Comcast mulls 250GB monthly bandwidth cap: report
Fri May 9, 2008 11:41AM EDT
See Comments (39)
First came the news that Time Warner is testing bandwidth caps in Texas, and now here's Comcast, apparently considering a cap of its own—a 250GB cap, mind you, compared to Time Warner's stingy 5-to-40GB plans.
Anyway, the plan calls for a 250GB monthly cap for all Comcast subscribers, with a once-a-year "get out of jail free" card for users who exceed the limit, according to DSLreports. After that, subscribers would pay $10 for every 10GB they use over the limit.
There's nothing fun about bandwidth caps and overage charges, of course, but at least Comcast's proposal is one I could live with. 250GB a month comes out to about 8.3GB a day, equivalent to an HD movie download with a gig or two to spare.
That sounds a lot better than Time Warner Cable's upcoming trial in Beaumont, Texas, that would charge subscribers $1-a-gig extra for exceeding monthly bandwidth caps ranging from 5GB to 40GB, with the 40GB plan potentially costing $50-$60 a month. As I pointed out at the time, renting just eight HD movie downloads (at about 5GB each) would exceed a 40GB monthly cap.
On the other hand, a 250GB bandwidth cap sounds reasonable—and I'd rather have the limit spelled out in black and white, rather than wonder whether my provider is throttling my usage even through I'm on a supposed "all you can eat" plan. It's well worth noting that Comcast has been under fire from the FCC for allegedly interfering with and even disconnecting heavy bandwidth users on its network, even though Comcast currently has no official usage limits.
What do you think—could you live with a 250GB bandwidth cap?
Related:
Comcast Considering 250GB Cap, Overage Fees [DSLreports]
Comments on Comcast mulls 250GB monthly bandwidth cap: report
Post a Comment
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
-
2 Posted by wade948 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:38PM EDT Report Abuse
Seems like a confilct of interest to me. Comcast the Cable TV company provides entertainment content. Comcast the Internet Service Provider wants to set limits on the amount of digital content they will let us download as an alternative to their Cable TV offerings. Use our pay per view not Netflix etc. Addtionally 250 gig seems like a lot in todays content what about tomorrow, next month, next year?
-
3 Posted by pwdrskir on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:22PM EDT Report Abuse
If I had a monopoly in broadband connection I would screw over as many people as possible too. Good for you Comcast, you dirty, underhanded, scum bags...
-
4 Posted by gooddayz39 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:11PM EDT Report Abuse
I'd love to pay overage charges! what a great way to thank the brilliant executives that run the cable companies. Maybe if they can afford to buy more goodies they will be able to do more for thier subordinates. :)
-
5 Posted by collarncuffsboy on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:28PM EDT Report Abuse
250gb a month??? Oh God yes. Even with playing World of Warcraft, i have only been using about 3 or 4 gb a month. Thats like asking someone who only drives to church on Sunday if 250 gallons of gas a month is enough.
-
6 Posted by dougmiller55 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:47PM EDT Report Abuse
Seems like a legitimate thing to do. Regardless of what others may say about a lack of competition, there definitely are alternatives for about 85% of the population (DSL vs Cable). So, if I can't live with a cap, I go to the competitor. Seems fair? No reason to whine about capitalism. Without it, we wouldn't have broadband to begin with! My only question is how I know where I am relative to my cap. On my mobile phone, I can press a code and see how many minutes I've used. Is Comcast going to give me a screen I can go to where it will report what I've used and what I have left? Better yet, would Comcast consider mobile-like plans that have bundles of usage? Since I never download movies or play online games, can I get a cheaper service for a plan with 50GB per month?! Tiers baby! It's all about the tiers. Although mobile is moving to an all-you-can-eat structure, they've had a ton of success with plans that cater to each type of user. I wish my ISP would consider that too!!!
-
7 Posted by matt_archbold2002 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:11PM EDT Report Abuse
Im a little hazy on what i would use in a month. I play on xbox live often and rent an HD movie about once a week (not to mention the HD TV shows i buy). What amount of bandwidth does playing matches on Xbox live take? What does the average 3 min. youtube video cost me in bandwidth? What does the average web page cost me in bandwidth each time i use it? I dont get on the internet for 5 hours at a time but i do use it as my HD movie source (live), and i do watch videos on youtube, cnn, break, collegehumor, etc... How much does that take up?
-
8 Posted by zkbzjm on Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:01PM EDT Report Abuse
UVERSE IS THE ANSWER!SCREW COMCAST!~
-
9 Posted by rapmetal47 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:29PM EDT Report Abuse
I'd hate it. This is really stupid to have to have more charges for stuff. This country in general is going down the tubes.
-
10 Posted by maori_yelir on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:05PM EDT Report Abuse
To number 8 Uverse caps your speed at well below what they could offer. They still use a DSL structure on a fiber-optic network. I get faster downloads on Comcast than my friend does with his Uverse deal. The bandwidth is capted at 6 megs while with cable I can get upwards of 10. That said I have 4 computers and 2 video game systems in my house with 3 people who actively use all 6 devices. I regularly download music and movies (Not HD mind you but still a half a gig to a gig in size)and I know atleast one other person does as well. My other roommate is constantly on his Xbox 360 and even when playing an offline game it is still connected to the internet displaying friendslists, ect. While we might still be under 250 gigs of usage (I'm not even remotely sure as to how much we use) what if suddenly we find out that for the last 4 years we have been exceeding this and we are going to have to pay more for the same service? There is a reason that companies stopped using a pay per/hour system, this isn't much different. What about game servers for online games that happen to be on this provider? Are these people suddenly going to get docked with high bills after they went out and purchased expensive server computers either for personal use or to rent out to others to use? This cap just seems to echo the same hysteria AT&T was trying to create by claiming that the internet is going to 'dry up' in 2 years. They are trying to create a reason to charge more because they have been unwilling to update their lines for the last 8 years.
1 Posted by burns355@verizon.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:15PM EDT Report Abuse
I don't agree with bandwidth caps or throttling. If you pay for a service, the service should be there for you. Let's face it, there are some who get internet service and use it maybe one hour out of the day max. Then there are others who use it on a very regular basis, hours at a time, lots of bandwidth. Seems to me it would even out. I'm no tech geek, so maybe I'm wrong. But other things are opening up, such as unlimited local and long distance calling to anywhere in the world for one flat rate. Why are they trying to limit the internet?