September 7, 2007
Comcast's Secret Bandwidth Limits
It does our geeky hearts good to see the Post paying some attention to Comcast's unpleasant, unhelpful and generally evil behavior. To be specific, they're covering the issue of the bandwidth caps that Comcast customers can find themselves subject to at the cable giant's whim. Every month the network's heaviest users receive warning letters. If they don't curtail their net use (and sometimes even if they do), their account is terminated.
Simple enough — except the service is advertised as being unlimited, and Comcast won't disclose what the bandwidth caps are. If you're the type to hang around BroadbandReports.com, where nerds discuss download speeds and packet loss with the meticulous dedication of performance car tuners, you may have some idea why this is. The site is rife with speculation (including some from Comcast employees) that hard limits don't actually exist, and that Comcast actually just prunes the top users from the network every month to improve their bottom line and forestall network upgrades. If your neighbors are heavy downloaders your monthly bandwidth limit may be much lower than if they weren't — but there's no way to know.
That seems like dirty pool. And combined with Comcast's recent steps to cripple P2P use (whether illicit or not), users are increasingly getting less than they paid for.
Comcast says that affected users can upgrade to business cable service, but that option is priced to reflect uptime and service guarantees that most home users can't afford. There's always DSL, but in most cases it's much slower. Some lucky area residents can get FiOS service, but that may have downsides of its own.
What about you? Has anyone received one of these warning letters? If so, what'd you do?
|
FIOS being installed in my neighborhood as I speak....Its grandtastic!
Yeah, a friend got FIOS in his new house a couple of months ago. I wish I could be so lucky. Then again, I wish I could have the broadband service of just about any other country in the world, particular Japan -- several times faster, for less money.
Does anyone know when Verizon plans to bring FIOS inside DC instead of just the surrounding areas?
This just makes Verizon seem less bad. Can't wait until FIOS comes to our hood!
We will need all the speed we can get if the Department of Justice has its way with allowing for a two-tiered internet. I don't know why this isn't a larger issue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6983375.stm
Man, fuck Comcast. RCN is about a zillion times better. Great customer service, cheaper, and higher speeds. Too bad it isn't available to everyone in DC.
Did Slashdot propaganda just explode all over DCist?
I've had my issues with Comcast and I switched to Verizon. I wish RCN had cable internet available in Arlington. This behavior by Comcast does not surprise me in the least though.
Yo, demonfafa: protected LJ post there...
Krisa, this isn't a new, unknown issue, and it IS a problem. Perhaps you'd care to tell us how that constitutes "propaganda".
Re #10: Krisa probably works for Comcast and it makes them look bad. I bet their DNS issues are propaganda as well, right?
Yeah, Verizon DSL may be slower, but I've never had to call them once in over 2 years. And that's saying something, considering VZ is only slightly less evil than Comcrap.
Friends got FIOS in Falls Church and hate it, they say it's nowhere near as reliable as Comcast and the cable service is poor quality compared to Comcast. I know we get like a dozen channels they don't because I'm always saying, "did you watch this?" and it's a channel they don't get.
I've never had any problems with Comcast and am a happy subscriber.
So that's my two cents. I believe people are whining for FIOS until they get FIOS and realize that Verizon's installation team just doesn't show up or when it's down they get no service, etc.
My problem is that people conflate the problem of a lack of disclosure and the false marketing tactics of Comcast with the expectation that absolutely unlimited bandwidth is a reasonable thing to expect for a relatively small amount of money. They have a certain amount of limit resources that they need to apply across all their customers. I'm sure they'd like all of their users to have 'unlimited' bandwidth in the practical sense, but because of a small percentage of people who take maximal advantage it becomes impossible. So at what point does an idealized marketing strategy become a deception when the driving force behind the caps is brought on by the users themselves? An all you can eat buffet is a good parallel. For all intents and purposes, it is unlimited, but nonetheless it is possible for someone with a huge appetite to come in and wipe the place out, preventing others from enjoying the same offer. This is no different. And no, I don't work for Comcast and I get frustrated by them as much as anyone.
@Krisa
"My problem is that people conflate the problem of a lack of disclosure and the false marketing tactics of Comcast with the expectation that absolutely unlimited bandwidth is a reasonable thing to expect for a relatively small amount of money."
If Comcast believes that selling an unlimited amount of bandwidth for a relatively small price is not reasonable then perhaps Comcast should stop selling an unlimited amount of bandwidth for a relatively small price.
This isn't a "false marketing tactics." It is fraud.