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.
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.
Comcast as what is essentially a public utility operates within a framework of the FCC which creates a non-competitive marketplace so that service providers such as Comcast can ostensibly focus on providing better service to the public rather than focusing on competitive efforts such as better marketing, customer service, etc. The deal between Comcast and the gov't is essentially "We'll take care of competition, you focus on providing great infrastructure to the public"
In a very close to completely free market such as a bakery I'd agree with you but Comcast operates in a different kind of market, also depending on when the person signed up one of the terms marketed might have been "Unlimited Internet" which would suggest that you could consume unlimited services for a fixed price. Also, if there is a 250GB cap then Comcast should just terminate the service for the remainder of the month, and change the wording of their marketing to "Transfer upto 250GB per month for a flat monthly fee"
In a non-competitive market fueled by public expendature I don't see why it would be inappropriate to force service providers to provide access to the infrastructure to all under the same terms.
For example: You pay a fixed price for a fixed amount of bandwidth and your service stops working when you exceed that.
Comcast is the Internet Soup Nazi: "No internet for you! 1 Year!"
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.
A better way of putting this would be "electronic access to the world web of information and services is becoming an extension of our brains, and as such some degree of connectivity should be considered a public commons that the government is required to provide to each citizen, much the same as parkland, airspace, or waterways."
This implies that some parts of infrastructure are private (personal access devices), some parts are public (perhaps a limited amount of bandwidth donated to the public in return for use of the airwaves), and some are commercial (the infrastructure from the ISP to the rest of the net).
Each segment in this scheme has special needs, responsibilities, and privileges. Using the word "right" as a blanket statement doesn't cut it -- it begins to substitute ranting for reasoning. I sympathize with the author, but their problem is lack of competition, not abuse of their rights.
Sorry, Comcast has been handed a monopoly franchise for broadband in many parts of the US, including Seattle. With their obscene profits comes an obligation to provide acceptable service in all reasonable cases. This is not an equal bargain between two independent parties -- the OP has ZERO alternative broadband providers and the real battle Comcast is fighting is against Netflix.
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.
Actually if you read his post from a day ago, you will see him state he stopped the open access point. He took steps to stop what he thought was the issue. It was not until the cap was broken a second time that he realized it was his backup system uploading to a 3rd party service.
That is not entitlement at all. If anything it was ignorance of the fact that your upload data is also measured against the cap.
I agree with him about going to the FCC. The fact that he has no where to turn to purchase a competing service means that Comcast can dictate peoples internet usage behavior. My question would be is does the 250g data cap apply when they are watching TV/Movies online via Comcast (XFinity) provided services?
Comcast refused to work with him, even though he was willing and motivated to address the problem. Even after being careful with bandwidth and disabling his public access point, they still cut him off for a year with no appeal.
This mirrors what happened to me. I was given an automated warning. I called the security number but they wouldn't tell me what sort of traffic I should be looking for. They didn't even have a bandwidth meter rolled out in my area at the time! I had to guess what my bandwidth usage was for the next few months. I even called to make sure that I was under the cap, but they wouldn't tell me anything at all. "I'm sure you're fine" the rep said. And then they cut me off. (Turns out it was a misconfigured bittorrent client, but at least I knew that upload counted toward the cap.) I at least managed to switch to a business account, which isn't too much more expensive and has no cap. Last month I pushed over 1TB, no complaints.
Comcast has a geographic monopoly in his area and like every other monopoly should be under some sort of government regulation. What Comcast should do if they are actually under bandwidth constraints is lower his 15Mb connection to 1Mb after he passed the 250GB cap. What they actually did was drop a customer because their profit margins weren't as high as the wanted them to be.
However, to be fair, Comcast isn't very "open" with regard to the policy. You log in, see a graph, click "details" and get some mumbo jumbo about only 99% of users exceeding the cap. Clicking "Learn more" takes you to a page that is filled with questions that will deter many users (similar to a EULA - who "really" reads those?!) Up until this blog post, I had absolutely no idea they counted upstream against the cap (I thought it was just downstream)!
Sure, it's my fault -- I didn't dig deep enough to find this line in the FAQ:
"Data usage, also known as bandwidth usage, is the amount of data, such as images, movies, photos, videos, and other files that customers send, receive, download or upload over a specific period of time."
Then again, maybe they should just plainly state that on their site somewhere that both uploads and downloads count against my cap?
As a Comcast subscriber, in a similar situation where I am uploading a LOT of data (for work, and cloud based services), this was a rude awakening. Fortunately for me, I'm not using nearly as much bandwidth as he is (last month, I hit 100GB) - but I still wish Comcast was more open. Especially with the world moving towards a more "cloud" based computing (with on demand video!) I mean, their "typical/median use" is laughable in this day and age:
Data usage changes over time as our customers use the Internet and the services and applications available for it. Currently, the median data usage by XFINITY Internet customers is approximately 4 - 6 GB each month (these numbers may vary on a monthly basis). This reflects typical residential use of the service for purposes such as sending and receiving email, surfing the Internet, and watching streaming video.
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.
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.
Or at least choke you way way down. But even more important than the "cut off at cutoff point" solution is the "let me know my usage" solution. They couldn't (or wouldn't) tell him anything about the shape of his bandwidth usage, or how much he was actually consuming, and there is no way (!) to find out how much has been consumed "so far this month". Even if that way to check was to phone Comcast, but especially if there were a website you could go to, I think Comcast would have a much better case here.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 :|.
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.
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.
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
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.
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|14 years ago|reply
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|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bradleyland|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] fleitz|14 years ago|reply
If you read this you can see that Comcast does indeed try to convince the consumer that you can transfer any amount of data you want for a fixed monthly fee: http://consumerist.com/2010/03/comcast-unlimited-usage-doesn...
Comcast as what is essentially a public utility operates within a framework of the FCC which creates a non-competitive marketplace so that service providers such as Comcast can ostensibly focus on providing better service to the public rather than focusing on competitive efforts such as better marketing, customer service, etc. The deal between Comcast and the gov't is essentially "We'll take care of competition, you focus on providing great infrastructure to the public"
In a very close to completely free market such as a bakery I'd agree with you but Comcast operates in a different kind of market, also depending on when the person signed up one of the terms marketed might have been "Unlimited Internet" which would suggest that you could consume unlimited services for a fixed price. Also, if there is a 250GB cap then Comcast should just terminate the service for the remainder of the month, and change the wording of their marketing to "Transfer upto 250GB per month for a flat monthly fee"
In a non-competitive market fueled by public expendature I don't see why it would be inappropriate to force service providers to provide access to the infrastructure to all under the same terms.
For example: You pay a fixed price for a fixed amount of bandwidth and your service stops working when you exceed that.
Comcast is the Internet Soup Nazi: "No internet for you! 1 Year!"
[+] [-] megaman821|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beaumartinez|14 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-human-ri...
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|14 years ago|reply
A better way of putting this would be "electronic access to the world web of information and services is becoming an extension of our brains, and as such some degree of connectivity should be considered a public commons that the government is required to provide to each citizen, much the same as parkland, airspace, or waterways."
This implies that some parts of infrastructure are private (personal access devices), some parts are public (perhaps a limited amount of bandwidth donated to the public in return for use of the airwaves), and some are commercial (the infrastructure from the ISP to the rest of the net).
Each segment in this scheme has special needs, responsibilities, and privileges. Using the word "right" as a blanket statement doesn't cut it -- it begins to substitute ranting for reasoning. I sympathize with the author, but their problem is lack of competition, not abuse of their rights.
[+] [-] JamieEi|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martianpenguin|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] naner|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] crs|14 years ago|reply
That is not entitlement at all. If anything it was ignorance of the fact that your upload data is also measured against the cap.
I agree with him about going to the FCC. The fact that he has no where to turn to purchase a competing service means that Comcast can dictate peoples internet usage behavior. My question would be is does the 250g data cap apply when they are watching TV/Movies online via Comcast (XFinity) provided services?
[+] [-] sp332|14 years ago|reply
This mirrors what happened to me. I was given an automated warning. I called the security number but they wouldn't tell me what sort of traffic I should be looking for. They didn't even have a bandwidth meter rolled out in my area at the time! I had to guess what my bandwidth usage was for the next few months. I even called to make sure that I was under the cap, but they wouldn't tell me anything at all. "I'm sure you're fine" the rep said. And then they cut me off. (Turns out it was a misconfigured bittorrent client, but at least I knew that upload counted toward the cap.) I at least managed to switch to a business account, which isn't too much more expensive and has no cap. Last month I pushed over 1TB, no complaints.
[+] [-] Dylan16807|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] megaman821|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j79|14 years ago|reply
However, to be fair, Comcast isn't very "open" with regard to the policy. You log in, see a graph, click "details" and get some mumbo jumbo about only 99% of users exceeding the cap. Clicking "Learn more" takes you to a page that is filled with questions that will deter many users (similar to a EULA - who "really" reads those?!) Up until this blog post, I had absolutely no idea they counted upstream against the cap (I thought it was just downstream)!
Sure, it's my fault -- I didn't dig deep enough to find this line in the FAQ:
"Data usage, also known as bandwidth usage, is the amount of data, such as images, movies, photos, videos, and other files that customers send, receive, download or upload over a specific period of time."
Then again, maybe they should just plainly state that on their site somewhere that both uploads and downloads count against my cap?
As a Comcast subscriber, in a similar situation where I am uploading a LOT of data (for work, and cloud based services), this was a rude awakening. Fortunately for me, I'm not using nearly as much bandwidth as he is (last month, I hit 100GB) - but I still wish Comcast was more open. Especially with the world moving towards a more "cloud" based computing (with on demand video!) I mean, their "typical/median use" is laughable in this day and age:
Data usage changes over time as our customers use the Internet and the services and applications available for it. Currently, the median data usage by XFINITY Internet customers is approximately 4 - 6 GB each month (these numbers may vary on a monthly basis). This reflects typical residential use of the service for purposes such as sending and receiving email, surfing the Internet, and watching streaming video.
[+] [-] peapicker|14 years ago|reply
If they want to cap, they need to cap customers with a technical solution.
[+] [-] Splines|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] blahedo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sherlock|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbingham|14 years ago|reply
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|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] slavak|14 years ago|reply
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|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ianferrel|14 years ago|reply
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."
[+] [-] VonGuard|14 years ago|reply
Tyranny of the last mile still exists, and isn't going away any time soon.
[+] [-] jseliger|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mashmac2|14 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] tzs|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] corncobpipe|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shareme|14 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] xenophanes|14 years ago|reply
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|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] res0nat0r|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xiaoqmaii|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] etheric|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] emelski|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Thangorodrim|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] meow|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Oompa|14 years ago|reply
Comcast hasn't contacted me or shut off our service yet, and I hope they don't.
[+] [-] wccrawford|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] nestlequ1k|14 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] svin80|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reustle|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrockway|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] joelhaus|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ctingom|14 years ago|reply