Comcast again

[notta]

Dear Comcast High-Speed Internet Customer:

Comcast is committed to providing you with the best online experience possible.

One of the ways we do that is by managing the leading fiber optic network in the nation to ensure it is fast, safe and reliable. As part of our ongoing efforts to continuously improve the quality of our service, we are switching to a new network congestion management technique by the end of the year. It is focused on managing network congestion only when and where it may occur. It will also replace the current technique and will help ensure that all of our customers receive their fair share of network resources.

What does this mean for you? Probably nothing. We ran five market trials of this technique over the summer and found that less than one percent of customers were affected. So, the vast majority of customers will not notice any change to their Internet experience as a result of this new technique. During the times of busiest network use (which could occur at any hour, depending on your neighborhood), those very few extraordinarily heavy users – who are doing things like conducting multiple and continuous large file transfers – may experience slightly longer response times for some online activities until the period of network congestion ends.

As we transition to this new technique, we have amended our Acceptable Use Policy ("AUP") and posted it on the Comcast.net Web site. For links to the amended AUP, as well as answers to Frequently Asked Questions and more information about this new technique or our network management efforts in general, please visit our Network Management Policy page at: www.comcast.net/networkmanagement.

Thank you again for choosing Comcast as your high-speed Internet provider.

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

every network has some sort of network management, they were never going to stop throttling when they stated the 250 limit

[HeartsOfWar]

Doesn't bother me - I'm about to hit almost 3 years of free comcast internet service... .... ... :whistle:

[revvo]

In other words, we are greedy ****ers who have found a new way of cutting costs simply by affecting a small percentage of our paying customers. Thank you for letting us screw you.

These telecommunication companies, Internet providers and mobile phone providers are the worst...

[notta]

I think you guys saying that you don't see a problem with it are missing the bigger picture. Does it make sense to punish everyone because of what 1% do? Seems a little ass backwards to me. I totally agree nail the SOB's that abuse the system, but I don't want rules being applied because they soon lead to more rules and then more rules.

In other words, we are greedy ****ers who have found a new way of cutting costs simply by affecting a small percentage of our paying customers. Thank you for letting us screw you.

These telecommunication companies, Internet providers and mobile phone providers are the worst...

I just think it's funny how within the same week of announcing the 250 gig cap they send out another email offering the 16 mbps service for another ten dollars a month. We all know this move was about money, but damn wait a month or 2 before sending an email like that.

[revvo]

^ Well yeah, here they do that also (Videotron cable ISP). You guys are lucky though, 250GB/month is a fairly big cap. The fastest cable connection here is 50mbps with a 50gb/month cap. <-- Do you see what's wrong there? The connection is so fast that you can rape that 50GB limit within a few days. Then what happens? You gotta pay for extra GB's beyond the cap. Marketing geniuses, real screwjobs and I'm fedup of this... I'm on a 5mbps simply because there's no cap but even if I had a cap of 250GB/month, I don't think I ever did that much in a good while.

That's the genius of these greedy corps. Only 1% (and I'll argue that it's much larger than that) are aware that everyone is getting screwed. Most customers are not heavy users so they will not notice a change. For them, the internet works, that's good enough for them!

[primexx]

Indiscriminatory network congestion management is very sensible for ISPs to maintain quality service to everyone. How is "everyone getting screwed" if they never reach the cap anyways (and thus it's just a meaningless number to them)? They're still paying the same amount for the same service, except now they can actually use some stuff even faster because Comcast isn't packet shaping based on protocal anymore. That 1% who's aware "everyone's" so called getting screwed is the 1% who themselves are using a disproportionate amount of resources.

[revvo]

Just to reassure you, I'm speaking based on the news articles that have been showing up, we got our own problems here with ISPs in Canada but that's not the topic.

Comcast had unlimited bandwidth, and recently they decided to shove a 250GB cap. Fair enough you think? Most people can't even get near that! So what's wrong? It's the "same" service, right? Wrong. You went out there, and initially bought a service that claimed to be unlimited, and later the company changed that to cut their costs, thus screwing the customers who aren't getting unlimited bandwidth anymore.

As far as the "1% who themselves are using a disproportionate amount of resources" <--- What are they doing wrong? If a company offers a service, and they don't even have the infrastructure to support themselves because some of their customers are heavy users of the services, whose fault is it? The customer who's using what's being advertised and sold, or the supplier who can't handle it?

[primexx]

Just to reassure you, I'm speaking based on the news articles that have been showing up, we got our own problems here with ISPs in Canada but that's not the topic.

Comcast had unlimited bandwidth, and recently they decided to shove a 250GB cap. Fair enough you think? Most people can't even get near that! So what's wrong? It's the "same" service, right? Wrong. You went out there, and initially bought a service that claimed to be unlimited, and later the company changed that to cut their costs, thus screwing the customers who aren't getting unlimited bandwidth anymore.

As far as the "1% who themselves are using a disproportionate amount of resources" <--- What are they doing wrong? If a company offers a service, and they don't even have the infrastructure to support themselves because some of their customers are heavy users of the services, whose fault is it? The customer who's using what's being advertised and sold, or the supplier who can't handle it?

In the first instance, disregarding the fact that nobody can possibly offer "unlimited" service, everyone who don't ever reach the cap is still getting the exact same service, they're still paying the same money for the same amount of transfers they do each month, the fact that there's now a theoretical limit which they never reach anyways doesn't change the amount that they actually use.

In the case of that 1%, it certainly screws over existing customers who are over the limit, since as you say they signed up under a different promise. It would be reasonable for them to be able to break contract without penalty, I'm not sure if Comcast was nice enough to actually allow this.

However, the practise itself isn't prima facie bad, and heavy users who either signed up under these terms or have been presented an option to break contract but chose not to would certainly not be wronged by it.

[aussiefloyd_fan]

Doesn't bother me - I'm about to hit almost 3 years of free comcast internet service... .... ... :whistle:

WTF i mean HTF HOW THE ***k do yu get it free fo 3 years

:shifty: :woot:

[Athlonite]

WTF i mean HTF HOW THE ***k do yu get it free fo 3 years

:shifty: :woot:

+1

and i wouldn't be scoffing at that 250gig cap mines 25gig with a 4mbps connection and my isp use a layer7 unit from juniper to "shape" the traffic on it's network which basically means you want to use p2p then it'll be slow till after midnight but between 12am and 8:30am p2p screams

@ aussie floyd fan whats the earliest floyd you have??

[0sit0]

Doesn't bother me - I'm about to hit almost 3 years of free comcast internet service... .... ... :whistle:

lol :rolleyes:

[AKladis]

Since Comcast has gone against the agreement to their customers I wonder if the customer is legally obligated to pay any overages? Or better yet, what if a customer ask for a reduction in fees since Comcast has made it clear they are slowing down services?

I know - I know! Comcast has something in the "extremely fine print" of every contract stating that Comcast can change the terms of the contract at their discretion...

[DavidM]

Since Comcast has gone against the agreement to their customers I wonder if the customer is legally obligated to pay any overages? Or better yet, what if a customer ask for a reduction in fees since Comcast has made it clear they are slowing down services?

I know - I know! Comcast has something in the "extremely fine print" of every contract stating that Comcast can change the terms of the contract at their discretion...

4. Changes To Services

Subject to applicable law, we have the right to change our Services, Comcast Equipment and rates or charges, at any time with or without notice. We also may rearrange, delete, add to or otherwise change programming or features or offerings contained in the Services, including but not limited to, content, functionality, hours of availability, customer equipment requirements, speed and upstream and downstream rate limitations. If we do give you notice, it may be provided on your monthly bill, as a bill insert, in a newspaper or other communication permitted under applicable law. If you find a change in the Service(s) unacceptable, you have the right to cancel your Service(s). However, if you continue to receive Service(s) after the change, this will constitute your acceptance of the change. Please take the time to read any notices of changes to the Service(s). We are not liable for failure to deliver any programming, services, CHANGES TO SERVICESfeatures or offerings except as provided in Section 11e.

It's the 4th section and it's plain as day right here. It's not like they try and hide it, nor did they try and hide the fact they were going to cap up/down @ 250gbs per month. They DID start restricting traffic with Sandvine without notice and they are in a little bit of trouble (they will probably get away with it) for not informing their customers.

However they clearly state you can get out of your contract (my bold in the above paragraph) if you do not agree to the changes. There is no reason if you don't like their changes for you not to cancel your service and find another provider. In my case there really isn't another provider worth having (ATT sucks more than Comcast in my area) so while I don't like the cap (I believe it's reasonable, but not what I signed up for) or their traffic "shaping" as they called it at one point I have no choice. Well, really I do, but none that make sense to me.

So I will continue to use them until they change it enough that I can no longer take it. ;)

[LOC Veteran]

I just think it's funny how within the same week of announcing the 250 gig cap they send out another email offering the 16 mbps service for another ten dollars a month. We all know this move was about money, but damn wait a month or 2 before sending an email like that.

When did they announce the 16 mbps tier? And is it national now or just in FIOS areas still? Because I've checked DSLreports and a few other sites, and I don't see anything about it being national or widely available :(