3 ms·

This is very questionable reporting. The changes that Comcast are making are flat-out improvements. The old plan is 250gb of usage, then dire consequences. T

by tomku 14y ago

This is very questionable reporting. The changes that Comcast are making are flat-out improvements. The old plan is 250gb of usage, then dire consequences. The new plans start at a minimum of 300gb usage, and add extra 50gb chunks for a fee if you need to use them. The TechCrunch writer is very worried about hitting bandwidth caps, but hitting those caps is both more likely and more severe of a problem under the old system! It might help to translate into a different domain. Let's say you're offered the choice between two cell phone plans of equal cost. The first plan has 1,000 minutes, and once you hit 1,000 minutes your phone shuts off and refuses to either send or receive calls. The second plan has 1,250 minutes and an overage charge of $10 per 250 minutes after 1,250. This TC piece is making the argument that the second is worse, because billing you based on how much you talk is a slippery slope that will lead to the elimination of long phone calls, even though the second plan allows you to make more and longer calls if you need to. The problem with that argument is that the phone company is really billing you by how much you talk on both plans, one just gives you fewer options.

nabilt 14y ago
The problem is 250GB is already too low especially when there is no evidence that me downloading 1GB vs 100GB costs ISP the amount of money they are asking for. Congestion is definitely a problem, but charging per bit does nothing to solve that. I live in Canada and I pay ~$60 for 28mbps and 120GB download cap, which I hit every month. So far I am the only person in the house using high bandwidth apps like Netflix. Usage based billing is not a long term fix for people like me. Instead of increasing the bandwidth caps to competitive rates which smaller ISPs and other countries provide Comcast has decided to charge per bit to future proof their business model dodging the real problem.
- tomku 14y ago
  You're comparing two solutions that solve completely different problems, and complaining that Comcast (and other ISPs) chose the one that solves their problem rather than yours. I don't know why this surprises you. Comcast's goal is not to provide you or I with as much bandwidth as we want, it's to make a profit off of providing a service. High-usage users are a drain on their profits, and they only provide service to us because we'd be a PR disaster if they tossed us and we ended up telling all our friends and family to switch to some other provider. On the other hand, we would obviously prefer much higher or non-existent caps. Comcast is understandably not amenable to that, as it'd require substantial investment in infrastructure improvements for minimal increased revenue. Whatever happens is going to be some kind of compromise, and the one they're proposing makes them additional money while also giving us "power users" an option besides "run into the cap and die". I don't think that that's a terrible idea. Like you, I'd prefer higher caps for the same price, but the reality of it is just more complex. ISPs are strongly opposed to doing anything that would increase costs or decrease revenues, and customers are strongly opposed to doing anything that would increase prices or decrease quality of service. Something has to give, and in the short term that's going to mean pain for both sides. In the long term, technological progress and the limited (but present) competition between providers will mean that we'll probably end up paying about the same amount for a slowly-increasing amount of service. That means faster connections, higher caps and more options, just not as soon as you or I want them. Disclaimer: I don't have Comcast cable, but I do have cable service from one of their smaller competitors.
  - nabilt 14y ago
    > You're comparing two solutions that solve completely different problems I don't think I am. I am not surprised that Comcast will do whatever it can to increase profits. My problem is with Comcast claiming high bandwidth users are a drain on their system, when there is no evidence to show this, so they can push an unfavourable pricing model on their customers. Again, congestion is a real problem, but charging by the bit does nothing to solve this. This "solution" means they probably won't increase their caps to be more competitive.

by tomku 14y ago

nabilt 14y ago

The problem is 250GB is already too low especially when there is no evidence that me downloading 1GB vs 100GB costs ISP the amount of money they are asking for. Congestion is definitely a problem, but charging per bit does nothing to solve that. I live in Canada and I pay ~$60 for 28mbps and 120GB download cap, which I hit every month. So far I am the only person in the house using high bandwidth apps like Netflix. Usage based billing is not a long term fix for people like me. Instead of increasing the bandwidth caps to competitive rates which smaller ISPs and other countries provide Comcast has decided to charge per bit to future proof their business model dodging the real problem.

tomku 14y ago
You're comparing two solutions that solve completely different problems, and complaining that Comcast (and other ISPs) chose the one that solves their problem rather than yours. I don't know why this surprises you. Comcast's goal is not to provide you or I with as much bandwidth as we want, it's to make a profit off of providing a service. High-usage users are a drain on their profits, and they only provide service to us because we'd be a PR disaster if they tossed us and we ended up telling all our friends and family to switch to some other provider. On the other hand, we would obviously prefer much higher or non-existent caps. Comcast is understandably not amenable to that, as it'd require substantial investment in infrastructure improvements for minimal increased revenue. Whatever happens is going to be some kind of compromise, and the one they're proposing makes them additional money while also giving us "power users" an option besides "run into the cap and die". I don't think that that's a terrible idea. Like you, I'd prefer higher caps for the same price, but the reality of it is just more complex. ISPs are strongly opposed to doing anything that would increase costs or decrease revenues, and customers are strongly opposed to doing anything that would increase prices or decrease quality of service. Something has to give, and in the short term that's going to mean pain for both sides. In the long term, technological progress and the limited (but present) competition between providers will mean that we'll probably end up paying about the same amount for a slowly-increasing amount of service. That means faster connections, higher caps and more options, just not as soon as you or I want them. Disclaimer: I don't have Comcast cable, but I do have cable service from one of their smaller competitors.
- nabilt 14y ago
  > You're comparing two solutions that solve completely different problems I don't think I am. I am not surprised that Comcast will do whatever it can to increase profits. My problem is with Comcast claiming high bandwidth users are a drain on their system, when there is no evidence to show this, so they can push an unfavourable pricing model on their customers. Again, congestion is a real problem, but charging by the bit does nothing to solve this. This "solution" means they probably won't increase their caps to be more competitive.