# Lifestyles & Discussion > Science & Technology >  It's official: Comcast starts 250GB bandwidth caps October 1st

## Volitzer

It's official: Comcast starts 250GB bandwidth caps October 1st

By Jacqui Cheng | Published: August 28, 2008 - 04:16PM CT

 Comcast has announced that it will in fact be introducing bandwidth caps to all residential customers. The cap, which will go into effect as of October 1, will be 250GB per month. Comcast justifies the decision by saying that it's "an extremely large amount of data," and that a very large majority of customers will never cross it.
Related Stories

    * Comcast mulling metered access, 250GB monthly bandwidth caps
    * Comcast launches 50Mbps broadband... for $150 per month
    * Comcast speaks out on bandwidth caps, says they only affect 0.01% of users

In fact, according to Comcast, this is actually the same policy that is already in place, except with more explicit numbers as to what is allowed and what isn't. "As part of our preexisting policy, we will continue to contact the top users of our high-speed Internet service and ask them to curb their usage," the company said in a statement sent to Ars. "If a customer uses more than 250GB and is one of the top users of our service, he or she may be contacted by Comcast to notify them of excessive use."

This announcement has been widely expected since at least May of this year, after the whole brouhaha went down with P2P throttling and the FCC fallout. Comcast had originally argued that that the FCC had no authority to block Comcast's process, but ultimately decided on its own to stop interfering with P2P traffic. The company also joined in with other ISPs in trying to devise a P2P user's bill of rights and contemplated the use of P4P software. 

Comcast customers that make heavy use of their Internet connectionsmyself includedare sure to find themselves somewhat alarmed at the prospect of being capped. After all, perfectly legal things like movies from iTunes and Netflix, online music stores, massive software updates, and other media-heavy applications do suck up a lot of bandwidth. Comcast insists that the 250GB cap is enough to send some 50 million e-mails, download 62,500 songs, or download 125 standard-definition movies. Okay, so if a cap is going to be enforced, 250GB isn't that bad. It beats the 60GB caps and lower caps seen elsewhere in North America and it's a nice change from the company's previous etherial and mysterious caps. Still, investing in the infrastructure necessary to alleviate the need for caps is a better option for everyone involved.

In a statement e-mailed to Ars, Free Press called the caps "relatively high," but said they were also an indictment of current US broadband policy. "If the United States had genuine broadband competition, Internet providers would not be able to profit from artificial scarcity they would invest in their networks to keep pace with consumer demand," said Free Press research director S. Derek Turner. "Unfortunately, Americans will continue to face the consequences of this lack of competition until policymakers get serious about policies that deliver the world-class networks consumers deserve."

In May when the cap was first rumored, there was also buzz that Comcast might try to charge customers $15 for every 10GB they went over the limit. As far as we can tell from Comcast's announcement and the accompanying FAQ page, that is not the case... yet, anyway. Even so, Comcast's honesty with the 250GB cap will probably only go so far, and customers with the option to do so may end up turning to an ISP such as AT&T, Verizon, or Qwest that has the infrastructure available to offer broadband without bandwidth limits.

----------


## bucfish

Email call em write em to they change their mind.

----------


## orafi

instead of asking them to change their minds, just cut off your subscription and get Fios

----------


## Raditude

I would change, but Fios isn't available in our area.

----------


## 123tim

> I would change, but Fios isn't available in our area.


Same here....Comcast has a monopoly here.  Verizon charges about 1/3 as much but refuses to come to our town.  I tried to get satellite broad-band but all the companies say that if you're able to get any sort of high-speed Internet they won't provide their service.

It's a real bummer.

We really get socked hard....we don't want or have the TV subscription and Comcast punishes us for that.

----------


## voytechs

250G/mo is less than 1 G/day. That is not a lot these days. A 10min YouTube is anywhere between 30-100mb or 0.03 to .1 G. So about 10 to 20 YouTubes a day is your curfew.

----------


## agentl074

I am glad I have a long range WIFI connection directly to a T line backbone hehe.

----------


## cindy25

I smell the MPAA in this decision

----------


## RideTheDirt

> 250G/mo is less than 1 G/day. That is not a lot these days. A 10min YouTube is anywhere between 30-100mb or 0.03 to .1 G. So about 10 to 20 YouTubes a day is your curfew.


I think you might be off by 7.3 GB.

----------


## Kludge

> 250G/mo is less than 1 G/day. That is not a lot these days. A 10min YouTube is anywhere between 30-100mb or 0.03 to .1 G. So about 10 to 20 YouTubes a day is your curfew.


You mean I can only watch three hours of Youtube videos a day?!?!?

----------


## FunkBuddha

Hell, it's Comcast's bandwidth. At least they're begin honest about the rate limiting this time. Turn off your service if you don't like it.

I have 3MB TDS Telecom with bittorrents running 24/7 and I rarely exceed 50GB a month. 250GB a month is fair IMO and I hate Comcast with a passion.

----------


## FunkBuddha

Although a better solution might be to use QOS to put P2P traffic at the bottom of the queue so all other traffic gets priority. That's what I do at my house. I also rate limit the outbound speed of my torrents.

----------


## cindy25

these are public utilities, with monopoly protection.

----------


## heath.whiteaker

they stated they have been doing this... however now they will start enforcing it.

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> Hell, it's Comcast's bandwidth. At least they're begin honest about the rate limiting this time. Turn off your service if you don't like it.
> 
> I have 3MB TDS Telecom with bittorrents running 24/7 and I rarely exceed 50GB a month. 250GB a month is fair IMO and I hate Comcast with a passion.


just wait it will get pushed down more and more if you accept it just like taxes keep goin up its called incrementalisim


im firing comcast 

this will not stand

----------


## youngbuck

That's why in a week I'll have Quest FIOS.

----------


## FunkBuddha

> just wait it will get pushed down more and more if you accept it just like taxes keep goin up its called incrementalisim
> 
> 
> im firing comcast 
> 
> this will not stand


The difference here is of course that taxes are collected by the government with force. Comcast doesn't send armed goons to take you to jail if you cancel the service.

I work for an educational ISP. We get huge discounts for bandwidth and it's still expensive. Comcast has to pay a lot more for bandwidth than we do. If people are sponging it all up with P2P and forcing them to buy more bandwidth then they will have to raise rates to customers. 

I suppose we could socialize the costs of the internet and give it free to everyone. We could even have a Constitutional amendment saying "The right of free internet with all the bandwidth you want shall not be infringed."

----------


## Conza88

25gb limit, then slowed. For like.. $89.95

Quit your whinging..

----------


## rpfan2008

> I think you might be off by 7.3 GB.


8+ GBs per day

----------


## freelance

> instead of asking them to change their minds, just cut off your subscription and get Fios


Uh, yeah, sure. I would be paying MORE for 5 gigs compared to 250 gigs from Comcast. All Fios offers in my area is broadband wireless. I have that PLUS 250 gigs for about $45 compared to $59 for 5 gigs of Fios.

Where I live, Comcast is about the only game in town.

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> The difference here is of course that taxes are collected by the government with force. Comcast doesn't send armed goons to take you to jail if you cancel the service.
> 
> I work for an educational ISP. We get huge discounts for bandwidth and it's still expensive. Comcast has to pay a lot more for bandwidth than we do. If people are sponging it all up with P2P and forcing them to buy more bandwidth then they will have to raise rates to customers. 
> 
> I suppose we could socialize the costs of the internet and give it free to everyone. We could even have a Constitutional amendment saying "The right of free internet with all the bandwidth you want shall not be infringed."



i guess that scince i wont go to jail by not taking part in their service i should just accept it then?

dont try to paint me as a collectivist i never said it should be free.

and dont try to make me think that they arent makin money hand over fist either.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> The difference here is of course that taxes are collected by the government with force. Comcast doesn't send armed goons to take you to jail if you cancel the service.
> 
> I work for an educational ISP. We get huge discounts for bandwidth and it's still expensive. Comcast has to pay a lot more for bandwidth than we do. If people are sponging it all up with P2P and forcing them to buy more bandwidth then they will have to raise rates to customers. 
> 
> I suppose we could socialize the costs of the internet and give it free to everyone. We could even have a Constitutional amendment saying "The right of free internet with all the bandwidth you want shall not be infringed."


So? It's not a free market.

----------


## FunkBuddha

> i guess that scince i wont go to jail by not taking part in their service i should just accept it then?
> 
> dont try to paint me as a collectivist i never said it should be free.
> 
> and dont try to make me think that they arent makin money hand over fist either.


No, you should cancel your service if you don't like it and be sure to explain to them why you did it. Like I said, I can't stand Comcast. I'd be happy to know you canceled your service with them.

All I'm saying is that they are perfectly within their rights to charge what they see fit and to regulate their bandwidth as they need to as long as they are up front with the people that they contract with. 

And you, as a customer are perfectly within your rights to terminate your service with them so long as you honor any contract you have with them.

How much money they are making is irrelevant. Should government step in and tell  Wal-mart what they can charge for the things that they sell? They make lots of money too.

I wasn't trying to paint you as a collectivist, I was just taking this to the logical conclusion. Look at health care for example. People think it costs too much and that people are entitled to affordable health care so what happens? Politicians jump in to the save the day by trying to nationalize it. 

All I'm saying is to let the market sort it out. AT&T is about to eat Comcast's lunch anyways real soon.

----------


## JoshLowry

Everyone should read this article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...ndwidth31.html

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> No, you should cancel your service if you don't like it and be sure to explain to them why you did it. Like I said, I can't stand Comcast. I'd be happy to know you canceled your service with them.
> 
> All I'm saying is that they are perfectly within their rights to charge what they see fit and to regulate their bandwidth as they need to as long as they are up front with the people that they contract with. 
> 
> And you, as a customer are perfectly within your rights to terminate your service with them so long as you honor any contract you have with them.
> 
> How much money they are making is irrelevant. Should government step in and tell  Wal-mart what they can charge for the things that they sell? They make lots of money too.
> 
> I wasn't trying to paint you as a collectivist, I was just taking this to the logical conclusion. Look at health care for example. People think it costs too much and that people are entitled to affordable health care so what happens? Politicians jump in to the save the day by trying to nationalize it. 
> ...


again you seem to be insinuating (while saying your not) that i want socialized internet because i am canceling my service and speaking out on it

----------


## FunkBuddha

> Everyone should read this article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...ndwidth31.html


That's a good article. 

I had lunch with an At&t rep a week or so ago and he was telling me that the only thing holding AT&T back from offering TV a la carte was State and Federal agencies fearing that they would lower prices so much that the money they collect on fees and taxes would be in jeopardy.

AT&T doesn't have the type of bandwidth constraints that Comcast has. Unfortunately, unless I move I won't be able to get AT&T service. Some of the Wi-Max technology looks promising though.

----------


## FunkBuddha

> again you seem to be insinuating (while saying your not) that i want socialized internet because i am canceling my service and speaking out on it


rock on!

----------


## FunkBuddha

> again you seem to be insinuating (while saying your not) that i want socialized internet because i am canceling my service and speaking out on it


My apologies. I went back and looked at what you originally said and it appears I took it the wrong way. 

As I said earlier, I work at a University as a network engineer and we are also an ISP for the state. It appears I may be a little overly sensitive on this issue. As you can imagine, most of the people I work with are very pro network neutrality so I guess I'm just used to being on the defensive about it.

Again, sorry about that.

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> My apologies. I went back and looked at what you originally said and it appears I took it the wrong way. 
> 
> As I said earlier, I work at a University as a network engineer and we are also an ISP for the state. It appears I may be a little overly sensitive on this issue. As you can imagine, most of the people I work with are very pro network neutrality so I guess I'm just used to being on the defensive about it.
> 
> Again, sorry about that.


no prob 

thanx

----------


## Cowlesy

well considering my harddrive is only 20GB, I am not too concerned

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> well considering my harddrive is only 20GB, I am not too concerned


just like the income tax was only 1 percent when it started

+ watching streaming video uses a lot of bandwidtch

----------


## Mini-Me

> No, you should cancel your service if you don't like it and be sure to explain to them why you did it. Like I said, I can't stand Comcast. I'd be happy to know you canceled your service with them.
> 
> All I'm saying is that they are perfectly within their rights to charge what they see fit and to regulate their bandwidth as they need to as long as they are up front with the people that they contract with. 
> 
> And you, as a customer are perfectly within your rights to terminate your service with them so long as you honor any contract you have with them.
> 
> How much money they are making is irrelevant. Should government step in and tell  Wal-mart what they can charge for the things that they sell? They make lots of money too.
> 
> I wasn't trying to paint you as a collectivist, I was just taking this to the logical conclusion. Look at health care for example. People think it costs too much and that people are entitled to affordable health care so what happens? Politicians jump in to the save the day by trying to nationalize it. 
> ...


The difference between Comcast and Wal-Mart is that Wal-Mart is not given an exclusive monopoly contract by local governments that protects them from competition...and Comcast IS given an exclusive monopoly contract that protects them from competition (at least it is in most localities...that's a common theme with cable companies.  Time Warner is the local state-mandated monopoly here).  If Wal-Mart pisses you off, you can not only end your business with them, but you can go elsewhere - this is not so in the case of Comcast.  Because of this, Comcast's success is not entirely their own - they're making money because they wined and dined politicians for exclusive privileges, not because they're free market winners.  Consumers are being forcefully deprived of any alternative cable service by government coercion.  *If a government has created a monopoly and prohibited competition*, then it sure as hell should regulate that company to hell and back.  Of course, governments shouldn't create monopolies in the first place, in which case no regulation would be necessary or justified - but when a company is using the force of government to prohibit competition, it ceases to have full claim to property rights, and it should certainly expect the people to use the force of government in retaliation to keep it in line.

Besides, if I wanted to get technical, I could say that since Comcast's cable lines go through public property, they're subject to the whims of whatever entity is sovereign over that public property...and that would be the people and their duly elected local representatives.   Comcast may own the cables, but others own the property they buried their cables under.

----------


## moostraks

Well looks like we are going to be screwed with Internet caps here. Looking at no visible option for the caps in our area. We don't use cable television but streaming service and as a homeschool mom to 8 children we will exceed the limit fairly quickly. Feeling frustrated and controlled right now.

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> Well looks like we are going to be screwed with Internet caps here. Looking at no visible option for the caps in our area. We don't use cable television but streaming service and as a homeschool mom to 8 children we will exceed the limit fairly quickly. Feeling frustrated and controlled right now.


I ended up finding out Comacast Buissness Class has no caps, it cost me 5-10 bux more, and the speed is just a little slower, but its certainly fast enough, I stream HD without issues.

----------


## moostraks

> I ended up finding out Comacast Buissness Class has no caps, it cost me 5-10 bux more, and the speed is just a little slower, but its certainly fast enough, I stream HD without issues.


Thanks! I was looking into that yesterday evening with their only other competition in the area wondering what makes one business class. Looks like that will be the way to go then. I don't want to loose our streaming services. Great news about the hd streaming as well. Thanks again!!!

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> Thanks! I was looking into that yesterday evening with their only other competition in the area wondering what makes one business class. Looks like that will be the way to go then. I don't want to loose our streaming services. Great news about the hd streaming as well. Thanks again!!!


They asked for a business name, I just made something up. lol

----------


## dannno

> They asked for a business name, I just made something up. lol

----------


## green73

Wow, the free market is alive and well in Soviet Murika.

----------


## mrsat_98

Sucks less than satellite.

----------


## moostraks

> They asked for a business name, I just made something up. lol


Lol! Good to know...

----------


## jbauer

> Sucks less than satellite.


No kidding, my folks live on a major highway in a populated area and can't get any type of internet besides satellite or cell.

----------


## liberty2897

> They don't call us "The Wal-Mart of Telecom" because we smell like rats and pizza.﻿

----------


## puppetmaster

I wonder if it only affects 0.01% of their business why would they bother? There must be an end game coming.

----------


## invisible

Bandwidth caps are just another way to screw the consumer in monopoly / duopoly / limited or no competition situations.  I had DSL through verizon and fairpoint in the NE, with no bandwidth caps.  Only other internet options there were cable and dialup.  Of course, the cable companies were in a heavily regulated duopoly, and were too expensive.  verizon was promising to install fios, and had done do in rich areas up and down the coast.  A friend who had fios raved about what a great deal it was for the same price of full cable (and of course that there was no bandwidth cap).  Living near the downtown of a second-tier city, I received a promotional flier from verizon, asking if I wanted to be put on a waiting list for upgrading my DSL to fios.  The hoped for upgrade never happened, and fios never expanded to that area.  verizon never went through with their proposed and promised expansions to fios, and appears to have bailed in late 2008 or early 2009.  If you're in a verizon / fairpoint area, you can at least get unlimited DSL service at a reasonable price (and perhaps fios, if you're lucky).  In 2010, a new CEO at verizon cut a deal to not further compete with the bandwidth capped cable company duopolies.
http://consumerist.com/2010/04/24/ve...email-the-ceo/
https://routingbyrumor.wordpress.com...-neighborhood/
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/27/v...ocations-to-m/
http://consumerist.com/2013/12/11/do...town-says-ceo/
http://www.fiberexperts.com/fios-availability.html
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/verizon_fios/

The area I live now is att territory, with a cable company monopoly.  Both with the dreaded bandwidth caps, of course.  Both also told me they did not offer unlimited commercial accounts.  There are several smaller DSL providers in the general area (and dialup of course), but none of them happen to service my "bad part of town".  Fortunately, there is one ISP running a wireless / dish based network with DSL quality speeds and no bandwidth cap.  This company seems to have excellent coverage over an entire metro area, and adjacent rural areas.  Unfortunately they want a $200 deposit (for the site survey and dish install) in the form of a credit card (that I of course don't have, lol) to get set up with them.

google is putting in a fiber optic network in the Kansas City area.  Not wanting to do business with them if they happened to expand their network, I would much rather see competition come from other directions.  You get more data each month from an unlimited DSL speed connection than any other option that is bandwidth capped.  I've been drooling over wanting fios for years, if it doesn't come from google.  Protection of cable duopolies / monopolies is the only reason we have these silly bandwidth caps.
http://www.wired.com/2013/04/google-fiber-wicked/

----------


## DamianTV

> I wonder if it only affects 0.01% of their business why would they bother? There must be an end game coming.


Foot in the door.  Bandwidth usage will only increase.  

Compare to your phone where the data plan only allows for 10 gigs of transfer.  Expect these limits to drop lower and lower and lower until the internet becomes completely unusable by the majority of americans.  They will eventually block all traffic to this site and any other site they deem unfit, pass along any additional costs for watching Netflix on to you, and charge you the maximum rate for minimum service / quality.

My grandma, what a large bandwidth cap you have!

All the better to track you with, my dear.

----------

