Comcast plans data limits for all customers

[onehandle]

Source: CNN

David Cohen, executive vice president of America's largest cable company, predicted at a conference Wednesday that in five years' time, the company will have "a usage-based billing model rolled out across its footprint."

That means Comcast (CMCSA, Fortune 500) customers could only consume a certain amount of data before facing extra charges for going over their limits.

Cohen said the company would aim to set the limit at a level where "the vast majority of our customers" wouldn't be affected. He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month. A cap of that size would allow you to download or stream between 70 and 125 HD movies, which typically run about four or five gigabytes in size.

Cohen said he doesn't think Comcast will ever have a system in which "80% of customers" are impacted by data limits and are forced to pay for additional usage, though he added that it's "very difficult to make predictions."



Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/index.html

---

Break Up Ma Bell 2.0 Now!

Better yet, nationalize communications and make Internet access a Right.

[msongs]

1. the democans and republicrats in congress and the white house must be happy to hear this nt

[marmar]

2. Quelle surprise! ...... And the FCC chairman is determined to help them.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. I have less trouble with this than toll roads.

I don't own the cables and poles installed in the right of way, but I do own that street.

[yeoman6987]

8. I'd rather toll roads

This is absolutely awful!

[Aladeen2016]

9. me too.

As much as i hate the fast lane plan, there are already overall data caps in many places/providers. I think Comcast might be
the only big one that didn't have a cap. One of the mom and pop ones(thank god for those) in my area has a 250gb
cap.....but 350-500 like Comcast is considering would have been nice.

[NeoConsSuck]

12. Doesn't toll receipts go to maintain those roads?

or since you 'own' them, are you personally repairing them on your own time with your own money?

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. We are. You're a co-owner, didn't you know?

Tomorrow you have to sell some of your time to finance the task.

[Helen Borg]

4. They'll charge as much as they can get away with!

And if they have a near monopoly in certain areas, they will charge even more in those areas.

[Javaman]

5. one of the worst feelings in the world is when you realize you've been played. nt

[gvstn]

6. They build their network by charging exhorbitant rates to current customers

Then up the rates for their new and improved network. Ugh!

They know cable teevee is dying so they are making plans to charge as much as possible to internet-only customers. The FCC will go along, of course.

[Nativechef]

7. Hows this going to effect online gamers?

For some of us online gaming is one of a few choices we have as entertainment. Hows limiting download speeds and sizes going to effect us. We rely heavily on fast download and upload speeds to be competitive the amount of information that a server receives is directly connected to how well one competes in a game. They throttle this and I can guarantee there will be hell to pay from the gaming community, not just PC but consoles as-well.

[leftyohiolib]

10. you'll pay more for the "gamers package" more bandwidth for more money

it's how everything works someone develops something that becomes big then corporate america starts buying politicians to poke holes in the rules governing that thing so they can get into it and own it like tv and radio and next is the i-net

[Nativechef]

23. It'll back fire...

A "Gamers Package" is gonna hurt the gaming industry as a whole. Consoles and gaming PC's aren't cheap and 60 to 70 bucks a pop per game is no "drop in the bucket" as it is. This will most definitely hurt the game designers, publishers and gamers in the end. As it is the "high speed" internet connections are upwards of $100 or more a month and most are packaged with phone and cable to run in excess of a couple 100 per month. And now their gonna charge extra? I've got friends in the gaming industry (designers, artists and publishers) and none of them like this idea of charging more. This could very easily kill the online gaming industry......

[leftyohiolib]

24. i doubt it people will re-prioritize to come up with the cash and the ones who cant wont

but there will always be wealthier people who can pay. games used to be 20$ now they're 50-70 and up and the are stll bought by the millions. the same with dsl service

[SpankMe]

11. The net itself should be a public utility

The internet pathways - be they cross coutry fiber, microwave links, last mile to the home - whatever - should be free (i.e., taxpayer funded) or low cost and should be available to everyone and should be as fast and unlimited as technology will allow.

Then, all of the content is what would generate the revenue and is what people should pay for. That would stimulate innovation and explode the internet economy.

Allowing those who "own" the physical infrastructure to call the shots in terms of speed, connectivity, limits, etc. will inhibit free enterprise, jeopardize free expression and open things up to the control of that content by the provider. Goodbye freedom.

[dipsydoodle]

16. Nationalised by whom ?

.

[jakeXT]

13. I wonder how a person from the 90's with a 56k modem and 10 gb hard disk would react /nt

[customerserviceguy]

25. They don't know about this yet

And probably won't find out about it for a year.

Seriously, did anyone really think that the Internet was going to be a one-price buffet restaurant forever? Gotta get us all hooked first, then whip out the real pricing plan.

[joshcryer]

27. Unsurprising.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. I agree, we should either nationalize or regulate the #%*^ out of Internet connectivity

Because businesses have a duty to make money, not to be fair.

[Kablooie]

15. Maybe we can go back to the good old days when fast internet cost $3000 a month.

That's what it was back in 1994 when I first started looking into getting internet.

The fact that the country is split up into non overlapping isp areas, by design, it insures that it's a monopoly with no reasonable alternatives, makes this even more wonderful.

Capitalism only works when there is a financial advantage to providing good, cheap service.
The system is being hacked to be just the opposite.
There is a financial incentive to provide poor, cheap service.

[Swede Atlanta]

17. I for one have NO problem with this in principle....

Providers should be able to offer and set internet service prices based on a variety of criteria and I think usage is the correct primary metric. It is the metric used for everything else. You pay for gas at the pump based on the number of gallons. You pay for your electricity based on the amount used, etc.

For example there should be a low usage/low cost offering for seniors and those who use little bandwidth. They use the internet to check a few e-mails, pay a few bills and maybe watch a few youtube videos. Then this should scale up to people who sit and watch hour after hour after hour of streaming content. They should pay more.

The only issue is there is no competition. So the few providers will engage in harmful usage-based pricing policies that hurt both small and large users. They want to avoid having internet access become a commodity the way basic telephone service has.

Industry consolidation and reduced competition is the reason 'usage-based' pricing is a major concern. If the Comcast - Time Warner Cable deal is approved we reduce competition significantly. And now ATT (U-verse) is looking to acquire DirectTV. These consolidations empower the providers and reduce competition and choice. But the Obama administration is not going to block either one of these deals. Obama is not a populist. He is very much a corporatist. He likes corporations making lots and lots of money. What few crumbs may fall to the people is just gravy.

The other bit issue is allowing the ISPs to "fast lane" and "slow lane" based on who pays from a content perspective. I fear this can be used by the 1% to throttle access to progressive content because that content may challenge comcast's interests.

[Fearless]

21. You're dead wrong

Internet traffic doesn't cost anything. Literally anything. Unlike gas et.al. The only thing that costs is infrastructure and that is easily paid by monthly fees on unlimited services.

The rest is a farce.

[leftyohiolib]

26. then you see no problem with the right-wing owning all the radio stations?=

The other bit issue is allowing the ISPs to "fast lane" and "slow lane" based on who pays from a content perspective. I fear this can be used by the 1% to throttle access to progressive content because that content may challenge comcast's interests.
this is exactly why you SHOULD have a problem with this.

fox news is on basic cable so EVERYONE gets to hear the right-wing perspective if u want the left-wing,well then u have to pay more

[KeepItReal]

18. Quick! How many gigs of data do you use a month?

You don't know? Why should you? You paid for a certain bandwidth with an unlimited amount of data.

We're not talking cell phone data plans.

Making unlimited service a limited service is how these clowns plan to further gouge us customers to enable ever increasing corporate profits.

[christx30]

28. My ISP currently has unlimited data,

but allows us to see how much we use on a monthly, or daily basis.
In Febuary I used 109 GB, March was 230 GB, April was 234 GB, and I've used 98 GB so far this month. I'm against data caps because it doesn't take into accounts large households with a roommate situation. Multiple people using Internet concurrently. My house has 4 adults and 2 kids under 10 using everything from basic browsing to posting on DU to streaming on Hulu and Netflix.

[KeepItReal]

29. Changing the rules just to make more $$ has to stop

Comcast can kiss my ass goodbye the millisecond they try to make me choose a capped data plan at my home

[Jack Rabbit]

19. This is where we boycott Comcast, isn't it?

Of course, if were not serious about fight back against corporate tyranny, I guess we could just watch American Idol.

[Fearless]

20. Two words... Google fiber

Hey google, you could make a killing on this one. All you need to do is guarantee net neutrality... which even BENEFITS you as it increases ad revenue and traffic.

[mfcorey1]

22. Comcast already does this. I get calls from them indicating that I have exceeded and

there will be a charge. It always happens when I have guest during the holidays and there are many using electronic devices at one time.

[KeepItReal]

30. Wow. Really? What's their cap for you?

eom

[mfcorey1]

38. I have no idea of the cap or realize there was one until the calls. They simply indicate that I

have and in one case exceeded my allowance and that I will incur a charge for the overage.

[onehandle]

33. They are 'testing' this in very limited markets. You must be in one of them.

Comcast must be destroyed.

[toddwv]

31. The fact that they are taunting us with this

means that they are confident that they have enough legislators in their pocket to get whatever they want.

[onehandle]

34. Comcast owns the FCC. Obama put a Comcast Republican on the FCC who ruled agains net neutrality.

She has left since the ruling to get her payoff, but they still control the FCC.

[Doctor_J]

35. And, with no anti-trust laws, they'll in 5 years be the only provider

voila! Worst internet, highest prices. Just like our health care and schools.

[Hayabusa]

36. Not on ComCast but...

I have Steam, a PS3 and the WWE Network. I bet I could easily rack up that limit in a month.

[Octafish]

37. It's why the rich get richer and richer.

Washington. They own the place and pay the management.

[ChromeFoundry]

39. I can see having a tiered plans...

People that need large throughput and a lot of bandwidth over the billing cycle should pay more than someone that uses their Internet connection to just read emails and browse amazon, using less than 10 GB per month. And all ISP need to offer an "unlimited" plan without capping speed after a usage point is met. The problem I see is that ISPs need to define how they are calculating bandwidth. Right now, they supply the "meter" usually through a web page tied to your account - a meter that is not real-time and provides no details on the type of traffic. Right now they can say you are using whatever they want, and charge you overage fees... they are treating connectivity as a Utility. So they need to be regulated by a body such as a Public Utilities Commission. Therefore, they would need to submit actual proof that their "meter" is accurate. They need to also define exactly what data they are shaping or limiting, what ports they are blocking, and what sites they are limiting or censoring. Bandwidth needs to me measured and displayed in both Upload and Download usage, and the TOS agreements need to define limitations on both exclusively. Bandwidth usage needs to be classified during On-Peak and Off-Peak hours.. similar to nights and weekends on a mobile phone plan - and charged differently.

If they want to act like an electricity/water/natural-gas provider, then they need to provide an on-site meter so that the consumer can have access to what they are being charged for.