24 ms·

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

274 points by ek 15y ago

VonGuard 15y ago
The 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.
- mashmac2 15y ago
  And he's even near/in a city! Imagine this scenario playing out somewhere where even less options exist, like a rural town in the midwest... you get cut off, you can switch to what? Dial-up?
  - ams6110 15y ago
    There's satellite, but bandwidth and limits are worse there. He was exceeding his limits, and received a couple of warnings. I'm not a fan of Comcast by any means, but it seems to me that in this case he should have upgraded to a plan that would accommodate his needs. Uploading terabytes of AV data to Carbonite isn't going to work very well over standard residential uplink speeds anyway.
    - wccrawford 15y ago
      But is there a plan that would meet his needs? 15/3 is top tier in a lot of places, and they often won't sell commercial lines to residences. He may have had no choice but to just use less bandwidth. Or pay for a second line. It sounds like he and all his friends and random guests were all using a single line. That's not how Comcast envisioned its usage, and their usage caps reflect that. Don't get me wrong. I think they handled this really poorly. But I don't think he paid enough attention to the situation, either.
      - zcid 15y ago
        I was in a similar situation a couple of years ago with Comcast. I upgraded to their business package and haven't heard a word since. As far as I know, business lines are available everywhere residential one are.
- shareme 15y ago
  Wrong... 1. Satellite Broadband 2. Wireless Broadband(most wireless co's slow bandwidth by 15% after bandwidth cap is exceeded and do not cut off) In building use buy a $200 Wilson Wireless amplifier
  - ConstantineXVI 15y ago
    T-Mobile and Virgin are the only carriers I'm aware of that use a "soft" cap as you describe. AT&T and Verizon don't cut you off, they just keep charging you by the GB when you break the cap.
  - dvdhsu 15y ago
    Both have terrible latency. Furthermore, they both have bandwidth caps. While the provider will not cut you off for going above, they will start charging you absurd prices for it. The only wireless broadband provider now who doesn't chargis for over usage is Sprint. If he is cut off from that, the situation repeats itself. There is no competition, and that is the main problem.
    - powertower 15y ago
      Prepaid wireless broadband will always cut you off as long as you use a pre-paid card.
- corncobpipe 15y ago
  This crybaby's in Seattle and he's complaining about the lack of ISPs? Hell, there's Speakeasy to begin with.
  - jheitmann 15y ago
    I won't claim that Seattle is a terrible place for broadband, but it's also not wine and roses. 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.
    - jeramey 15y ago
      Since Speakeasy was bought by Best Buy and then shuffled off into MegaPath's maw, their customer service has gotten progressively worse. Qwest's customer service is OK as long as you're willing to learn the right magic phrases that they use. That's the hard part. On the flip side, their field techs have always been uniformly competent when I've dealt with them in spite of having to cope with the massive wad of bureaucracy that goes along with working for a huge telecom company. DSL in general is slow in Seattle because the city hasn't spent much effort in upgrading its (or encouraging telecoms to upgrade their) old copper telecom infrastructure. When line lengths aren't just really long, they're often running over corroding 40 and 50 year-old copper. In about half the buildings I've lived in, the NID was still the very old nut-and-bolt screw down terminal style interfaces. 66 and 110 blocks? What are those?
      - VonGuard 15y ago
- jseliger 15y ago
  This is true of Tucson, AZ where I live. I can get Comcast for 12mb up / 2mb down for an absurd $60 / mo. Or I can get Qwest for 1.5mb up / 768 kb (kilobits!) down, which is basically like not having a choice. I was actually so annoyed by this (and by Qwest's advertising around town about their high-speed Internet options) that I sent a letter and e-mail to the president of Qwest Arizona, Jim Campbell, asking if Qwest would roll out real broadband to my apartment complex any time soon. To Qwest's credit, his assistant replied (this was back in Jan. 2010) to say no. She's sent an e-mail every six months or so with an update on the situation. The upshot: Comcast or fuck off.
  - someone13 15y ago
    See, the worst part is that, in some places, there is no choice at all. A 1.5Mb connection is enough for email and basic internet usage - in some places, you have Comcast, or you hook up a modem and use dial-up.
- tzs 15y ago
  He should be able to get a T1 or higher. No cap to deal with then.
rudle 15y ago
> 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 actually be unlimited.
- fuzzmeister 15y ago
  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.
  - Thangorodrim 15y ago
    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.
    - Locke1689 15y ago
      You have made a logical fallacy sometimes known as the is-ought fallacy or is-ought problem. The key point is that the parent is stating that things ought to work a certain way. While your statement that things are a certain way may be true, it is actually a non sequitur in relation to the ought proposal. If you wish to make a cogent argument you'll need to address the ought section of his argument or connect your "is" statement to be no longer orthogonal.
    - chopsueyar 15y ago
      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.
naner 15y ago
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 detailed displeasure with Comcast's policy here. I specifically noted (and asked that it be recorded) that if this happened again I would contact the FCC, various news organizations, and otherwise make a stink. The CS agent was polite and reactivated my broadband. Wha? Why would the FCC or news orgs care that you exceeded your broadband cap? And why are you threatening the service rep? This whole thing stinks of irresponsibility and entitlement. This guy ignored or didn't care about the whole data caps thing (which was announced a long time ago), didn't pay attention to his warning from Comcast, and now he got burned by it and suddenly decides unlimited broadband is his right. Too late.
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  The problem isn't comcast's policies themselves, it's the monopoly situation. And that seems like an FCC situation to me.
  - rudle 15y ago
    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+wa http://www.google.com/search?q=high+speed+internet+seattle+w...
    - paran 15y ago
      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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2709834
Thangorodrim 15y ago
If he is using the circuit for work, then pay the additional cash and get a commercial class circuit which is, effectively, uncapped. He already had one disconnect and chose to ignore it rather than take appropriate steps to modify usage. He agreed to their cap. The idea that internet service is a right is bizarre bourgeoisie bollocks.
- sloak 15y ago
  No! "internet is a right" is not bollocks, but "unlimited internet is a right" is.
wccrawford 15y ago
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.
- shiftpgdn 15y ago
  But if you use large amounts of electric, water, or insurance you get to pay for it. None of them offer unlimited models.
- ryannielsen 15y ago
  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?
  - fr0sty 15y ago
    The analogy only holds if there was only one insurance company you could buy from who only offered a very small range of policies (none of which fits your needs).
    - ryannielsen 15y ago
      Comcast doesn't have a monopoly in Seattle. There are multiple providers from which he could procure service. Regardless, I'm curious what models people advocate. After all, there appears to be only one electric provider in Seattle. If we were, as proposed, to follow that model, then Comcast could negotiate to be the single service provider and then charge per usage. Is that more desirable than what we have now, where there are multiple providers offering different services at different rates? If we're to argue for something different, we should be aware of what we're arguing for.
  - chopsueyar 15y ago
bradleyland 15y ago
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 government should not infringe upon your ability to seek that right unduly. In this case, the author broke the rules of the framework, and thus his right was suspended. What a right to broadband is not: an irrevocable license to use as much of a shared resource as possible for a fixed price you deem appropriate. Author, if you're reading, this is why people are saying you sound entitled. You're conflating "rights" with your own viewpoint that you should have unlimited internet access at a fixed price.
- beaumartinez 15y ago
  The UN recently proposed that Internet access be a human right.[1] [1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-human-ri...
- megaman821 15y ago
  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.
  - reduxredacted 15y ago
    To be clear, though: Water and Electric utilities in the US (and I believe this is true of Canada) are also heavily regulated, including the requirement of a government approved meter that measures in a consistent and accurate manner. In addition, one pays based on what one consumes at rates that are at least partially controlled by another regulatory body. In our area, this is the case because there we have no choice to use a different electricity or natural gas provider. The same could be said about our options for broadband service, except that it lacks the same oversight. As a result, municipalities that have AT&T, Wide Open West, Comcast and a variety of less-fast DSL options have significantly better "specials" and even service options. I, for instance, can subscribe to Comcast Business service, whereas my parents a few cities over, where Comcast is the only reasonable choice, can only use their residential option. I agree, it's not a right, but I think the author is correct in stating that Internet access is an essential utility.
smackfu 15y ago
This is stupid. Comcast makes it very easy to monitor your monthly bandwidth, and the 250 GB limit is clearly stated. You may disagree with the entire concept of limits, but they aren't selling the service as unlimited, so it is what you agree to.
emelski 15y ago
How is it reasonable for somebody to expect to be able to upload "terabytes of RAW images, musics tracks ripped in lossless format, etc."? That seems to be substantially outside the scope of what both Comcast's home user internet service is designed for, and, I would guess, Carbonite as well -- although I note that Carbonite does offer "unlimited" backups for home users. I agree with other commenters -- this sounds like a serious case of entitlement. I don't know whether Internet access should be considered a right or not; but even if it is, I would say it only really works if people are reasonable and responsible in their usage of it. Just like it's a right for me to speak my mind, but people will still shun me if I insist on doing so at full volume in all venues at all times, in a way that impedes others from enjoying _their_ access to that right.
- brianleb 15y ago
  > How is it reasonable for somebody to expect to be able to upload "terabytes of RAW images, musics tracks ripped in lossless format, etc."? That seems to be substantially outside the scope of what both Comcast's home user internet service is designed for, You're suggesting that people only use the internet in certain ways and you're deeming services that you don't use unnecessary for other people. How did you use the internet five years ago? Does it differ from how you use it now? What about ten years ago? Times change, and the internet changes faster than most things. Every day, there are more people online, more devices online, and more services online to take advantage of. For some people, 250GB/month is unreasonable. This guy is obviously one of them. In five years, it will be unreasonable for a larger percentage of people, as the way we use the internet evolves. Netflix is the most obvious example of this. > Just like it's a right for me to speak my mind, but people will still shun me if I insist on doing so at full volume in all venues at all times, in a way that impedes others from enjoying _their_ access to that right. How do my internet habits interfere with your internet habits? These are not at all analogous.
  - emelski 15y ago
    > For some people, 250GB/month is unreasonable. If 250GB/month is unreasonable, then those people should not be signing up for a 250GB/month service plan. There's nothing stopping him from getting a business plan, for example, with a larger cap or no cap at all. It's not reasonable for this user to expect to dictate both the bandwidth limits _and_ the low price point. Even if we stipulate that internet access is a human right, I don't think it's reasonable to assert that everybody is entitled to unlimited bandwidth to the internet, at somebody else's expense. > How do my internet habits interfere with your internet habits? As far as I know, at some point this guy's connection is going through a shared resource, whether that is a switch or router or hub or whatever. Those gadgets only have so much bandwidth available, which is shared amongst all the connections going through it. Sure, most of the time the limit of that hardware vastly exceeds the demands of those connections, but there _is_ a limit, and it is possible (albeit, perhaps, unlikely) that one guy, uploading _terabytes_ of data, could impede his neighbor's ability to enjoy the internet.
peapicker 15y ago
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.
- Splines 15y ago
  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.net homepage, showing how much you've used.
  - mikeash 15y ago
    Better yet, charge for overages. I don't know why Comcast wants to dump these customers when instead they could be charging them an extra $40 (or whatever might be reasonable) for each extra 250GB they use.
  - ScottBurson 15y ago
    There is a meter, but it takes some poking around to find it. Go to your account page and click on "Users and Settings".
  - seabee 15y ago
    > Use over 250GB? Your internet gets slowed down to molasses until the start of the next month. Customers will notice and adjust. This is how most sane ISPs deal with it. I really cannot see how disconnecting your customers completely is a better solution - there's certainly no technical reason for it, given that (IIRC) Comcast already have throttling measures for BitTorrent users.
zzzmarcus 15y ago
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.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast also does audits and sees, "Oh, this is to CrashPlan" or Carbonite/Mozy/etc... In those cases I suspect they're a lot less likely to pursue than if it was torrents or serving video streams from your house.
ddelony 15y ago
I'm surprised no one's noticed all the conspiracy theories mentioned on the main site.
reustle 15y ago
Source blog post: http://www.ozymandias.com/the-day-comcast%E2%80%99s-data-cap-policy-killed-my-internet-for-1-year http://www.ozymandias.com/the-day-comcast%E2%80%99s-data-cap...
ctingom 15y ago
I am surprised Comcast doesn't just offer a 500GB month plan. Or 750GB month... just set a price and tell him he needs to pay it.
- darksaga 15y ago
  I thought about that or just do what the wireless companies do and charge him per KB over his limit. The first $2,000 bill should get him back into line pretty fast.
pragmatic 15y ago
What amazes me is only having one broadband option in Seattle of all places. I live in a small mid-western city and have as of now 3 wired choices plus N wireless choices (depending if you you 4g providers, etc).
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  I really wished I'd moved into a place in Seattle which is serviced by condointernet. 100Megabits! No caps! http://condointernet.net/ http://condointernet.net/
ankimal 15y ago
...and that if I had any decent competitive options in the neighborhood I'd dump Comcast in a heartbeat. Since I don't .." I think its important to note the lack of competition. I wonder what that cap and price would be if there were even one other provider in the same area?
dbingham 15y ago
I am entitled. I am entitled to a competitive market. I am entitled to companies that have to compete for my business, not take it for granted. I am entitled to companies that always try to move forward and improve their products, not jack up the price while offering less. Right now, that doesn't exist in the broadband market. And as with any other market that requires high levels of infrastructure investment, I'm becoming less and less convinced that it can exist.
- zinkem 15y ago
  Yes, I agree. Isn't Comcast abusing their position here to protect their cable business? My friends recently got cut off for going over their limit; well they went over their limit because its a house of 4 using Netflix and downloading games on Steam all the time. This seems obvious to me but nobody else is bringing it up so I must be missing something. In many markets Comcast is the only option, and they aren't offering connection upgrades or pay per gb. This is the part that doesn't seem right. This is the part that makes me think they are just railing against Netflix users.
Oompa 15y ago
I'm worried about this. I live with 4 other internet heavy users, so I checked our usage last week, and saw that we've consistently been blowing past the 250GB cap. Last month, we hit 566GB. Comcast hasn't contacted me or shut off our service yet, and I hope they don't.
- dotBen 15y ago
  How did you check, I couldn't see anywhere on Comcast's site that gave this info. I used to have a DD-WRT router with bandwidth monitoring but we're now using an Apple Airport Extreme, and I don't think it has such capability :/
  - dotBen 15y ago
    BTW: I just discovered that Airport Extreme is SNMP compatible so you can get the bandwidth passing over the wan port that way. If you have a Mac always running on the network, you can try freeware app http://www.thotzy.com/THOTZY/Thotz/Entries/2008/10/26_TraffiX_2.0_—_Watch_your_Gigs._Better..html http://www.thotzy.com/THOTZY/Thotz/Entries/2008/10/26_Traffi...
  - Oompa 15y ago
    If you log into the Comcast Website and go to "Users & Settings" you should see "High-Speed Internet Data Usage" next to the sidebar.
    - cshesse 15y ago
      It can be flaky, sometimes the bar doesn't appear, but usually it does. I have the page bookmarked to I can check it easily. It sorta feels like I'm living in the 1990s and checking on my dial up modem.
alphaoverlord 15y ago
Implicit in the title of "250GB of legitimate use" is the assumption that torrenting or things of that nature are not legitimate. And also supports Comcast's claim that 99% of people do not use that much bandwidth. Sure a bandwidth cap is not a one size fits all solution, but if this is the only guy complaining, it sounds like a one size fits most solution.
- zinkem 15y ago
  Why is Comcast cutting people off for a year instead of just charging per GB above the cap or upgrading to a higher class service? This is a punishment without a trial.
  - alphaoverlord 15y ago
    In this case, there is no need for a trial. The evidence is indisputable and the OP admits to the action. In a free market, I should charge what I want. Why does Comcast need to create a higher tier when 99.9% don't need or want it?
slavak 15y ago
I've seen a lot of posts about US telecoms having "soft caps" for usage on what they call "unlimited data" plans, and I can't for the life of me figure out how in the hell something like that can possibly be legal. If you have a written service contract with your provider that does not explicitly state the service has a bandwidth cap, then how can them shutting off or artificially limiting your access speed /not/ be a breach of contract? Even if there is a clause in the contract about the traffic cap - without them explicitly informing you of the clause, wouldn't you be able to claim deceptive advertising?
- lesterbuck 15y ago
  Alas, I suspect you have not read your contracts with these companies. These are known as contracts of adhesion, as there is no negotiation, no crossing out things you don't like, and no power balance between the contracting parties. I was handed a set of contract documents for Comcast Business Class Internet. On the "Starter" line was an X, and a price of $64.95. I read every line of every document, and nowhere was "Starter" ever defined. There was the clause that reads "data rates are not guaranteed", but I was hoping that the contract itself might hint that there was some specified difference between Starter, Preferred, and Other. With this contract, the day after you sign up, your data rate can go to 1Kbps and you are still locked into an up to three year business contract.
  - slavak 15y ago
    Don't make the mistake of assuming everyone on here is an American. I'm not from the US, and I'm reasonably aware of what my ISP is and isn't allowed to do. Regardless, if what you're saying is accurate then the legal system over there is seriously fucked up.
- ianferrel 15y ago
  Unless it states a duration, then they can just discontinue the contract at the next billing cycle. Is there any indication that they did otherwise? They're not saying "You're over the limit; you're in breach of contract." They're saying "You don't make us enough money. You're no longer our customer."
joelhaus 15y ago
If only the market was competitive, this would be a non-story. "Right" or not, our future economic success depends on driving broadband prices down and service quality up.
scelerat 15y ago
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 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.
- lhnn 15y ago
  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.
  - scelerat 15y ago
    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.
  - rdl 15y ago
    Oakland has had huge budget cuts, directly affecting police. The irony is that (perceived or real) high crime in Oakland is one of the main reasons few businesses move there (here, sadly); Pandora and Oaksterdam are the only new ventures I've really seen. Other than that, it's mostly legacy companies like some big insurers, the Port, etc. I'm sure if you were actively watching a crime, 911 would be accepted, but trying to move everything else to an online report seems like a reasonable cost cutting step. If it were possible to take the report online and keep 1-2 cops out for an extra hour, it's probably worthwhile. There should be an exception process for "come in to the station and file on paper", and for in-progress crimes, and for more serious/life threatening crimes, but as a step, this isn't that unreasonable. Of course, if someone broke into my house here, I'd probably be calling my attorney before I called the Oakland PD.
gst 15y ago
Is Comcast really a monopoly in some parts of the US? Aren't there any other viable options?
- darksaga 15y ago
  I think this is the main issue I'm seeing in this discussion. I'd say yes, there are other options available. You use a lot of bandwidth? They have your roomies chip in and get a T1 or something higher. There are alternatives, but you have to consider the price. Whether he wants to admit or not, there are tons of alternatives, he's just too cheap to lay down the cash to get what he needs. Besides telecom company options, there's always satellite as an option.
- cshesse 15y ago
  In San Francisco, where I live, they have basically a monopoly on high speed internet. Here are the options and speeds I have tested: 1) DSL (through ATT or Sonic.net, I got Sonic's ADSL2 service) ~$60 a month, 3.4/0.86 Mbps 2) Monkeybrains local wireless rooftop ISP: $35 a month, ~10/10Mbps, depending on location (large building to the north blocks service to my building) 3) Webpass, same as Monkeybrains, but only handles buildings with like 10+ apartment units, $45 a month, 100/100 or 45/45 Mbps, basically has to already be available where you live, so not me 4) Comcast residential service, ~$60 a month, 22.3/4.34 Mbps, this is what I went with 5) Find someone with a fast internet connection and set up some sort of wireless directional antenna or free space optics to use their connection from the roof - expensive and I don't know anyone with a connection that fast within sight of my building. Nobody can run fiber because of ATT and Comcast having basically monopolies on running cables anywhere. I mean, the city isn't too proactive anyway in that area, but ATT and Comcast are clearly slowing it down a lot
meow 15y ago
Indian ISPs found a curious way of tackling these situations. Since they sell their plans as unlimited, they can't fully cut off the internet access. So as soon as the fair use limit is crossed, the speed drops to punishing 256kbps till the month gets over :|.
- unreal37 15y ago
  Conmcast should do this. Not cut off his service, but drop his speed to 1MB/s for 1 month. He will then be motivated to find the source of the problem.
- decadentcactus 15y ago
  256kbps isn't as terrible as it may seem. My internet used to be cut to 56k when it went over, and 95% of websites wouldn't even finish loading. Now I think it cuts back to 512kbps, so things at least load, just no downloading really.
Zarathust 15y ago
In Montreal caps are around 20gb up+down per month. While 250 gb seems "unlimited" for most of you, 20 gb is not. I suggest you start fighting now.
jrockway 15y ago
This is why I pay $130 a month for Speakeasy broadband. They give me 6M and I can use 6M 24/7 with no complaint. Bandwidth costs money. So consumer "ISPs" (and I use that term in a very loose sense) tell you what the burst bandwidth is, and then hope that you don't burst very often. When you do, they drop you, because you cost them money. The solution is to just get a real Internet connection. "Business" is the magic word. The alternative to Comcast's cap strategy is that everyone would be paying $500 a month for Internet access, or you'd be limited to 768kbps with no burst.
- Bud 15y ago
  No, the alternative, clearly and obviously, is net access the way it is in Europe, where it's both cheaper and much faster than here. Personally, I think Comcast should be stripped of the right to sell net access at all. They're clearly a bad actor.
- Natsu 15y ago
  > This is why I pay $130 a month for Speakeasy broadband. They give me 6M and I can use 6M 24/7 with no complaint. I like Speakeasy, too (I think they're now called Megapath, though). But around this part of Phoenix, the best they can do is 144 Kbps IDSL and it still costs $120/month. And just because a lot of people confuse Kb and KB, I should mention that, when you account for actual download speeds, you end up with ~15 KB/s, maybe 17-18 KB/s on a good day. And around here, the cable companies cap you at 20 GB/month, which is actually less than you can transfer even on a line this slow. I don't think that $500/month internet is actually the alternative, though. I think the real alternative is to set things up so that there's real competition in the marketplace, rather than a bunch of regional monopolies and a few small competitive areas. Otherwise, they'll spend all their time looking for ways to increase revenue by finding new things to charge us for. After all, the whole Net Neutrality thing started up because they were musing about ways to charge people for using services the ISPs don't actually provide, like Google.
beatpanda 15y ago
This is only going to get worse, and claiming that internet is a "right" or a "utility" will evnetually invite government regulation, which will amplify the pervasive and inevitable problem of corporate malfeasance. We need to build an internet without ISPs if we want to keep what we have.
daimyoyo 15y ago
I have cellular Internet and while the speed is not ideal (about 2Mb/s during the day and 7Mb/s at night) I have unlimited data. I even asked their customer service "so I could run 100Tb of data a month and that would be ok?" And they told me it would be. Granted it's not ideal, but I can stream 360p video on it(my laptop resolution isn't enough for anything higher to make a difference) and since I use it at night most of the time I never have a problem with slow download rates.
nestlequ1k 15y ago
I posted 1.2TB of usage last month. I love the little graph on their comcast.com homepage. Nice big and red bar way way over the 250GB limit. No one contacted me about it. But I'm paying for the super extreme 50mb/sec burst plan for 120/mo so I'm guessing that's the reason they leave me alone "what are you downloading" -> starcraft replays, also downloading video backups to S3
noonespecial 15y ago
He went over his usage, broke his eula etc. Comcast has the right to restrict him, perhaps by slowing his connecttion or charging overages. But seriously, "No net for you! 1 YEAR!"???? Who wrote that policy? Seinfeld? That's damn ugly monopoly behavior that should be brought to the attention of the FCC.
peterwwillis 15y ago
Talk about first world problems. This guy is acting like his access to water was denied because he can't stream movies or use Dropbox. I lived without internet for a year. I was fine. Nobody shunned me from society and I didn't lose the ability to make money. For a while i'd walk over to Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts if I needed an hour of 'net access. When I had to do some interviews from home I went and got a month of Virgin Mobile 3g data for $40. I do believe everyone should have the right to use the internet, since as a communication tool it's more ubiquitous than the telephone and some things like government services require online registration (ex. vehicle inspection at the DMV where I live requires an online-only form). I also believe the poor should get free access, and maybe some day free 'loaned OLPC netbooks. However, he's going about explaining why being banned from the internet is wrong in entirely the wrong way. His defense is basically "I should have the right to be entertained and use free services that there are offline alternatives of!!" If I were an ISP i'd want to ban a guy who uploaded 3 copies of the same song and RAW images too.
parsifal 15y ago
I'm not sure that I totally trust this guy. We stream things all the time, and I actually don't feel like it affects our usage at all. I sort of wonder if things like Netflix, et al., aren't whitelisted.
svin80 15y ago
HA-HA-HA. Living in third world country (Moldova) i have real unlimited 20Mbs. 500Gb a month is the minimum traffic i have.
dennisgorelik 15y ago
In Russia internet providers simply trim the bandwidth of the customers who use too much traffic. Internet still works, but slower. Comcast may consider doing the same.
dennisgorelik 15y ago
I wonder why he did not agree to pay more for his extra traffic?
fourk 15y ago
Interesting. I'm on their 50/20 (mbps down/up) plan and regularly go WAY over the 250GB 'limit' in San Francisco's Mission district and have had no repercussions for doing so. I wonder what the specific conditions are for when/where they choose to enforce this limit, or if it is entirely arbitrary. I've hit a TB down in a single month, and have never heard a word from Comcast about it. Do they turn a blind eye because I'm on a more expensive plan, or is it because of lack of network congestion in the Mission, or maybe due to the availability of alternative internet service providers?
mrbonner 15y ago
Not sure if this is a right. The fact that ISP limits the data cap is ridiculous but it is only for the good of others. This story I think only applies to say less than 1% of normal population. Ok, 250GB/month is not that high, may be making it 500GB/month is more appropriate. What ISP could do is still put the cap on and charge extra for every 10GB after that with a small fee. I think most people dont want to pay extra even if it cost several dollars a month. This models the way we pay for gas, power, water too. But the points are: - Increase the cap to 500GB for example - Don't penalize, charge for each extra 10GB
henryw 15y ago
I think I broke the 250GB cap for 6 months straight (using around 280GB to 350GB), and they didn't care. When I did 1TB in a month, they called me and thought my WIFI was hacked and warned me to not go over. The next couple month I think I did like 275GB. Overall, they are pretty nice about it. I still have my Internet. I'm curious how far over this person went.
t_krupicka 15y ago
The most neutral resolution to this is instead of comcast denying service to this user, they need to install fees for excessive amounts of data used. While this person thinks of bandwith as a utility and a right, a utility is not based on a flat rate, and the writer obviously voided their agreement of their right to use data.
t_krupicka 15y ago
The most neutral resolution to this is instead of comcast denying service to this user, they need to install fees for excessive amounts of data used. While this person thinks of bandwith as a utility and a right, a utility is not based on a flat rate, and the writer obviously voided their agreement of their right to use data.
devicenull 15y ago
Repost? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2757142 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2757142
code_duck 15y ago
250GB is a rather absurd amount. But there's no reason Comcast couldn't just cut him off for the rest of the month, right? Seems pretty dumb.
xenophanes 15y ago
You have to switch to a small business account instead of a residential account with comcast. Then you get genuinely unlimited use, no bandwidth cap. That is the only way to get past their 250GB cap. It's absurd that they won't sell you more bandwidth on any residential plan at any price, and that they kick people off the service rather than charging overages. You do not need to have a business location to do this, or actually have a business. They will sell you small business cable internet at your residential apartment.
- cshesse 15y ago
  I looked at this, but they want to charge a high installation fee and have a 1-year contract. Can you avoid the installation fee if you already have residential service? What about the contract?
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  Business internet plans for personal use are way too expensive IMO. $100/month for 22Mbits? That's terrible.
  - xenophanes 15y ago
    What are you suggesting? Is there a competing product available to buy which is better? I don't know of one in most areas. IMO bandwidth is worth paying for. You can say there "should" be better deals available. But it doesn't do any good. If you think it's so easy to provide better internet then start a company.
    - iamdave 15y ago
      You can say there "should" be better deals available. But it doesn't do any good. If you think it's so easy to provide better internet then start a company. Because sitting idly watching ISP's ratchet up costs and lower the quality of service sure is getting things done.
      - xenophanes 15y ago
etheric 15y ago
From Comcasts AUP: What will happen if I exceed 250 GB of data usage in a month? The vast majority - more than 99% - of our customers will not be impacted by a 250 GB monthly data usage threshold. If you exceed more than 250 GB, you may receive a call from the Customer Security Assurance ("CSA") team to notify you of excessive use. At that time, we will tell you exactly how much data you used. When we call you, we try to help you identify the source of excessive use and ask you to moderate your usage, which the vast majority of our customers do voluntarily. If you exceed 250GB again within six months of the first contact, your service will be subject to termination and you will not be eligible for either residential or commercial internet service for twelve (12) months. We know from experience that most customers curb their usage after our first call. If your account is terminated, after the twelve (12) month period expires, you may resume service by subscribing to a service plan appropriate to your needs. They say they will help you identify the reason you went over your cap. "When we call you, we try to help you identify the source of excessive use and ask you to moderate your usage, which the vast majority of our customers do voluntarily." Which they clearly didn't do in this case. This would be acceptable if we had another option for broadband internet, but we don't.
rajpaul 15y ago
Comcast fired you as a customer. I can imagine scenarios where this would be a profitable business tactic for them.
etfb 15y ago
Convinced of his rights, and completely oblivious to his obligations, particularly the one that involves reading the details of any contract he signs. Sounds like classic Entitlement Queen behaviour. I'd sympathise more if I weren't paying AUD$90 (about USD$100) for 200Gb -- granted it's with Internode, one of the most magnificently customer-focused businesses on the planet, so I'm not complaining...
donpark 15y ago
I doubt anything one has to pay for could be a 'human right' but, if so, my bet is on '3 meals a day' becoming a human right before 'internet access' does.
bugsy 15y ago
The basic problem here is that 250GB per person is not sustainable with the current networks, nor is it sustainable at rates people are willing to pay for access. Cloud and other services that depend on enormous bandwidth costs to be absorbed by others leads to the free rider problem. NetFlix is the biggest free rider around. Their rates do not cover the cost of bandwidth because their basic business model is parasitical.
jeggers5 15y ago
Oh come on. You're completely abusing Comcast's Service and now you're telling some sympathetic story about how it's unfair. 250GB/month is massive, and you knew full well that you were on your last chance, and it's not surprising that they measure upload data as bandwidth (what on earth did you expect?). If you were going to be using the service like that, you should've asked first. Don't try and tell us you 'forgot' that you had a server down stairs moving gigabytes of data around. I wouldn't want you as a customer either.
gte910h 15y ago
If you have a monopoly, your rights as a service provider go waaaaaaay down. I think the monopoly should be stripped from them if they can't handle proper pricing.

274 points by ek 15y ago

The 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.

mashmac2 15y ago
And he's even near/in a city! Imagine this scenario playing out somewhere where even less options exist, like a rural town in the midwest... you get cut off, you can switch to what? Dial-up?
- ams6110 15y ago
  There's satellite, but bandwidth and limits are worse there. He was exceeding his limits, and received a couple of warnings. I'm not a fan of Comcast by any means, but it seems to me that in this case he should have upgraded to a plan that would accommodate his needs. Uploading terabytes of AV data to Carbonite isn't going to work very well over standard residential uplink speeds anyway.
  - wccrawford 15y ago
    But is there a plan that would meet his needs? 15/3 is top tier in a lot of places, and they often won't sell commercial lines to residences. He may have had no choice but to just use less bandwidth. Or pay for a second line. It sounds like he and all his friends and random guests were all using a single line. That's not how Comcast envisioned its usage, and their usage caps reflect that. Don't get me wrong. I think they handled this really poorly. But I don't think he paid enough attention to the situation, either.
    - zcid 15y ago
      I was in a similar situation a couple of years ago with Comcast. I upgraded to their business package and haven't heard a word since. As far as I know, business lines are available everywhere residential one are.
shareme 15y ago
Wrong... 1. Satellite Broadband 2. Wireless Broadband(most wireless co's slow bandwidth by 15% after bandwidth cap is exceeded and do not cut off) In building use buy a $200 Wilson Wireless amplifier
- ConstantineXVI 15y ago
  T-Mobile and Virgin are the only carriers I'm aware of that use a "soft" cap as you describe. AT&T and Verizon don't cut you off, they just keep charging you by the GB when you break the cap.
- dvdhsu 15y ago
  Both have terrible latency. Furthermore, they both have bandwidth caps. While the provider will not cut you off for going above, they will start charging you absurd prices for it. The only wireless broadband provider now who doesn't chargis for over usage is Sprint. If he is cut off from that, the situation repeats itself. There is no competition, and that is the main problem.
  - powertower 15y ago
    Prepaid wireless broadband will always cut you off as long as you use a pre-paid card.
corncobpipe 15y ago
This crybaby's in Seattle and he's complaining about the lack of ISPs? Hell, there's Speakeasy to begin with.
- jheitmann 15y ago
  I won't claim that Seattle is a terrible place for broadband, but it's also not wine and roses. 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.
  - jeramey 15y ago
    Since Speakeasy was bought by Best Buy and then shuffled off into MegaPath's maw, their customer service has gotten progressively worse. Qwest's customer service is OK as long as you're willing to learn the right magic phrases that they use. That's the hard part. On the flip side, their field techs have always been uniformly competent when I've dealt with them in spite of having to cope with the massive wad of bureaucracy that goes along with working for a huge telecom company. DSL in general is slow in Seattle because the city hasn't spent much effort in upgrading its (or encouraging telecoms to upgrade their) old copper telecom infrastructure. When line lengths aren't just really long, they're often running over corroding 40 and 50 year-old copper. In about half the buildings I've lived in, the NID was still the very old nut-and-bolt screw down terminal style interfaces. 66 and 110 blocks? What are those?
    - VonGuard 15y ago
jseliger 15y ago
This is true of Tucson, AZ where I live. I can get Comcast for 12mb up / 2mb down for an absurd $60 / mo. Or I can get Qwest for 1.5mb up / 768 kb (kilobits!) down, which is basically like not having a choice. I was actually so annoyed by this (and by Qwest's advertising around town about their high-speed Internet options) that I sent a letter and e-mail to the president of Qwest Arizona, Jim Campbell, asking if Qwest would roll out real broadband to my apartment complex any time soon. To Qwest's credit, his assistant replied (this was back in Jan. 2010) to say no. She's sent an e-mail every six months or so with an update on the situation. The upshot: Comcast or fuck off.
- someone13 15y ago
  See, the worst part is that, in some places, there is no choice at all. A 1.5Mb connection is enough for email and basic internet usage - in some places, you have Comcast, or you hook up a modem and use dial-up.
tzs 15y ago
He should be able to get a T1 or higher. No cap to deal with then.

rudle 15y ago

> 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 actually be unlimited.

fuzzmeister 15y ago
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.
- Thangorodrim 15y ago
  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.
  - Locke1689 15y ago
    You have made a logical fallacy sometimes known as the is-ought fallacy or is-ought problem. The key point is that the parent is stating that things ought to work a certain way. While your statement that things are a certain way may be true, it is actually a non sequitur in relation to the ought proposal. If you wish to make a cogent argument you'll need to address the ought section of his argument or connect your "is" statement to be no longer orthogonal.
  - chopsueyar 15y ago
    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.

naner 15y ago

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 detailed displeasure with Comcast's policy here. I specifically noted (and asked that it be recorded) that if this happened again I would contact the FCC, various news organizations, and otherwise make a stink. The CS agent was polite and reactivated my broadband. Wha? Why would the FCC or news orgs care that you exceeded your broadband cap? And why are you threatening the service rep? This whole thing stinks of irresponsibility and entitlement. This guy ignored or didn't care about the whole data caps thing (which was announced a long time ago), didn't pay attention to his warning from Comcast, and now he got burned by it and suddenly decides unlimited broadband is his right. Too late.

Dylan16807 15y ago
The problem isn't comcast's policies themselves, it's the monopoly situation. And that seems like an FCC situation to me.
- rudle 15y ago
  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+wa http://www.google.com/search?q=high+speed+internet+seattle+w...
  - paran 15y ago
    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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2709834

Thangorodrim 15y ago

If he is using the circuit for work, then pay the additional cash and get a commercial class circuit which is, effectively, uncapped. He already had one disconnect and chose to ignore it rather than take appropriate steps to modify usage. He agreed to their cap. The idea that internet service is a right is bizarre bourgeoisie bollocks.

sloak 15y ago
No! "internet is a right" is not bollocks, but "unlimited internet is a right" is.

wccrawford 15y ago

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.

shiftpgdn 15y ago
But if you use large amounts of electric, water, or insurance you get to pay for it. None of them offer unlimited models.
ryannielsen 15y ago
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?
- fr0sty 15y ago
  The analogy only holds if there was only one insurance company you could buy from who only offered a very small range of policies (none of which fits your needs).
  - ryannielsen 15y ago
    Comcast doesn't have a monopoly in Seattle. There are multiple providers from which he could procure service. Regardless, I'm curious what models people advocate. After all, there appears to be only one electric provider in Seattle. If we were, as proposed, to follow that model, then Comcast could negotiate to be the single service provider and then charge per usage. Is that more desirable than what we have now, where there are multiple providers offering different services at different rates? If we're to argue for something different, we should be aware of what we're arguing for.
- chopsueyar 15y ago

bradleyland 15y ago

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 government should not infringe upon your ability to seek that right unduly. In this case, the author broke the rules of the framework, and thus his right was suspended. What a right to broadband is not: an irrevocable license to use as much of a shared resource as possible for a fixed price you deem appropriate. Author, if you're reading, this is why people are saying you sound entitled. You're conflating "rights" with your own viewpoint that you should have unlimited internet access at a fixed price.

beaumartinez 15y ago
The UN recently proposed that Internet access be a human right.[1] [1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-human-ri...
megaman821 15y ago
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.
- reduxredacted 15y ago
  To be clear, though: Water and Electric utilities in the US (and I believe this is true of Canada) are also heavily regulated, including the requirement of a government approved meter that measures in a consistent and accurate manner. In addition, one pays based on what one consumes at rates that are at least partially controlled by another regulatory body. In our area, this is the case because there we have no choice to use a different electricity or natural gas provider. The same could be said about our options for broadband service, except that it lacks the same oversight. As a result, municipalities that have AT&T, Wide Open West, Comcast and a variety of less-fast DSL options have significantly better "specials" and even service options. I, for instance, can subscribe to Comcast Business service, whereas my parents a few cities over, where Comcast is the only reasonable choice, can only use their residential option. I agree, it's not a right, but I think the author is correct in stating that Internet access is an essential utility.

smackfu 15y ago

This is stupid. Comcast makes it very easy to monitor your monthly bandwidth, and the 250 GB limit is clearly stated. You may disagree with the entire concept of limits, but they aren't selling the service as unlimited, so it is what you agree to.

emelski 15y ago

How is it reasonable for somebody to expect to be able to upload "terabytes of RAW images, musics tracks ripped in lossless format, etc."? That seems to be substantially outside the scope of what both Comcast's home user internet service is designed for, and, I would guess, Carbonite as well -- although I note that Carbonite does offer "unlimited" backups for home users. I agree with other commenters -- this sounds like a serious case of entitlement. I don't know whether Internet access should be considered a right or not; but even if it is, I would say it only really works if people are reasonable and responsible in their usage of it. Just like it's a right for me to speak my mind, but people will still shun me if I insist on doing so at full volume in all venues at all times, in a way that impedes others from enjoying _their_ access to that right.

brianleb 15y ago
> How is it reasonable for somebody to expect to be able to upload "terabytes of RAW images, musics tracks ripped in lossless format, etc."? That seems to be substantially outside the scope of what both Comcast's home user internet service is designed for, You're suggesting that people only use the internet in certain ways and you're deeming services that you don't use unnecessary for other people. How did you use the internet five years ago? Does it differ from how you use it now? What about ten years ago? Times change, and the internet changes faster than most things. Every day, there are more people online, more devices online, and more services online to take advantage of. For some people, 250GB/month is unreasonable. This guy is obviously one of them. In five years, it will be unreasonable for a larger percentage of people, as the way we use the internet evolves. Netflix is the most obvious example of this. > Just like it's a right for me to speak my mind, but people will still shun me if I insist on doing so at full volume in all venues at all times, in a way that impedes others from enjoying _their_ access to that right. How do my internet habits interfere with your internet habits? These are not at all analogous.
- emelski 15y ago
  > For some people, 250GB/month is unreasonable. If 250GB/month is unreasonable, then those people should not be signing up for a 250GB/month service plan. There's nothing stopping him from getting a business plan, for example, with a larger cap or no cap at all. It's not reasonable for this user to expect to dictate both the bandwidth limits _and_ the low price point. Even if we stipulate that internet access is a human right, I don't think it's reasonable to assert that everybody is entitled to unlimited bandwidth to the internet, at somebody else's expense. > How do my internet habits interfere with your internet habits? As far as I know, at some point this guy's connection is going through a shared resource, whether that is a switch or router or hub or whatever. Those gadgets only have so much bandwidth available, which is shared amongst all the connections going through it. Sure, most of the time the limit of that hardware vastly exceeds the demands of those connections, but there _is_ a limit, and it is possible (albeit, perhaps, unlikely) that one guy, uploading _terabytes_ of data, could impede his neighbor's ability to enjoy the internet.

peapicker 15y ago

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.

Splines 15y ago
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.net homepage, showing how much you've used.
- mikeash 15y ago
  Better yet, charge for overages. I don't know why Comcast wants to dump these customers when instead they could be charging them an extra $40 (or whatever might be reasonable) for each extra 250GB they use.
- ScottBurson 15y ago
  There is a meter, but it takes some poking around to find it. Go to your account page and click on "Users and Settings".
- seabee 15y ago
  > Use over 250GB? Your internet gets slowed down to molasses until the start of the next month. Customers will notice and adjust. This is how most sane ISPs deal with it. I really cannot see how disconnecting your customers completely is a better solution - there's certainly no technical reason for it, given that (IIRC) Comcast already have throttling measures for BitTorrent users.

zzzmarcus 15y ago

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.

kenjackson 15y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast also does audits and sees, "Oh, this is to CrashPlan" or Carbonite/Mozy/etc... In those cases I suspect they're a lot less likely to pursue than if it was torrents or serving video streams from your house.

ddelony 15y ago

I'm surprised no one's noticed all the conspiracy theories mentioned on the main site.

reustle 15y ago

Source blog post: http://www.ozymandias.com/the-day-comcast%E2%80%99s-data-cap-policy-killed-my-internet-for-1-year http://www.ozymandias.com/the-day-comcast%E2%80%99s-data-cap...

ctingom 15y ago

I am surprised Comcast doesn't just offer a 500GB month plan. Or 750GB month... just set a price and tell him he needs to pay it.

darksaga 15y ago
I thought about that or just do what the wireless companies do and charge him per KB over his limit. The first $2,000 bill should get him back into line pretty fast.

pragmatic 15y ago

What amazes me is only having one broadband option in Seattle of all places. I live in a small mid-western city and have as of now 3 wired choices plus N wireless choices (depending if you you 4g providers, etc).

res0nat0r 15y ago
I really wished I'd moved into a place in Seattle which is serviced by condointernet. 100Megabits! No caps! http://condointernet.net/ http://condointernet.net/

ankimal 15y ago

...and that if I had any decent competitive options in the neighborhood I'd dump Comcast in a heartbeat. Since I don't .." I think its important to note the lack of competition. I wonder what that cap and price would be if there were even one other provider in the same area?

dbingham 15y ago

I am entitled. I am entitled to a competitive market. I am entitled to companies that have to compete for my business, not take it for granted. I am entitled to companies that always try to move forward and improve their products, not jack up the price while offering less. Right now, that doesn't exist in the broadband market. And as with any other market that requires high levels of infrastructure investment, I'm becoming less and less convinced that it can exist.

zinkem 15y ago
Yes, I agree. Isn't Comcast abusing their position here to protect their cable business? My friends recently got cut off for going over their limit; well they went over their limit because its a house of 4 using Netflix and downloading games on Steam all the time. This seems obvious to me but nobody else is bringing it up so I must be missing something. In many markets Comcast is the only option, and they aren't offering connection upgrades or pay per gb. This is the part that doesn't seem right. This is the part that makes me think they are just railing against Netflix users.

Oompa 15y ago

I'm worried about this. I live with 4 other internet heavy users, so I checked our usage last week, and saw that we've consistently been blowing past the 250GB cap. Last month, we hit 566GB. Comcast hasn't contacted me or shut off our service yet, and I hope they don't.

dotBen 15y ago
How did you check, I couldn't see anywhere on Comcast's site that gave this info. I used to have a DD-WRT router with bandwidth monitoring but we're now using an Apple Airport Extreme, and I don't think it has such capability :/
- dotBen 15y ago
  BTW: I just discovered that Airport Extreme is SNMP compatible so you can get the bandwidth passing over the wan port that way. If you have a Mac always running on the network, you can try freeware app http://www.thotzy.com/THOTZY/Thotz/Entries/2008/10/26_TraffiX_2.0_—_Watch_your_Gigs._Better..html http://www.thotzy.com/THOTZY/Thotz/Entries/2008/10/26_Traffi...
- Oompa 15y ago
  If you log into the Comcast Website and go to "Users & Settings" you should see "High-Speed Internet Data Usage" next to the sidebar.
  - cshesse 15y ago
    It can be flaky, sometimes the bar doesn't appear, but usually it does. I have the page bookmarked to I can check it easily. It sorta feels like I'm living in the 1990s and checking on my dial up modem.

alphaoverlord 15y ago

Implicit in the title of "250GB of legitimate use" is the assumption that torrenting or things of that nature are not legitimate. And also supports Comcast's claim that 99% of people do not use that much bandwidth. Sure a bandwidth cap is not a one size fits all solution, but if this is the only guy complaining, it sounds like a one size fits most solution.

zinkem 15y ago
Why is Comcast cutting people off for a year instead of just charging per GB above the cap or upgrading to a higher class service? This is a punishment without a trial.
- alphaoverlord 15y ago
  In this case, there is no need for a trial. The evidence is indisputable and the OP admits to the action. In a free market, I should charge what I want. Why does Comcast need to create a higher tier when 99.9% don't need or want it?

slavak 15y ago

I've seen a lot of posts about US telecoms having "soft caps" for usage on what they call "unlimited data" plans, and I can't for the life of me figure out how in the hell something like that can possibly be legal. If you have a written service contract with your provider that does not explicitly state the service has a bandwidth cap, then how can them shutting off or artificially limiting your access speed /not/ be a breach of contract? Even if there is a clause in the contract about the traffic cap - without them explicitly informing you of the clause, wouldn't you be able to claim deceptive advertising?

lesterbuck 15y ago
Alas, I suspect you have not read your contracts with these companies. These are known as contracts of adhesion, as there is no negotiation, no crossing out things you don't like, and no power balance between the contracting parties. I was handed a set of contract documents for Comcast Business Class Internet. On the "Starter" line was an X, and a price of $64.95. I read every line of every document, and nowhere was "Starter" ever defined. There was the clause that reads "data rates are not guaranteed", but I was hoping that the contract itself might hint that there was some specified difference between Starter, Preferred, and Other. With this contract, the day after you sign up, your data rate can go to 1Kbps and you are still locked into an up to three year business contract.
- slavak 15y ago
  Don't make the mistake of assuming everyone on here is an American. I'm not from the US, and I'm reasonably aware of what my ISP is and isn't allowed to do. Regardless, if what you're saying is accurate then the legal system over there is seriously fucked up.
ianferrel 15y ago
Unless it states a duration, then they can just discontinue the contract at the next billing cycle. Is there any indication that they did otherwise? They're not saying "You're over the limit; you're in breach of contract." They're saying "You don't make us enough money. You're no longer our customer."

joelhaus 15y ago

If only the market was competitive, this would be a non-story. "Right" or not, our future economic success depends on driving broadband prices down and service quality up.

scelerat 15y ago

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 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.

lhnn 15y ago
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.
- scelerat 15y ago
  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.
- rdl 15y ago
  Oakland has had huge budget cuts, directly affecting police. The irony is that (perceived or real) high crime in Oakland is one of the main reasons few businesses move there (here, sadly); Pandora and Oaksterdam are the only new ventures I've really seen. Other than that, it's mostly legacy companies like some big insurers, the Port, etc. I'm sure if you were actively watching a crime, 911 would be accepted, but trying to move everything else to an online report seems like a reasonable cost cutting step. If it were possible to take the report online and keep 1-2 cops out for an extra hour, it's probably worthwhile. There should be an exception process for "come in to the station and file on paper", and for in-progress crimes, and for more serious/life threatening crimes, but as a step, this isn't that unreasonable. Of course, if someone broke into my house here, I'd probably be calling my attorney before I called the Oakland PD.

gst 15y ago

Is Comcast really a monopoly in some parts of the US? Aren't there any other viable options?

darksaga 15y ago
I think this is the main issue I'm seeing in this discussion. I'd say yes, there are other options available. You use a lot of bandwidth? They have your roomies chip in and get a T1 or something higher. There are alternatives, but you have to consider the price. Whether he wants to admit or not, there are tons of alternatives, he's just too cheap to lay down the cash to get what he needs. Besides telecom company options, there's always satellite as an option.
cshesse 15y ago
In San Francisco, where I live, they have basically a monopoly on high speed internet. Here are the options and speeds I have tested: 1) DSL (through ATT or Sonic.net, I got Sonic's ADSL2 service) ~$60 a month, 3.4/0.86 Mbps 2) Monkeybrains local wireless rooftop ISP: $35 a month, ~10/10Mbps, depending on location (large building to the north blocks service to my building) 3) Webpass, same as Monkeybrains, but only handles buildings with like 10+ apartment units, $45 a month, 100/100 or 45/45 Mbps, basically has to already be available where you live, so not me 4) Comcast residential service, ~$60 a month, 22.3/4.34 Mbps, this is what I went with 5) Find someone with a fast internet connection and set up some sort of wireless directional antenna or free space optics to use their connection from the roof - expensive and I don't know anyone with a connection that fast within sight of my building. Nobody can run fiber because of ATT and Comcast having basically monopolies on running cables anywhere. I mean, the city isn't too proactive anyway in that area, but ATT and Comcast are clearly slowing it down a lot

meow 15y ago

Indian ISPs found a curious way of tackling these situations. Since they sell their plans as unlimited, they can't fully cut off the internet access. So as soon as the fair use limit is crossed, the speed drops to punishing 256kbps till the month gets over :|.

unreal37 15y ago
Conmcast should do this. Not cut off his service, but drop his speed to 1MB/s for 1 month. He will then be motivated to find the source of the problem.
decadentcactus 15y ago
256kbps isn't as terrible as it may seem. My internet used to be cut to 56k when it went over, and 95% of websites wouldn't even finish loading. Now I think it cuts back to 512kbps, so things at least load, just no downloading really.

Zarathust 15y ago

In Montreal caps are around 20gb up+down per month. While 250 gb seems "unlimited" for most of you, 20 gb is not. I suggest you start fighting now.

jrockway 15y ago

This is why I pay $130 a month for Speakeasy broadband. They give me 6M and I can use 6M 24/7 with no complaint. Bandwidth costs money. So consumer "ISPs" (and I use that term in a very loose sense) tell you what the burst bandwidth is, and then hope that you don't burst very often. When you do, they drop you, because you cost them money. The solution is to just get a real Internet connection. "Business" is the magic word. The alternative to Comcast's cap strategy is that everyone would be paying $500 a month for Internet access, or you'd be limited to 768kbps with no burst.

Bud 15y ago
No, the alternative, clearly and obviously, is net access the way it is in Europe, where it's both cheaper and much faster than here. Personally, I think Comcast should be stripped of the right to sell net access at all. They're clearly a bad actor.
Natsu 15y ago
> This is why I pay $130 a month for Speakeasy broadband. They give me 6M and I can use 6M 24/7 with no complaint. I like Speakeasy, too (I think they're now called Megapath, though). But around this part of Phoenix, the best they can do is 144 Kbps IDSL and it still costs $120/month. And just because a lot of people confuse Kb and KB, I should mention that, when you account for actual download speeds, you end up with ~15 KB/s, maybe 17-18 KB/s on a good day. And around here, the cable companies cap you at 20 GB/month, which is actually less than you can transfer even on a line this slow. I don't think that $500/month internet is actually the alternative, though. I think the real alternative is to set things up so that there's real competition in the marketplace, rather than a bunch of regional monopolies and a few small competitive areas. Otherwise, they'll spend all their time looking for ways to increase revenue by finding new things to charge us for. After all, the whole Net Neutrality thing started up because they were musing about ways to charge people for using services the ISPs don't actually provide, like Google.

beatpanda 15y ago

This is only going to get worse, and claiming that internet is a "right" or a "utility" will evnetually invite government regulation, which will amplify the pervasive and inevitable problem of corporate malfeasance. We need to build an internet without ISPs if we want to keep what we have.

daimyoyo 15y ago

I have cellular Internet and while the speed is not ideal (about 2Mb/s during the day and 7Mb/s at night) I have unlimited data. I even asked their customer service "so I could run 100Tb of data a month and that would be ok?" And they told me it would be. Granted it's not ideal, but I can stream 360p video on it(my laptop resolution isn't enough for anything higher to make a difference) and since I use it at night most of the time I never have a problem with slow download rates.

nestlequ1k 15y ago

I posted 1.2TB of usage last month. I love the little graph on their comcast.com homepage. Nice big and red bar way way over the 250GB limit. No one contacted me about it. But I'm paying for the super extreme 50mb/sec burst plan for 120/mo so I'm guessing that's the reason they leave me alone "what are you downloading" -> starcraft replays, also downloading video backups to S3

noonespecial 15y ago

He went over his usage, broke his eula etc. Comcast has the right to restrict him, perhaps by slowing his connecttion or charging overages. But seriously, "No net for you! 1 YEAR!"???? Who wrote that policy? Seinfeld? That's damn ugly monopoly behavior that should be brought to the attention of the FCC.

peterwwillis 15y ago

Talk about first world problems. This guy is acting like his access to water was denied because he can't stream movies or use Dropbox. I lived without internet for a year. I was fine. Nobody shunned me from society and I didn't lose the ability to make money. For a while i'd walk over to Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts if I needed an hour of 'net access. When I had to do some interviews from home I went and got a month of Virgin Mobile 3g data for $40. I do believe everyone should have the right to use the internet, since as a communication tool it's more ubiquitous than the telephone and some things like government services require online registration (ex. vehicle inspection at the DMV where I live requires an online-only form). I also believe the poor should get free access, and maybe some day free 'loaned OLPC netbooks. However, he's going about explaining why being banned from the internet is wrong in entirely the wrong way. His defense is basically "I should have the right to be entertained and use free services that there are offline alternatives of!!" If I were an ISP i'd want to ban a guy who uploaded 3 copies of the same song and RAW images too.

parsifal 15y ago

I'm not sure that I totally trust this guy. We stream things all the time, and I actually don't feel like it affects our usage at all. I sort of wonder if things like Netflix, et al., aren't whitelisted.

svin80 15y ago

HA-HA-HA. Living in third world country (Moldova) i have real unlimited 20Mbs. 500Gb a month is the minimum traffic i have.

dennisgorelik 15y ago

In Russia internet providers simply trim the bandwidth of the customers who use too much traffic. Internet still works, but slower. Comcast may consider doing the same.

dennisgorelik 15y ago

I wonder why he did not agree to pay more for his extra traffic?

fourk 15y ago

Interesting. I'm on their 50/20 (mbps down/up) plan and regularly go WAY over the 250GB 'limit' in San Francisco's Mission district and have had no repercussions for doing so. I wonder what the specific conditions are for when/where they choose to enforce this limit, or if it is entirely arbitrary. I've hit a TB down in a single month, and have never heard a word from Comcast about it. Do they turn a blind eye because I'm on a more expensive plan, or is it because of lack of network congestion in the Mission, or maybe due to the availability of alternative internet service providers?

mrbonner 15y ago

Not sure if this is a right. The fact that ISP limits the data cap is ridiculous but it is only for the good of others. This story I think only applies to say less than 1% of normal population. Ok, 250GB/month is not that high, may be making it 500GB/month is more appropriate. What ISP could do is still put the cap on and charge extra for every 10GB after that with a small fee. I think most people dont want to pay extra even if it cost several dollars a month. This models the way we pay for gas, power, water too. But the points are: - Increase the cap to 500GB for example - Don't penalize, charge for each extra 10GB

henryw 15y ago

I think I broke the 250GB cap for 6 months straight (using around 280GB to 350GB), and they didn't care. When I did 1TB in a month, they called me and thought my WIFI was hacked and warned me to not go over. The next couple month I think I did like 275GB. Overall, they are pretty nice about it. I still have my Internet. I'm curious how far over this person went.

t_krupicka 15y ago

The most neutral resolution to this is instead of comcast denying service to this user, they need to install fees for excessive amounts of data used. While this person thinks of bandwith as a utility and a right, a utility is not based on a flat rate, and the writer obviously voided their agreement of their right to use data.

t_krupicka 15y ago

devicenull 15y ago

Repost? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2757142 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2757142

code_duck 15y ago

250GB is a rather absurd amount. But there's no reason Comcast couldn't just cut him off for the rest of the month, right? Seems pretty dumb.

xenophanes 15y ago

You have to switch to a small business account instead of a residential account with comcast. Then you get genuinely unlimited use, no bandwidth cap. That is the only way to get past their 250GB cap. It's absurd that they won't sell you more bandwidth on any residential plan at any price, and that they kick people off the service rather than charging overages. You do not need to have a business location to do this, or actually have a business. They will sell you small business cable internet at your residential apartment.

cshesse 15y ago
I looked at this, but they want to charge a high installation fee and have a 1-year contract. Can you avoid the installation fee if you already have residential service? What about the contract?
res0nat0r 15y ago
Business internet plans for personal use are way too expensive IMO. $100/month for 22Mbits? That's terrible.
- xenophanes 15y ago
  What are you suggesting? Is there a competing product available to buy which is better? I don't know of one in most areas. IMO bandwidth is worth paying for. You can say there "should" be better deals available. But it doesn't do any good. If you think it's so easy to provide better internet then start a company.
  - iamdave 15y ago
    You can say there "should" be better deals available. But it doesn't do any good. If you think it's so easy to provide better internet then start a company. Because sitting idly watching ISP's ratchet up costs and lower the quality of service sure is getting things done.
    - xenophanes 15y ago

etheric 15y ago

From Comcasts AUP: What will happen if I exceed 250 GB of data usage in a month? The vast majority - more than 99% - of our customers will not be impacted by a 250 GB monthly data usage threshold. If you exceed more than 250 GB, you may receive a call from the Customer Security Assurance ("CSA") team to notify you of excessive use. At that time, we will tell you exactly how much data you used. When we call you, we try to help you identify the source of excessive use and ask you to moderate your usage, which the vast majority of our customers do voluntarily. If you exceed 250GB again within six months of the first contact, your service will be subject to termination and you will not be eligible for either residential or commercial internet service for twelve (12) months. We know from experience that most customers curb their usage after our first call. If your account is terminated, after the twelve (12) month period expires, you may resume service by subscribing to a service plan appropriate to your needs. They say they will help you identify the reason you went over your cap. "When we call you, we try to help you identify the source of excessive use and ask you to moderate your usage, which the vast majority of our customers do voluntarily." Which they clearly didn't do in this case. This would be acceptable if we had another option for broadband internet, but we don't.

rajpaul 15y ago

Comcast fired you as a customer. I can imagine scenarios where this would be a profitable business tactic for them.

etfb 15y ago

Convinced of his rights, and completely oblivious to his obligations, particularly the one that involves reading the details of any contract he signs. Sounds like classic Entitlement Queen behaviour. I'd sympathise more if I weren't paying AUD$90 (about USD$100) for 200Gb -- granted it's with Internode, one of the most magnificently customer-focused businesses on the planet, so I'm not complaining...

donpark 15y ago

I doubt anything one has to pay for could be a 'human right' but, if so, my bet is on '3 meals a day' becoming a human right before 'internet access' does.

bugsy 15y ago

The basic problem here is that 250GB per person is not sustainable with the current networks, nor is it sustainable at rates people are willing to pay for access. Cloud and other services that depend on enormous bandwidth costs to be absorbed by others leads to the free rider problem. NetFlix is the biggest free rider around. Their rates do not cover the cost of bandwidth because their basic business model is parasitical.

jeggers5 15y ago

Oh come on. You're completely abusing Comcast's Service and now you're telling some sympathetic story about how it's unfair. 250GB/month is massive, and you knew full well that you were on your last chance, and it's not surprising that they measure upload data as bandwidth (what on earth did you expect?). If you were going to be using the service like that, you should've asked first. Don't try and tell us you 'forgot' that you had a server down stairs moving gigabytes of data around. I wouldn't want you as a customer either.

gte910h 15y ago

If you have a monopoly, your rights as a service provider go waaaaaaay down. I think the monopoly should be stripped from them if they can't handle proper pricing.