details on how long the cut off would be, likely because I spent the next few minutes working with the service agent to add notes to my record about my deta…

Actually if you read his post from a day ago, you will see him state he stopped the open access point. He took steps to stop what he thought was the issue. It was not until the cap was broken a second time that he realized it was his backup system uploading to a 3rd party service. That is not entitlement at all. If anything it was ignorance of the fact that your upload data is also measured against the cap. I agree w…

>My question would be is does the 250g data cap apply when they are watching TV/Movies online via Comcast (XFinity) provided services?

Yes it does. But, of course it doesn't apply to the On Demand services on Comcast Cable, which is where they want to push customers at.

Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use

#37

Post by Raesan »

rudle wrote: post #16
Dylan16807 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't comcast's policies themselves, it's the monopoly situation. And that seems like an FCC situation to me.

What, exactly, does Comcast have a monopoly on? Basic internet access might be considered a necessary utility, but an unlimited 15MB line is certainly not. Also, http://www.google.com/search?q=high+speed+internet+seattle+w...

I live in Capitol Hill (right in the middle of Seattle), and Comcast is the only ISP in my area that offers a connection faster than 5mbps.

It's a legitimate problem.

Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use

#38

Post by danudey »

sp332 wrote: post #25
naner wrote: post #6

I listened to him read his canned warning that if I exceeded their cap again I'd be cut off again. Ok. Sure, the data cap sucks, but this guy broke a Comcast policy, got a warning, and then broke the policy again. I'm not surprised he got cut off. I do not recall details on how long the cut off would be, likely because I spent the next few minutes working with the service agent to add notes to my record about my deta…

Comcast refused to work with him, even though he was willing and motivated to address the problem. Even after being careful with bandwidth and disabling his public access point, they still cut him off for a year with no appeal. This mirrors what happened to me. I was given an automated warning. I called the security number but they wouldn't tell me what sort of traffic I should be looking for. They didn't even have a…

>Comcast refused to work with him, even though he was willing and motivated to address the problem. Even after being careful with bandwidth and disabling his public access point, they still cut him off for a year with no appeal.

He obviously wasn't that careful. There are dozens of apps on Windows, Mac, and Linux that can tell you how much bandwidth you're using; it's trivial to set one up, watch your throughput, and start killing off apps until you see what's doing all the work.

He seems to be technically-minded enough to understand core concepts, so why wouldn't he understand that uploading all of his content (his images, his music, etc.) to the cloud is going to use up his bandwidth? It seems obvious to me.

Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use

#39

Post by chopsueyar »

Thangorodrim wrote: post #11
fuzzmeister wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree with your argument if the broadband market were actually competitive. The author has no legitimate options for broadband besides Comcast, meaning Comcast can do essentially anything it wants to him. That is not the way a capitalist economy should work.

Actually, that is the way capitalist economies work in reality. This is a lot of crying for attention. If he wants to have a commercial use case, he should get a commercial circuit.

As much as I loathe Comcast...

Unfortunately, I have to agree with this, as the author of the post stated, "I work as a entertainment industry consultant, and depend on cloud services such as Dropbox, Simplenote, Google Apps, and Google Docs for day to day work. I use streaming online services such as Netflix, Xbox Live, Playstation Network, and Pandora every day for both work and play."

Okay, so get a business class account, and Comcast will not throw a fit when you completely saturate your residential neighborhood upload link.

Unfortunately, it is a 2-year minimum contract with an install fee over $200. However, sign up for a 4-year contract and installation is waived.

He could also have two cable modems, one residential account in the roommate's name and a business account in his business's name.

Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use

#40

Post by zzzmarcus »

I have Comcast in Seattle and have gone over the limit 2 of the last 3 months uploading backups to CrashPlan. 260gb in April and 455gb in May. I haven't gotten a warning and my service hasn't been cut off.

I'm not sure what he did to incur their wrath, but it makes me think he was probably exceeding the limit for at least 3 months prior to the warnings.

Post reply on HN