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 behavi…
I completely agree. Use over 250GB? Your internet gets slowed down to molasses until the start of the next month. Customers will notice and adjust. Here, Comcast is saying "we don't want you as a customer", which they're allowed to do, but doesn't generate very much goodwill. Having a clear cap and predictable consequences would be much preferred. I don't know why they also couldn't put a little meter on your comcast…
Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use
111–120 of 288 posts
Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use
#112i.e. they would not send a car; they would not take information over the phone. I was told I must file the report online.
When an essential service like Police require you to use a service, it definitely seems like that service has moved from the category of "novelty," or "luxury," into "utility."
There are possibly good reasons for internet providers to continue to be private, but like water and power and other utilities, they should be heavily regulated. Going over a bandwidth cap should not land you in a position where you cannot (e.g.) file a police report after you have been the victim of a crime.
Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That is not entitlement at all. If anything it was ignorance of the fact that your upload data is also measured against the cap. This. I would never have guessed upstream was counted. I thought this was only about downstream bandwidth.
>> Common activities that may cause excessive data consumption in violation of this Policy include, but are not limited to,
numerous or continuous bulk transfers of files and other high capacity traffic using
(i) file transfer protocol (“FTP”),
(ii) peer-to-peer applications, and
(iii) newsgroups.
This seems to be exactly what the person who wrote the article was complaining about.And in a world where we no longer have unlimited data plans on our phones; I am suprised people forget about the data used while uploading...
Updated: formatting and clairification.
Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use
#114Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use
#115Seriously, 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 behavi…
Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use
#116Earlier 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.
Consumers shouldn't have to upgrade to a business plan, paying for business-class support, a static IP, and other features they don't need. Comcast would probably end up making more money and saving a lot of face if they had a plan with sane limits for people who live on digital media.
Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use
#117I 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…
Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use
#118The worst thing about this is not the cutting off of the service, but the fact that this guy has no reasonable alternative to Comcast in his area. Tyranny of the last mile still exists, and isn't going away any time soon.
This crybaby's in Seattle and he's complaining about the lack of ISPs? Hell, there's Speakeasy to begin with.
On the cable side, Comcast "competes" with Broadstripe. Broadstripe has both terrible customer service and poor internet service. Broadstripe also happens to have a bunch of apartment and condo complexes covered in an exclusivity agreement. Broadstripe makes Comcast look great in almost every regard.
On the DSL side it's true that Speakeasy is available, but if you are willing to ignore customer service, Qwest DSL is almost always dramatically cheaper. It's a good option, but sometimes not available above 1.5mbps, even in extremely central areas like Belltown, which is a neighborhood of condos and apartments directly adjoining downtown.
I'm on Comcast residential now and I'm pretty happy with it compared to my past experiences with all the companies I mentioned above, but next time I move within Seattle I now know one of the top questions to ask is what kind of internet access options the place has.
Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Your water and electricity utilities most likely also have caps on how much water or electricity you can use before they cut you off. They do? Where is this the case? My water and electricity usage have no monthly cap and are only shut off if I fail to pay the bills.
Your electric utility service is capped, but they use a different method because electric utilities are metered. You have a fixed capacity feed to your house. For example, our home has 150 amp service. I cannot exceed that draw or the main feed breaker trips and everything goes dark. I can request installation of a larger feed, but I have to pay the build-out, and there are hard limits based on my local zoning. One t…
The big difference between electricity and bandwidth is that electricity has to be produced and this involves considerable expense. Bandwidth is always there so long as the equipment is powered on, which ends up being a marginal cost in the scheme of things.
Look at how power is priced: $/KWH. Bandwidth is priced at $/Gbit. Not Gbyte, but Gbit. You pay for capacity and usage comes along for free.
Re: Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use
#120The worst thing about this is not the cutting off of the service, but the fact that this guy has no reasonable alternative to Comcast in his area. Tyranny of the last mile still exists, and isn't going away any time soon.
This crybaby's in Seattle and he's complaining about the lack of ISPs? Hell, there's Speakeasy to begin with.
Qwest owns the lines and although has announced greater speeds planned for the Seattle area, few have received them. [1] Verizon tried to bring fiber-to-the-home, mostly on the outskirts of Seattle, and has since abandoned the market. [2] The city of Seattle studied fiber in 2005 but decided they need a partner. After Qwest and Verizon fell through, the mayor applied for Google's Fiber for Communities in 2010 [3], but didn't get it. Now in 2011, the only company delivering fiber in Seattle is... Comcast. [4] Qwest, now becoming CenturyLink, doesn't have any publicized current plans to improve service.
I'm not arguing that highspeed broadband is a right, but Comcast definitely has a chokehold on the majority of the Seattle broadband market.
[1] http://westseattleblog.com/forum/topic/whats-the-status-of-q...
[2] http://www.examiner.com/information-technology-in-seattle/ve...
[3] http://mayormcginn.seattle.gov/seattle-applies-for-google-fi...