Top
810°

Hey Comcast....not so fast!

Comcast recently announced it was, efffective Sept. 5th 2008, going to cap its residential users internet access to 250GB per month. While that may be a substantial amount for most users, people who spend lots of time on the internet and/or play a lot of games could run into some issues on a month to month basis. Downloading of HD content also will instantly begin putting a toll on their monthly cap. So what can Comcast customers do?

Read Full Story >>
couchmercenaries.com
The story is too old to be commented.
dktxx23664d ago

Only time I'll ever say this, Go FCC! Ugh God, I'm sick now.

JsonHenry3664d ago

Comcast makes me SICK. Their practices are EXACTLY what puts America behind in the broadband market.

jessupj3664d ago (Edited 3664d ago )

Ain't you guys lucky. I get 20GB a month and that's $75. You'll still much better off then me. And thats at 1.5 mbps mind you.

Millah3664d ago

FUVK Comcast...seriously, they are one of the worst companies in general I've ever dealt with. I was so mad when I moved to a new house last year that only had Comcast, it was like a year of torture. Internet went out at least twice a day, and their customer service was disgusting and rude. They are truly a company that doesn't give two sh1ts about their customers. Thank god I got back with Bright House last month.

RemmM3663d ago (Edited 3663d ago )

I'm glad I have Cox XD Cox has never screwed up my internet experience. I think the bill is called the ''Lawsuit Prevention Act''

RemmM3663d ago

If we don't stop them, then OTHER companies will jump in the same boat as Comcast. Besides, they are doing it on purpose because while we are worrying about all this BS, Bush signed a bill to prevent companies from getting soon. It protects the companies from anyone who tries to sue them.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3663d ago
FantasyStar3664d ago

They keep wireless stuff in check, so when we use our cheap cellphones from China, they're not giving us cancer. Check all logos for the FCC logo to ensure it passes all regulations. The FCC is your friend.

....except during late nights on the Spice Channel.

Dlacy13g3664d ago

Actually praising the FCC for trying to put a stop to what Comcast wants to do.

Proxy3664d ago

If a company needs a cap to stay profitable that is fine. What we really need is transparency, that is, we know exactly what we are paying for and what we are getting. Previously, Comcast was targeting those with over 250 gigs a month and asking them to cut back on their "unlimited" internet. When hassled about what number they should cut back to, Comcast had no answer. Now, the FCC forces them to make there network policies public and we learn that 250 gigs is the magic number. Nothing has really changed, all that has really changed is that we now know that the definition of "unlimited" was really 250 gigs. (This is exciting news as I now know my PS3 and PC can hold "unlimited" amounts of data.)

Comcast sells unlimited internet for 70$ a month. (Lets say.)
CompanyX sells unlimited internet for 80$ a month.

When you take away the LIES:

Comcast sells 250 gigs for 70$ a month.
CompanyX sells truely unlimited internet for 80$ a month.

Suddenly CompanyX has a much more tempting offer.

Companies shouldn't be allowed to LIE about, or conceal, their network policies and should be subject to lawsuits if they do. This way, everything is out in the open, and the consumer can get a clear look at whats available and make his choice. This way, the open market will favor those with truly desirable services, rather than those who are good with smoke and mirrors (like Comcast).

Kholinar3664d ago

"What we really need is transparency, that is, we know exactly what we are paying for and what we are getting."

And that's what we'll get because Comcast knows they'll have Class action suits everywhere if they continue to advertise unlimited.

The FCC here is just saying, "don't mess with p2p, it's against net neutrality rules."

FantasyStar3664d ago (Edited 3664d ago )

actually, "net neutrality" is only a slang coined-term. It's not written in any official law yet, so as far as our government is concerned, this is just another step towards enforcing its rulings, not rules on behalf of Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality to this day is only wishful thinking and unwritten rules. I, of course, am paying my contributions towards making Net Neutrality a government-sanctioned reality. Maybe you should too.

Kholinar3664d ago (Edited 3664d ago )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

In 2005, the FCC adopted a policy statement stating its adherence to four principles of network neutrality.

You can download a pdf document of these FCC principles here: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ed...

it's a federal policy, like most regulations, they don't need rule of law, just an organization with ruling authority, e.g. the FCC, the EPA, etc.

http://www.eschoolnews.com/...

FantasyStar3664d ago

Ah I see. Bubbles for the information. That's news to me. But it makes more clear the grounds for FCC's investigation and now, debate.

"Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006"

Megatron083664d ago

proxy whats wrong with your thinking is that in most places you dont have a company x you just have comcast. I've move around a lot and I have never lived in anyplace that has more then one cable company. So if you dont like the cable company your pretty much stuck with a dsl that is a lot slower. Plus if comcast is able to change the law to allow a cap then it likely that the rest of the companies will soon follow. putting a cap on it would all but destoy online

Proxy3663d ago

Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounds like you saying that using internet caps are illegal. Strictly speaking, this isn't a cap, as your not charged extra for going over 250 gigs, but you may be subject to a phone call asking you to cut back.

If a internet provider needs to put a cap in place to remain a profitable business then that is what will happen. The alternative is we just let them go out of business, but that isn't good either.

I do agree with you though in this. For the free market to work there needs to be competition between as many companies as possible. As you said, in many places there is only one choice. I know that my small city has joined into a larger project with other cities where they will use tax dollars to bring fiber option to EVERY house (everyone pays taxes, so nobody can be left out). The line can handle 100 mbps, but I'm saddened to learn it will be leased out to private companies who will probably only give about 20 mbps to the consumers. The good thing though is that I'll have Comcast available to me, along with 4 or 5 smaller providers which no doubt will be faster thanks to the fiber optic. Fiber optic is great because the line itself is so capable and future proof, can't get anything faster than fiber optic.

Government provided lines should be available for any small company to use to distribute it's services, just like the phone lines are. The we will have competition and it will help drive down the costs. There may still be caps, but they will (hopefully) be used appropriately. For example, 20 gigs a month for a mere 10 dollars.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3663d ago
Harry1903664d ago

caps me at 60 gb. I would be REALLY happy with 250 gb,REALLY REALLY happy. I max out every month.

ICUP3664d ago

After u the excess 60 GB, a dollar a GB.

3663d ago