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

171–180 of 288 posts

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

#171

Post by bradleyland »

bradleyland wrote: post #162
masklinn wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. > O…

> It's not unlimited since it's (by your own account) 15/3. That's a limitation right there, identical to your 150 amp service. And you can not exceed that limit period (you won't even get close to it, really). No need for a breaker. It is one form of limitation, but it is not the most relevant. The point is that Comcast has to pay for the transfer of data in and out of their network. So they have two choices: * Mete…

Please, if you're going to bury my comment, point out what I've misstated. If you're sitting there in your chair, disagreeing with me, but you can't figure out why, you're just lying to yourself.

If I've made a mathematical error, or misstated a fact, I'm happy to concede the point.

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

#173

Post by pyre »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #146
someone13 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Can you point to a link about this? I'd love to see what the rules actually say. NOTE: What I wrote above sounds kind of confrontational - it's not. Badly worded, yes, but I believe you and am actually interested in seeing the rules.

It looks like you were right to be confrontational. According to Google, that was a temporary moratorium that has expired: http://www.ontariotenants.ca/electricity/articles/2004/ltw04... It's certainly a common misconception. I certainly know that people in the "which bill do I pay this month" scenario often choose to hold off on paying Hydro during the winter. It's also quite likely that Hydro is less likely to disc…

To be clear Ontario residents (really just in the GTA) refer to electricity as 'Hydro' because most(?) of it comes from the hydro-electric plant near Niagara Falls, and the company is called Toronto Hydro. Personally, whenever someone refers to the 'hydro bill' I have to internally connect the dots that it's not the water bill.

In this case, it's even less clear to those not in the know, because the next sentence refers to water pipes.

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

#174

Post by yid »

aeontech wrote: post #88
matwood wrote: post #75

Earlier 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. Most utilities cannot just shut you off. Many states have laws that determine when and how. The biggest thing about a utility though is that you pay for usage. If you want to leave your lights on all day, they really don't care as long as you continue to pay your bill. Personally, I do…

$6/Gb on mobile? That would be wonderful compared to, let me check... $20/Mb that I just paid for checking google maps over AT&T roaming when lost in another country. Sigh.

On an iphone at least, I cache the maps for the area I'm going to be in, then switch to airplane mode with location services turned on. Free, international GPS.

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

#175

Post by chris11 »

matwood wrote: post #101
aeontech wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$6/Gb on mobile? That would be wonderful compared to, let me check... $20/Mb that I just paid for checking google maps over AT&T roaming when lost in another country. Sigh.

I think the $6/GB came from the original unlimited plans in the US that were $30/month and had soft caps of 5GB. Pretty much all those plans have since disappeared. The point is, I think most consumers are fine with metered data if they feel like it's mostly fair.

Virgin mobile has unlimited internet plans that start at $25 a month. I'm not sure what the soft cap is though. http://www.virginmobileusa.com/cell-phone-plans/beyond-talk-...

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

#176

Post by mikeryan »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #64
danudey wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> There are dozens of apps on Windows, Mac, and Linux that can tell you how much bandwidth you're using Sure, for that machine. So I suppose he could go out and bet a new box, set it up as the router, and then monitor traffic. Just like I have to install my own electric meter... wait. Or like how I have to install my own flow measuring va... wait again.

Most wireless routers offer some version of this feature, its not too difficult to use.

My newish (~$100) Netgear wireless router actually has a Traffic Meter feature which monitors my traffic on a monthly basis and can warn me when I get close to nearing that cap. Its a worthwhile investment if you're being warned about your traffic.

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

#177

Post by fleitz »

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…

"Unlimited usage for a flat, monthly fee" this would suggest that the authors impression of the services is exactly what you say it isn't.

If you read this you can see that Comcast does indeed try to convince the consumer that you can transfer any amount of data you want for a fixed monthly fee: http://consumerist.com/2010/03/comcast-unlimited-usage-doesn...

Comcast as what is essentially a public utility operates within a framework of the FCC which creates a non-competitive marketplace so that service providers such as Comcast can ostensibly focus on providing better service to the public rather than focusing on competitive efforts such as better marketing, customer service, etc. The deal between Comcast and the gov't is essentially "We'll take care of competition, you focus on providing great infrastructure to the public"

In a very close to completely free market such as a bakery I'd agree with you but Comcast operates in a different kind of market, also depending on when the person signed up one of the terms marketed might have been "Unlimited Internet" which would suggest that you could consume unlimited services for a fixed price. Also, if there is a 250GB cap then Comcast should just terminate the service for the remainder of the month, and change the wording of their marketing to "Transfer upto 250GB per month for a flat monthly fee"

In a non-competitive market fueled by public expendature I don't see why it would be inappropriate to force service providers to provide access to the infrastructure to all under the same terms.

For example: You pay a fixed price for a fixed amount of bandwidth and your service stops working when you exceed that.

Comcast is the Internet Soup Nazi: "No internet for you! 1 Year!"

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

#178

Post by scelerat »

lhnn wrote: post #151
scelerat wrote: post #112

Internet access is required to file a police report in Oakland, or so I was told by the OakPD switchboard operator when I called to report my car being broken into and vandalized. i.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 fr…

This is absurd. Another reason not to trust police to have your interest as their primary concern... If you were presently witnessing the car being broken into, then that would be 911 level. EDIT: There is a correlation between my use of the word "absurd" and downvotes.

If you were presently witnessing the car being broken into, then that would be 911 level.

Agreed, and for clarification, this was not the case for me: I discovered the break-in later; I did not witness it.

More irksome was the operator's suggestion (after telling her my laptop was stolen from the car) that I use a computer at the public library... which didn't open for another ten hours. If I had been robbed on a Saturday night instead of a Friday, I would have had to wait until Tuesday to report (worst case obviously... smartphones and friends, etc. but what if you don't have those?).

Not saying the policy is a good one, but I use it as an illustration of how people are coming to see internet access as universally available and constructing policy against that notion.

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

#179

Post by mbreese »

younata wrote: post #132
forensic wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your opinion but I downvoted you because you said "This." The "This." meme contributes nothing to the post and is the worst kind of contentless bandwagonism. "This." is lazy and degrades the quality of the site in general.

I'm not going to downvote you, but that's an incredibly stupid reason to downvote someone. "Oh, I don't like your word choice, so I'm going to downvote you regardless of the content."

I don't know... HN has a history of actively downvoting memes. I don't know if 'This.' qualifies as a meme or not, but it's a valid sentiment.

Then again, if you are replying "This." perhaps the better way to go would be with a simple upvote. But that would really only be expressive if we could see vote counts again.

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

#180

Post by nitrogen »

bradleyland wrote: post #89
fr0sty wrote: post #57

Earlier 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…

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 thing is certain, in no way do I have "unlimited" electricity available at my home.

That's not a cap, that's a throughput limitation, just like with an ISP. I'd be surprised if they stopped you from using your full 36kW 24/7 for a month as long as you were paying your $4k electric bill on time.

The reason for the cap is that Comcast has to make arrangements for transfer of that data to its destination, which will cross over in to other carrier's networks. Many of these agreements are made on trade between carriers, but if there is an imbalance, Comcast has to pay.

How does this square with Comcast charging Netflix for access to its customers? If Netflix is paying for the bandwidth, why do the customers have to pay as well?

The only alternative is metered transfer.

I think most people would be happy with metered transfer, but only if it is perfectly transparent and out of the control of the big media and pay TV companies. The metered price would have to reflect the decreasing costs of providing bandwidth, peering agreements would have to be open to public scrutiny, etc. The metered cost should start at something like $.10/GB and decrease over time, with a $5/mo connection fee to cover the amortized installation costs. There could be no allowance for ridiculous overage fees or total transfer caps.

Post reply on HN