Comcast to cap monthly bandwidth starting Oct. 1


Recommended Posts

If you use over 250Gig of bandwidth a month, you deserve to be capped. What are you doing?!

Sorry?

I pay ?40 for a 20Mb connection and if i downloaded non stop for 24 hours i could get 192Gb a day its ridiculous to put small caps on really fast connections considering im paying a premium for it, luckily Virgin doesnt have a monthly cap.

I actually have Comcast and don't see that as a problem. I have the top Blast level, 16M/2M and I never get close. Comcast gives some examples on what it would take to reach the limit. If you did any one of the following you'd reach the limit:

* Send 50 million emails (at 0.05 KB/email)

* Download 62,500 4 MB songs (at 4 MB/song)

* Download 125 standard-definition movies (at 2 GB/movie)

* Upload 25,000 hi-resolution digital photos (at 10 MB/photo)

There is a simple way around this. Get Business Class, no limits. You get some extras with doing so, a different support number, a better business class modem, more e-mails addresses and you can run servers (on the home account level servers are a violation of the TOS). You can get a static IP for a little extra. At my level service in the market I'm in Business Class would cost $12.00 US more a month.

I'm going for it, but I'm changing some stuff in my computer room right now. I don't want them to come in to install the new equipment before I am done. I have to relocate the lines coming into the room.

Comcast says only about 2% hit that limit. They say some are surpassing most of the small business account users.

I :kiss: :heart: Verizon FiOS. Hope that they don't jump on the bandwagon :unsure: .

I am sure I am nowhere near that 250G limit even on my 5/2 Mbps FiOS line, I hate the idea of limiting me when I am paying $50/mo for it. :angry: Glad I got rid of Comcrap last year.

So Comcast also wants to get into the streaming movie biz as well. My question if you are a heavy movie watcher using there "wanna be" service would they cap you as well ...... hell no. And people thoght MS wanted to "take over the internet" Comcast seems to thiink just cause they are the biggest they can write there own rules and ignore how others do business. Seems this is a direct response to the last FCC ruling to me.

Dude.. CY... how the heck do you download over 1,000 GB? Oh wait..

"We've listened to feedback from our customers who asked that we provide a specific threshold for data usage and this would help them understand the amount of usage that would qualify as excessive," the company said in a statement on its Web site.

Am I the only one that finds something off about this statement? Why would people continue to ask for "a specific threshold for data usage"? The only logical explanation is that they would receive this feedback as a result of forcing restrictions on customers.

"La la la, life is good, download, download." *gasp* "What the!? Why's my intarwebs slow?!" *calls Comcast* "What? What limit? What cap!? Show me!" *feedback logged by Comcast*

250GB is plenty so there's no concern for me.

We have a 95 gb cap here in Canada with Rogers, which sucks, its not nearly enough, here is my repot for this month so far...

RogersUsage.jpg

At least you guys get 250 gb, thats a lot better than 95...

Seriously a TB in a month? That is exactly why ISPs are enacting caps, because of of torrents and ever increasing HD capacity, something had to give, and we all know it would be the ISPs.

The capping isn't bothering me as much as, when ISPs go the route of cable channel-like packaging, a certain amount of websites in a basic package, some for in a silver package, and then the gold package, where you get unlimited number of sites. It's only a matter of time.

Dude.. CY... how the heck do you download over 1,000 GB? Oh wait..

Am I the only one that finds something off about this statement? Why would people continue to ask for "a specific threshold for data usage"? The only logical explanation is that they would receive this feedback as a result of forcing restrictions on customers.

"La la la, life is good, download, download." *gasp* "What the!? Why's my intarwebs slow?!" *calls Comcast* "What? What limit? What cap!? Show me!" *feedback logged by Comcast*

250GB is plenty so there's no concern for me.

People DID ask. A couple people got turned off for downloading over 250 gb which spurred an outcry demanding comcast let them know if there was a "cap" and now there is. Be careful what you wish for.

just...wow bandwidth sucks in australia 30Mbit connection but only 25GB bandwidth could get 60GB but thats pushing $125+

would be nice to have 250GB but you'd have to be torrenting/downloading alot of useless crap that you'd never need or have no life watching every youtube video ever made :p

People DID ask. A couple people got turned off for downloading over 250 gb which spurred an outcry demanding comcast let them know if there was a "cap" and now there is. Be careful what you wish for.

I know that. My point is that it was not as if customers were going to Comcast asking to know this information without something prompting them to do it.

Sorry?

I pay ?40 for a 20Mb connection and if i downloaded non stop for 24 hours i could get 192Gb a day its ridiculous to put small caps on really fast connections considering im paying a premium for it, luckily Virgin doesnt have a monthly cap.

Yes but you wouldn't be able to download non stop @ 20MB for 24 hours due to VM's traffic management.

Radish?

Yeah im not disputing or complaining about traffic management, but when i pay ?40 a month for my internet i dont expect to have an unrealistic monthly cap, if they cant provide a decent level of service stop jacking up the speeds for free.

Isn't this like 8GB/day, every day of the month? Rather than talk about how people can use 250 in a month, can somebody give an example of a typical day where you would download more than 8GB? A *typical* day, meaning you could behave similarly for the next 29 days in a row.

Lord knows I'd get tired of Netflix really quick. Who can sit still, zoned out at a screen for two hours straight anyway? Maybe it's cuz I didn't grow up with the TV addiction...

P.S. If ISPs are worried about curbing this sort of behavior, though, it'd be nice if they could go with a solution that lets them potentially keep the customer. Just cap the user's speed at a rate that would prevent them from getting more than 250GB in a month on an average of 8 hours of surfing a day.

P.P.S. If you're in front of a computer downloading at full speed for more than 8 hours a day, get a freaking life man. Christ. There's a world out there, and you could probably use a jog in it.

Yeah im not disputing or complaining about traffic management, but when i pay ?40 a month for my internet i dont expect to have an unrealistic monthly cap, if they cant provide a decent level of service stop jacking up the speeds for free.

faster speeds != downloading more;))

my downloading habbits haven't really changed from being on 4Mb to being on 20Mb, it just means i get things quicker which is what a lot of people want

Here's his defense:

I work from home a lot, i have to remotely connect to work, internet radio, videos, internet games, yeah, this cap will definitely better meet my needs....

I always work from home, listen to internet radio every work day, stream videos almost each day, play online on my PC and my 360 and on top of that, I'm a web developer/designer, so I'm constantly uploading (granted these files are typically 1-6KB). A few months back I decided to download four seasons of one TV show that no longer airs and never received any indicator that I have approached any type of limit. I'm with Comcast, so my limit is obviously higher, but he racked up over a terabyte. That's far, far more than what he listed would use.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
    • So how did you solve the problem? Disabling Secure Boot isn’t a solution.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      agatameier earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!