4 ms·

The Day Comcast's Data Cap Policy Killed My Internet for 1 Year

10 points by brown9-2 15y ago

kevingadd 15y ago
The advent of bandwidth caps like Comcast's is vile and indefensible. I'm all for bandwidth providers coming up with new pricing models if it's what it takes for them to remain profitable and compete with other providers. That's fine. AT&T says I get X GB/mo for $Y/mo, and that's fine. It might be a bad price, but if I don't like it, I can try another wireless carrier (until AT&T buys them all), or I can pay more money for a larger cap, and when I hit the cap, I can pay an absolutely retarded amount of money for more bandwidth. But if I want to use the internet, I can. Comcast pulled an arbitrary number out of their collective asses, didn't talk to any customers, and have now decided that if your usage (measured in a way they won't disclose, over time periods they won't disclose, and the measurement of which they won't disclose to you) exceeds that arbitrary number, they're free to terminate your access to their service. They offer you no way to compensate them for overages, no way to buy a higher cap, and no way to ensure that you remain below the limit. If I want to terminate my Comcast service because I feel they have wronged me in some arbitrary way, I must pay fees to terminate my contract, but they're free to do this for any reason they come up with. Ultimately since every Comcast customer signed 500 pages of inscrutable legalese in order to get internet access (even if there are no other internet providers in their area, they're still free to not sign), Comcast is legally in the right by doing this. But they're still enormous scumbags and I'll say so to the face of anyone who works there. (I'm sure you're wonderful people, personally.)
- pantaloons 15y ago
  Regardless, the author broke the rules after being warned and received the punishment which he agreed to. That he should [and inevitably will] get special treatment for a post-hoc "internet access should be a right" post borne of no altruism rubs me the wrong way.
rberger 15y ago
The entity that controls content should not be allowed to own the transport. Transport is a Utility. We the ratepayers paid for it and we the Citizens of the towns and cities that the cable or fiber pass thru own the rights-of-way. The local physical plant of the Internet should be owned by the Citizens. The physical plant of the Internet must be open access with no restrictions on content. A vibrant marketplace will emerge on top of the Internet Physical Plant if these basics are enforced, just like public roads, water and sewer plants enabled life as we know it.
devicenull 15y ago
I'm always confused by the people who depend on their services for work: "Even worse, today Comcast disconnected me from the ever-evolving cloud services I use each and every day for life and work.", yet don't actually pay the extra money for "business-class" services. If your internet connection is that important to you, isn't it worth the extra $20-40 a month to ensure you don't have this issue, and you (presumably) receive faster/better support when you need it?
- wladimir 15y ago
  Whether the extra money is worth it depends on the kind of business that you're running. Also, for the same price you can (at least here in the netherlands) have a second, mobile internet connection. Which both provides the needed redundancy and can be used on the road.

10 points by brown9-2 15y ago

The advent of bandwidth caps like Comcast's is vile and indefensible. I'm all for bandwidth providers coming up with new pricing models if it's what it takes for them to remain profitable and compete with other providers. That's fine. AT&T says I get X GB/mo for $Y/mo, and that's fine. It might be a bad price, but if I don't like it, I can try another wireless carrier (until AT&T buys them all), or I can pay more money for a larger cap, and when I hit the cap, I can pay an absolutely retarded amount of money for more bandwidth. But if I want to use the internet, I can. Comcast pulled an arbitrary number out of their collective asses, didn't talk to any customers, and have now decided that if your usage (measured in a way they won't disclose, over time periods they won't disclose, and the measurement of which they won't disclose to you) exceeds that arbitrary number, they're free to terminate your access to their service. They offer you no way to compensate them for overages, no way to buy a higher cap, and no way to ensure that you remain below the limit. If I want to terminate my Comcast service because I feel they have wronged me in some arbitrary way, I must pay fees to terminate my contract, but they're free to do this for any reason they come up with. Ultimately since every Comcast customer signed 500 pages of inscrutable legalese in order to get internet access (even if there are no other internet providers in their area, they're still free to not sign), Comcast is legally in the right by doing this. But they're still enormous scumbags and I'll say so to the face of anyone who works there. (I'm sure you're wonderful people, personally.)

pantaloons 15y ago
Regardless, the author broke the rules after being warned and received the punishment which he agreed to. That he should [and inevitably will] get special treatment for a post-hoc "internet access should be a right" post borne of no altruism rubs me the wrong way.

rberger 15y ago

The entity that controls content should not be allowed to own the transport. Transport is a Utility. We the ratepayers paid for it and we the Citizens of the towns and cities that the cable or fiber pass thru own the rights-of-way. The local physical plant of the Internet should be owned by the Citizens. The physical plant of the Internet must be open access with no restrictions on content. A vibrant marketplace will emerge on top of the Internet Physical Plant if these basics are enforced, just like public roads, water and sewer plants enabled life as we know it.

devicenull 15y ago

I'm always confused by the people who depend on their services for work: "Even worse, today Comcast disconnected me from the ever-evolving cloud services I use each and every day for life and work.", yet don't actually pay the extra money for "business-class" services. If your internet connection is that important to you, isn't it worth the extra $20-40 a month to ensure you don't have this issue, and you (presumably) receive faster/better support when you need it?

wladimir 15y ago
Whether the extra money is worth it depends on the kind of business that you're running. Also, for the same price you can (at least here in the netherlands) have a second, mobile internet connection. Which both provides the needed redundancy and can be used on the road.