Comcast Rolls Out ‘Data Usage Meter’ to Broadband Customers

[mcablue]

From technology blog ehomeupgrade.com (December 1, 2009):

It seems everyone wants to regulate our consumption these days. You may be familiar with Smart Meters that track your energy usage on an hourly basis and snitch to the utility company when you’re active during “peak times” so they can justify charging a premium for your indiscretions. Now, broadband providers like Comcast are getting in on the action by capping its monthly usage on home plans to 250GB and dinging you monetarily if you go beyond that. At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised that in the future broadband providers calculate your bill according to the type of data you consume — i.e. VoIP, video streams, BitTorrent, etc. (much different than what Net Neutrality proponents warn about, which deals with access). Of course, pushers of these types of meters will tell you it’s for your benefit and convenience so you can know how much energy/data you consume in month.

[Cassandra]

1. Is there a data shortage?

[sharp_stick]

4. It's the pipes

the internet tubes that ex Sen. Ted Stevens ranted on about. They're getting all stuffed up.

[Wizard777]

39. My Mac once had a "Broken Pipeline."

So I called a Plumber. He said there weren't no pipes in there anywhere. He said it was full of wires and I'd have to call an electrician.

[nyc 4 Biden]

46. best three stooges episode!

[dem mba]

14. yes, its called bandwidth

and it is finite.

[sharp_stick]

2. They've always been metering you

and billing you for data overages while not letting you know what the maximum use is. I asked them once when I had someone on the phone and she said she did not have that information. The current consensus that I've found with Comcast anyway is that monthly data fees kick in around 200 - 225 GB based on prior usage but of course the scumbags won't tell you that until you've got the bill in hand.

The idea of them trying to bill you by what form of data you burn through is interesting and kind of scary. I can see Comcast trying to overbill like mad for any VOIP service in order to "convince" you to switch to the way overpriced comcast voice. I would hope that the SEC and FCC would have something to say about that.

[onenote]

34. why would the SEC have anything to do with this?

[sharp_stick]

36. I was thinking of the OP's

thought that Comcast may eventually want to start charging different amounts for different data types. Say one amount for web browsing and 100X that amount for VOIP data. I think this would be a pretty clear violation as it could easily be seen as an attempt to drive customers to buying the Comcast Voice Package while forcing them to dump till now cheaper options like Vonage.

Am I screwing up my TLA's? I thought the SEC would be the arbiter in a case like that but could easily be wrong.

[Statistical]

43. That would be the FCC.

Your example is good reason why Congress needs to pass meaningful net neutrality laws BEFORE the cable companies (or other providers) try it.

[sharp_stick]

55. Thanks n/t

[imdjh]

3. I can't think of any company as universally hated by its customers as Comcast.

[gkhouston]

27. Our digital television reception is shit. So much so, that I bought a splitter and

an A-B switch, so we can switch over to basic cable when it's truly crappy, as a fair number of the channels we watch are below 100. If I didn't think we'll probably be moving soon, I'd be shopping around for something different.

[Codeine]

80. Charter is so much worse.

Everything that's bad about Comcast, but infinitely more podunk and low-rent.

[Statistical]

5. Within limits I support this.

Less than 1% of network users consume 25% of bandwidth.
While "unlimited" sounds great in reality if you are not the 1% then you are subsidizing their excess usage.

"Nearly unlimited" = caps higher than you are likely to use is far superior to true unlimited.

99% of users will never hit 200GB cap.

Now if they start putting limits of types of content, or prefered access (bing traffic is faster than google) or choking the limits down to 50GB then likely we need Congressional action.

Never mind it is 100% guaranteed they will try to pull those kinds of stunts that is why we need proactive net neutrality laws.

IMHO providers should be able to cap usage however
1) all contents should have same speed
2) all content should be treated as bits (1 bit to google is same as 1 bit for voip). ISP should charge on total bits not type of content)
3) no blocking access to various content based on contract type
4) overage fees should be looked at to ensure they are "fair" and based on realistic costs

[mcablue]

7. Would you say 250 GB is enough for the average user?

I am not very familiar with this gygabyte thing when it comes to browsing the web, watching videos etc.

For someone who mainly watches some but not many videos and browses news websites...would you say this is enough or would the average person exceed this limit?

[godai]

8. Yes, it's more than a DVD every day for the month but only the beginning.

Comcast likely will reduce this as time goes by and create new tiers, at higher cost, for higher usage.

[Uncle Joe]

69. That's exactly what I was thinking, they will reduce it.

The strategy is always to get the camel's nose under the tent and the rest will follow.

I remember when cable television first came out, they touted pay for television because it didn't have commercials, we see how that's worked out.

[Statistical]

10. 99% of users will never come close to the limit.

For example web browsing (DU, CNN, CNBC, google, myspace) is very low bandwidth something like <10 MB per hour.
So 8 hours a day * 30 days a month * 10 = 2400 MB = 2.4GB ( about 1% of cap).

Movies are a little more. hulu or high quality youtube runs about 2mbps.
2mbps * 60 sec * 60 minutes = ~ 1 GB per hour. Say average user watches 1 hour of high quality content per day that's another 30GB.

Internet radio / music streaming is even less.
300kbps stream is common. 24 hours a day, 30 days a month is 62GB. Realistic usage (4-5 hours) would be a fraction of that.

VOIP (Vonage, etc) is even less. Voice is insanely low bandwith. Runs about 50kbps. (0.05 mbps).
Say 5000 minutes of talk time @ 50kpbs = only 1.8GB

So say this user (which is far far more than typical user)
surfs web 8 hours a day
watches 1 hour a day or movies/TV on hulu
blasts internet radio 24/7 (even when asleep or not home)
talks about 5000 minutes on VOIP phone line
downloads 100GB worth of junk (files, programs, games, etc)
would still be well under 250GB cap.

99% of users don't even some close to that kind of usage.

[mcablue]

12. Great context, thanks

Doesn't seem that bad after all.

[dixiegrrrrl]

19. I really appreciat the context that you shared, Have questions tho:

the people who ARE using above the 250 GB cap..what the hell are they doing on the puter?

My fear, which is justified according to precedent, is once the usage billing begins, it will be priced higher and higher for less and less use over time. Comcast is already known for requesting, and getting, price increases from the Utility Comm. every 9 months or so ( at least in Ca. the 5 years I had Comcast there).

The plan is to be used by ALL internet providers. I get dsl with Frontier Telephone, they talked about rolling out this tier measurement usage meter last year, so far their deadline has come and gone, I suspect due to economy. Once the camel gets his nose in the tent, etc.

[Statistical]

20. Most are pirating everything in sight 24/7 365.

They queue up a list of thousands of pieces of software, games, movies, CDs, etc. and every second of every day their computer is downloading.

[PVnRT]

45. I used to know people who would download songs/movies literally all night

They would set up the transfers, then leave their computer on and go to bed.

[Spacemom]

21. Any idea how much bandwith gaming uses?

My son uses XBox Live and I have no idea what kind of bandwith that uses up.

[Statistical]

24. Next to nothing.

Games only transit raw information (locations, hits, misses, etc) not any graphics over the connection.
They are optimized for low latency so create a responsive feel.

Most games use less than 10MB (0.01GB). So even 100 hours of gaming would be a single GB (1GB).
If your son played 12 hours of xbox live a day it would be somewhere in the ballpark of 3GB - 5 GB.

[nilram]

48. most people don't watch just an hour of TV/movies a day

And if they choose to do so over their internet connection, they're going to get dinged. More so if there's more than one TV watcher in the house. Who else is providing TV content? Comcast. I think there's a total conflict of interest in this scheme.

And I don't think bandwidth is a problem. The technology exists for these companies to provide much, much higher bandwidth. When you compare bandwidth available to consumers, US consumers have come out near the bottom of the chart for industrialized countries. I don't know why that is, but my guesses would include more regulation of telephone/communications companies (if not outright government ownership), and correspondingly fewer conflicts of interest.

Interesting quote from a report, "U.S. lags behind in broadband infrastructure", from the Economic Policy Institute:

Countries like Japan and South Korea that have made broadband a national priority are already experiencing the perks of their fiber optic expansion. Average broadband download speeds are hitting 61-megabits per second in Japan, while the average in the United States is only 1.9-megabits per second. Even the "fast" connection in the United States of 5-megabits per second requires 15 minutes to download a 4.5 GB movie file, while the average connection in Japan needs just 1.25 minutes.

Edited to correct html tag.

[MH1]

11. Well said.

[Raineyb]

22. If you pay for unlimited than the word "excess" shouldn't come into the equation.

You're basically complaining that the 1% who use a lot of traffic (and therefore are getting their money's worth) are not allowing the broadband company to get really rich off of them by paying for unlimited bandwidth and hardly using any of it.

I bloody well pay for unlimited usage and I'll determine if and when my usage is excessive thank you very much.

[Statistical]

25. "Unlimited" marketing should be removed, but you pay no where near the cost of unlimited

Unlimited costs (as in real world peering costs) about $150 per month for a 5mbps connection (plus ground loop charge between your location and peering location).

Thats about $1500 per mile setup plus $100- $200 per month upkeep.

So for about $3000 - $5000 upfront plus $250 - $500 per month you can have a truly dedicated link.
Of course that is wholesale cost. Likely any peer will won't 6 months up front plus setup with a 2 or 5 year contract.
Penalties for busting contract are usually in the 5 digit range.

That is what "unlimted" really costs.

I do agree they should be forced to remove the "unlimited" marketing.

[Romulox]

26. Agree with this poster 100% on this. nt

[Tesha]

52. It's not exactly true that a VOIP bit is the same as a Google bit.

Within rather broad limits, you don't care exactly how many
milliseconds it takes for the various Google packets to get to
Google and have the answering packets get back to you.

But with VOIP, if the latencies between packets is too large or
too variable, the sound quality will degrade, perhaps even to
the point of becoming useless.

So it DOES cost the carrier more to deliver those better-timed
VOIP bits.

Tesha

[HopeHoops]

6. Comcast is sleazy.

They know they can get away with anything for people who want cable TV service. I don't get cable and don't want it. I use DSL for broadband and love it. Dedicated line, consistent transfer rate, no usage charges or limits, no bandwidth throttling, no overselling bandwidth issues (a MAJOR problem with Comcast). There's a Comcast truck in my neighborhood at least every other day - and that's STILL true even after they dug up the old (17 year old) lines and replaced them with "upgraded" lines. Fuck Comcast.

[Statistical]

13. DSL is not dedicated line. Not even close.

DSL is a dedicated pipe to the DSLAM and then it is a shared connection to internet just like any other provider.

It is like having a dedicated road to the highway and then you jump in line with all the other traffic.

5 Mbps of peering to a Tier 2 host in Richmond VA (5 Mbps, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, every second with 99.999% uptime) runs about $150 per month plus loop charge.

Tier 2 peering is about a close to "dedicated" as even businesses will get. Tier 2 networks are really dedicated because they have to connect to a Tier 1 network and the Tier 2 or 3 or 4 network is likely reselling bandwidth (10Gbe connection but selling an aggregate of 100Gbe+).

The only true "dedicated" peers are Tier 1 networks (and there are only 10 in the world)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network
A peering arrangement with Tier 1 networks starts in 10Gbe range ($15,000 to $100,000 per month) and goes up.

At residential prices it is simply impossible to provide a "dedicated line" marketing fluff non-withstanding.

Of course very few consumers need dedicated bandwith.

5 mbps * 30 days * 24 hours * 60 minutes * 60 seconds / 8 bits to byte = 1.6 terrabytes of data (1620 gigabytes).

[Deja Q]

16. I concede, you are correct:

http://www.speedguide.net/faq_in_q.php?category=88&qid=136

[HopeHoops]

49. That link is missing the point entirely.

Once you are on common ground in the pathways of the Internet, all access methods (other than really expensive ones) are constrained by the same pipes. The issue is how you GET to the common ground. Cable is a shared bandwidth method at the house level. DSL is dedicated at the house level. If Comcast oversells the capacity on a particular loop, which is their standard operating procedure, then high traffic will degrade everyone's service to all Internet sites. DSL doesn't work that way. You get dedicated speed to the DSLAM and from there you take your chances with the traffic.

There is a major difference here. The common ground traffic is degraded by excessive access along individual routes to web sites, and that is true for everyone (again, except for really expensive arrangements). Cable traffic is constrained at the house level. If there is excessive traffic to ONE site, it will degrade the service for everyone to ALL sites. Most people just don't get that, and yet it is so simple.

[Statistical]

53. No because the DSLAM has a finite capacity to the internet mesh

If that link becomes saturated you throughput will drop regardless of what site you are going to.

If your ISP want to they could save money (millions a year) by cutting that link in half or by 2/3rds. All your dedicated bandwidth to the DLSAM means nothing if the DSLAM ups the contention ratio from 10:1 to 20:1 or 50:1.

The a local coax-hybrid or fiber (fios) loop has MORE bandwidth than the link between ISP and it's peering host.

The largest bottleneck is that first link between the host's private network and its peering host on the internet mesh.

[HopeHoops]

17. As are all broadband lines. But DSL IS dedicated to the DSLAM - cable is not.

Cable is shared bandwidth and Comcast has oversold the piss out of it. I doubt there are any major markets where anyone gets even close to the advertised transfer rates. In the early days, sure, it was even likely. Not anymore.

The "once you're on the Internet" bullshit is silly at best. If you're throttled leaving your house, your transfer rate sucks. Comcast sells a Lincoln and often delivers an 82 Yugo. Oh, and if you drive it too much, they charge extra or shut you off. Great service, that, eh?

Fuck Comcast.

[Statistical]

18. You don't get it.

Cable aggregates at the loop. DSL aggregates at the DSLAM. Very little difference.

Unless you have business grade DSL (which even that isn't dedicated) with a SLA (service level agreement) you are getting the same over subscribed connection anyone else is.

Sorry to burst your bubble but you are.
Don't trust me? google "Is DSL dedicated?"

"Dedicated" DSL is marketing nothing more nothing less.

Is is simply not economically possible for DSL providers to offer less than 10:1 oversubscribing of their connection to the peer.

Simply put if the DSLAM you are connected to sold 200, 5Mbps lines = 1000 Mbps they likely bought a 100Mpbs throttle to the peer. They are charged on the 95% percentile of bandwidth used over the month but the connection throttles at 100Mbps shared.

Otherwise the raw bandwidth on a 5Mbps DSL would cost about $150 per month. That doesn't even include human labor costs, ground loop costs, wire maintenance costs, repairs after storms, billing costs, and DSLAM utility costs.

[HopeHoops]

23. You're missing the point. Cable is shared bandwidth in the neighborhood.

If you're in a new neighborhood with few houses, no question cable blows the doors off of DSL. That doesn't last long. Comcast sells at the "optimal" rate but oversells and during peak periods the shared bandwidth is a major problem.

And don't give me the rate crap. Once you get to the DSLAM, it is all equal in potential throughput. Getting there is the issue and that's the point you don't seem to grasp. I started with a Bell 212 acoustic coupler and had to wait for my characters to echo back. THAT sucked.

[Statistical]

28. Still don't get it.

ALL ISP cap the bandwith at the DSLAM. So your super fast ultra unlimited pipe to the DSLAM doesn't mean anything.
Hell I was only a network engineer for 5 years guess I didn't learn anything.

Keep believing your connection is dedicated. It is over subscribed. Most DSL ISP oversubscribe by about 10:1. The crappier ones tend to push it 20:1.

DSL oversubscribes
Cable oversubscribes
Fios oversubscribes
u-verse oversubscribes
WWAN (cellular wireless) oversubscribes
Residential Satellite oversubscribes
Residential fixed wireless (rural) oversubscribes

The true cost of a link to peer is much more than residential prices can support.

[snooper2]

32. not all cap bandwidth at the DSLAM

We have DS3 uplinks to our ATM switch from the DSLAM and then it usually goes out the same switch/chassi to one of our routers dedicated for Internet Access. Router also serves other TDM based customers DS3 and lower. Said router has dual OC12 links back to the core network.

Most DSLAMS are lightly loaded with customers so DS3 links are not oversubscribed at all. Oversubscribtion in the rest of the network is a longer conversation...

The company I work for is listed on the wiki page you posted above by the way :)

[HopeHoops]

33. Only five years?

Let me guess - you're a shill for Comcast.

You're on the wrong side of the problem. You're talking about the line at the bathroom when the problem is the bartender watering down the drinks. What you are claiming to be "oversubscribing" is called "usage balancing" and is similar to what airlines do with flight bookings. It is also completely reasonable, typical, and on balance is a good practice (perhaps not with the airlines, but that's another matter). That has absolutely nothing to do with the connection to the house. DSL IS dedicated from the house to the DSLAM (although line-length dictates the rate), cable is not. From there, we get into what you've been going on about and that's a completely unrelated issue.

[Statistical]

42. Never worked for Comcast (or any cable provider).

My current ISP is Verizon Fios = (fiber to the home) so I have no horse in this race.

I agreed with you that DSL is dedicated between home & DSLAM however that "stat" is meaningless.
It is dedicated on the portion that isn't close to saturated.

The bandwidth in the local loop doesn't cost the ISP anything on a per byte basis.
They need to maintain it, and build it but the network is private. Nobody charges cox for using the loop. Nobody charges Verizon for using their fiber loop.

There is much more bandwidth than most people realize in plain ole coax. 1Ghz rated coax-hybrid system has 158 6Mzh channels. A channel using QAM256 has peak bandwidth of 38.4Mbps. This gives cable a raw bandwidth of around 6Gbps (6000 Mbps).

Sadly about 75% of this is "wasted" on crappy analog TV. One channel per channel slot. 38.4Mbps of potential bandwidth wasted on low res, poor quality analog picture. Analog is huge bandwidth hog and cable companies will go all digital within next couple year simply because the bandwidth is so valuable. Also currently HDTV is encoded in mpeg2 (same as OTA) but there will be a move to mpeg4 or H.264 as it is roughly twice as efficient (currently used for Bluray).

In a all digital mpeg4 based HDTV network. Nearly 100 channels of HD quality programming could fit in 50-60 physical channels. Using VBR muxing you could increase that to 150+ channels all HD. VOIP & "cable radio" even CD quality takes a neglible amount of bandwidth. The remaining bandwidth could be used to for internet and ondemand movies. DOCSIS 3.0 supports channel bonding allowing bandwith > 38.4 Mbps (to compete with fiber).


The bottleneck is at the ISP connection to the internet not in their local loop. All local loops have a substantial amount of bandwidth. The local loop bandwidth is "free" (no per byte charges, of course maintaining the network costs money). The pipe between ISP and their internet peer is what cost real money and is oversubscribed to reduce the aggregate cost. The pipe is much smaller than the sum of all the "dedicated" DSL lines making their existence meaningless.

http://www.speedguide.net/faq_in_q.php?category=88&qid=136

A common misconception is that residential DSL is dedicated bandwidth, while Cable modems provide shared medium.

This is only partly true - for the segment between you and the ISP's central office, and that is rarely the bottleneck of the connection. From the Central Office out to the Internet, both Cable and DSL share your ISP's backbones, whatever they are. Residential broadband is oversubscribed, whether cable or DSL - usually with 10 times as many subscribers as the maximum backbone capacity. Since the backbones are most likely the bottleneck of the Internet connection, and it is shared medium, both residential DSL and Cable may experience slowdowns at peak times.

[HopeHoops]

47. The link is still on the bathroom side of the problem, not the bartender side.

I'm glad you have FiOS - I would if it was available. They made some noise about installing it here last year - "noise" is the operative word.

Again, saturation after you hit the DSLAM is a common problem. The ISSUE HERE is Comcast overselling the local loop - and they do in most major markets. I don't even consider my neighborhood to be a "major market", but it is clearly oversold here based on what the neighbors say about it.

The "Internet cloud saturation" issue depends on your destination address. If there is a major sporting event, whatever pathway(s) leads to ESPN's site is/are going to be slower than a dog dropping a turd in February - for EVERYONE. At that very point in time, the cable users in oversold areas are going to be slowed to a crawl for ALL Internet access because of the local loop congestion. I won't be, and neither will you. Sports is the best analogy I could come up with because frankly (and unfortunately), the devotion to it is a fact of our society. DU will still work just fine for you and me during the Super Bowl. The unfortunate people on oversold Comcast lines are the ones who will suffer trying to get here, or to eBay, or anywhere that isn't related to the football game. Obviously there are shared pipes (with sports sites) to some sites that will be constrained by the traffic, but the rest will be just fine.

[Statistical]

51. fios is a shared loop (GPON)

Fios is a Gigabit Passive Optical Network. The main advantage over coax is simplicity. Fiber unless broken will last a very long time without electrical noise, corrosion, and degradation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fios#Technical_details

Fios has plenty of local bandwidth. 2.4Gbps down and 1.2Gbps to the loop (usually shared by 32 or 64 location loop). DOCSIS 3.0 alllows channel bonding and multiple channel ranges so coax (cable) can replicate this level of bandwidth in local loop by using 48 channels

It is over subscribed at the central office as are all residential . Your DSL provider could cut ISP gateway bandwidth to a 20:1, 50:1, or even 100:1 (form a likely 10:1) contention ratio tomorrow and you connection would suffer despite "dedicated" bandwidth.

Simply put "dedicated" is no guarantee of quality if the gateway is oversubscribed and many smaller DSL hosts are suffer so they raise the contention ratio (more subscribers on same link to internet). I am not talking about the internet mesh but rather the very first hop from DSL/cable/fios private network to the public internet peer.

That is the only connection that any ISP pays for on a throughput basis. When push comes to shove to save costs they will increase the subscriber to peering link (contention) ratio.

If Comcast is oversubscribing the loop then EVEN IF THEY HAD DEDICATED LINES (using a topology similar to DSL) they would simply oversubscribe the gateway to save cost. If your ISP wants to screw you they can/will and a "dedicated" line isn't going to help.

If Comcast is not providing sufficient bandwidth then they are a crappy ISP but they equally could be a crappy ISP by not providing sufficient bandwidth as a DSL ISP.

The issue is a profit over quality issue not a technical issue with share loop or hybrid-coax in general.

[HopeHoops]

61. Okay, you hit the nail on the head that time.

Statistical: "The issue is a profit over quality issue not a technical issue with share loop or hybrid-coax in general."

You are correct. The problem is NOT the technology, but rather that they are abusing it. And yes, the entire point is that Comcast is "a crappy ISP".

[Statistical]

63. Agreed on that point. I haven't had much problem with Cox but heard horror stories w/ Comcast.

Comcast would likely still be the same greed, poor service, poor throughput Company regardless oh what technology they used to connect homes (dsl, powerline, fiber optic, or wireless).

[HopeHoops]

70. I hadn't thought of it that way, but yes, that is probably true.

I don't get cable TV so I can't speak to that other than to pass on the gripes of my neighbors who keep getting rate increases.

[Statistical]

71. Yeah I dropped cable TV a year ago.

Nice quality antenna, attic mount, and an HD Tivo and I get all the networks in flawless HD with no monthly fee. The setup is a little over the top but still cost me less than a year of cable. Now I got HD DVR for life with no fees. Less channels of course but if I live another 40 years that will be $33K I don't pay to cable company. Kinda puts it in perspective when you look at it that way.

I recently switched to Verizon Fios for internet but would switch back to Cox if the price was right. Got to love competition. :)

[HopeHoops]

73. I shut off the tube when I got my first apartment in '82.

Actually, the only thing I watched for a few years before that was SNL while the first crew was still on (Belushi, Radner, Akroid, etc.), and once in a while after the second crew took over (JAMES Belushi, Murphey, and shit I forget who else was on).

Now, the Internet is all you need for news and the signal to noise ratio of TV news makes it useless. There's nothing else of interest on TV that doesn't end up edited into the "good part" and posted on the net.

[leveymg]

9. Reminds me of the "life usage" meter in THX 1138. Go over, and they stop chasing you.

[Deja Q]

15. Not surprising. They charge extra if you want more than one computer hooked to their line.

Use DSL - more secure, allows more expansion within your home, and it's dedicated so 5Mbit is 5Mbit. Not 5Mbit when the two people sharing the same connection aren't playing "Grand Theft Tournament" and downloading 10 illegal DVDs online and as such hogging all the bandwidth...

[ohheckyeah]

41. Some areas like where I live have two choices -

Comcast cable or dial up. That's not a really hard decision for me.

[endless october]

29. it's nearing time to break up comcast.

and re-break AT&T.

both companies have become Too Big To Not Suck.

[jtrockville]

30. Usage Statistics

According to an Oct 2009 study, the average usage for a broadband connection (globally) is 11.4 GB per month.
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2009/prod_102109.html

Of course those statistics are skewed because there are places in the globe where fast pipes are the norm, like Japan, where the average usage for a broadband connection is 26 GB per month.
http://www.caida.org/workshops/wide/0808/slides/residential_user_traffic.pdf

These averages aren't going to get smaller. Or maybe this "internet" thing is just a passing fad?

[dembotoz]

31. comcast would not be doing it if they did not figure they were going to make a lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$

agree with above posts
Cable with few subcribers--way cool
Cable with many subscribers---not so much.

demands for bandwidth are growing in normal non pirate households
Seems like everything you do on a computer now sucks bandwidth

What i fear is that the statement about a normal person never needing that much bandwidth reminds me of the computer executive who back in the 70's? said there would never be a need for an average person to have a computer in their house.

No, comcast would not be taking the pr hit they are taking unless they knew it would make them lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Statistical]

35. Good points. Likely caps will need to go up as time goes on.

Nice thing is we are starting to see competition for first time.

FIOS, 4G wireless (LTE), wimax, DSL, cable

in the future consumers hopefully we have enough choices that they can use the dollar vote.

Comcast keep cap at 250GB but Verizon Fios offers same service with 1000GB cap you switch.

Eventually everyone will cap data. video will be the killer. Most internet video is ultra compressed, low rez. 1080p HD will become mainstream within a decade even over internet connection.

[HopeHoops]

37. I remember when the president of IBM said there was no need for multi-tasking on a home PC.

That was shortly after the Amiga 500 and Atari ST hit the market. Both had multi-tasking operating systems and of course M$ did not. Bill Gates made a similar statement but the last time I tried to hunt it down I couldn't find it. I have it in print in a file somewhere (in a box in the basement).

A little trivia...

M$ finally came out with a true multi-tasking operating system with Windows NT. I forget the guy's name, but the architect of the DEC VMS task scheduler was the same guy who designed Windows NT's same component. It shouldn't be a shock to learn that they work in very much the same way. One major difference is that VMS will never allow a task to be orphaned by the processor. Eventually, every task will get at least a small slice of time once in a while. NT has issues and this is not true there. Other than that, the internal workings are amazingly similar, or not so amazing given that they had the same inventor. The most stable version I found was NT 4.0 SP4, but SP6 seems to run pretty well also. Your mileage may vary.

Now HERE is the fun part. Add one letter to V, M, and S and what do you get? W, N, and T. M$ claims the "NT" stands for "next technology", but I think it has more to do with "we stole one from DEC". Yes, by now that's old news, but old enough that a lot of people may not know about it - especially the younger ones who ask "what's Windows NT?"

[Tesha]

56. (Dave Cutler) (NT)

[HopeHoops]

60. Was that the one?

That was over 20 years ago - my memory failed me. I tried to look it up after I made the post but you know how it is. Back when the Internet was young, you were lucky to get 10 hits that didn't involve Pamela Anderson (regardless of what you entered as a search). Now you are lucky if you get fewer than 50,000 for a detailed search.

[Tesha]

75. Dave, along with a handful of other people, designed VMS.

He then wanted to move west and so DEC set up a new operation
for him called DECwest in Bellevue, WA where Dave led the design
of the MicroVAX-I and an embedded realtime operating system to
go with it. This was Elan, later named VAXELN to avoid trademark
problems.

He then went on to start designing a successor architecture to
VAX (called PRISM) but DEC management rejected that in favor
of an East Coast design called Alpha. Dave, being the snit-prone
little bastard that he always was, quit DEC and went to Microsoft
where he basically re-implemented DEC's VMS as Windows/NT
("Windows/New Technology"). And that's been Microsoft's mainline
commercial-grade operating system ever since (even though the
name keeps changing).

Tesha

[HopeHoops]

84. That's basically what I remember, but without all the details ;}

The Alpha was a cool architecture. Somewhere I've got a book on the processor.

The task scheduler is a pretty clever item.

[csziggy]

38. My ISP will hear from me if they try this

I pay them a premium for ultra broadband so I can download whatever I want. If they limit how much I can download, I will scale back the overall speed to the lowest broadband rate to save money. What is the point of broadband if you can't download big files?

[Statistical]

44. You likely download a lot less than you think.

There are freeware meters you can download. Run one for a month and you likely will be surprised.

The reason is speed.

Say you download 100GB in a month. How much waiting do you want to do? If you don't mind waiting then get a slower pkg.

[ohheckyeah]

40. Comcast initiated the 250 GB monthly data usage threshold on October 1, 2008.

To reach 250 GB in a month, for example, a customer would have to do any of the following:

* Send 50 million plain text e-mails (at 5KB/e-mail)
* Download 62,500 songs (at 4 MB/song)
* Download 125 standard-definition movies (at 2 GB/movie)
* Upload 25,000 hi-resolution digital photos (at 10 MB/photo)

Does this mean that you monitor what specific activities customers are doing with their Internet accounts?

No. We determine aggregate data usage. We do not monitor specific customer activities on the Internet in order to identify excessive users. We look for data usage in the aggregate and then we will identify those customer accounts that have used more than 250GB in the month.

I followed the directions to view the usage meter but there isn't one available on my account.


The above is from the Comcast website FAQ's section in each user's account information.

[kristopher]

50. Hardline broadband's days are numbered...

[Statistical]

54. Not likely.

Wireless is great for mobile applications and low density areas (like rural America).

Fiber, copper, or coax/hybrid has far far far more potential bandwidth than any wireless network ever will.

[kristopher]

57. Really?

Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_Internet_access

To this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G

One central tower is expected to serve (not line of sight) an area 70 miles in diameter with individual users averaging about 2-4Mb/S.

[Statistical]

58. Not sure what you are trying to say.

4G isn't here yet. Nationwide rollout is likely going to take 5-7 years.

Today average broadband connection speed is 5.6mbps. However that doesn't tell the whole picture.

Many users have option of higher speed (at higher price) and choose NOT to upgrade.

I have a 15mbps pipe with Verizon but I could get a 25mpbs (for $65) or even 50mbps pipe (for $130) . That is right now. As wholesale bandwidth (peering to internet mesh) drops those connections will get even faster.

VZ Fios service uses a 2400 mbps loop (this is installed right now). VZ will be able to up speeds to 100mbps+ higher as needed (and as supported by market). This won't be overnight and be more like changing the 15/25/50 plan to a 20/30/60 plan.


Right now Broadband speeds are limited by the COST OF PEERING TO INTERNET MESH. Even a wireless link will have a wired backhaul and pay those same costs to connect to internet mesh. As those costs falls wireless links will become saturated a long time before wired links will be.

I am old enough to remember when 10mbps ethernet was state of the art. Then came 100mbps, then gigabit, then 10g. A 1000x increase in bandwidth over twisted copper in just 30 years. We are reaching the limits of copper but fiber has unbelievable speed potential. Via wave division multiplexing the throughput record is now push 14,000 Gbit (14,000,000 mbit) though a single strand of fiber optic cable.

[kristopher]

64. Verizon FIOS standard entry offer

* Only $19.99/mo.
* 6 Months FREE**
* FREE Modem
* Up to 1Mbps/384Kbps Speed
* 30-day Money-Back Guarantee
* Up to 9 Email Accounts & 4 GB of Total Email Storage


I understand what you are saying, but I don't buy it as a measure of the marketability of the two different technologies. The 2-4 Mb/s with 4G isn't written in stone either. It offers the same capability to upgrade as does any other system - all that is required is the willingness to pay.
Verizon started to put FIOS in my local area, but the impending offering of 4G limited their plans to the most densely populated areas only. They knew they couldn't recoup the infrastructure costs when that option became available to consumers in the near future, according to statements made during discussions reported during public service commission hearings.

I've personally spoken with (2003-4) the head of development for PJM independent system operator for the electric grid and asked why they weren't pursuing the use of their lines for internet - he said the same thing. He stated that evelopments in wireless broadband after turning over broadcast TV bandwidth was expected to dominate the market.

You may be right, but I think you're putting too much emphasis on what's been achieved in the urban market in the area of speed and not enough on the logistics of national standards and the consumer appeal of the wireless concept.

[Statistical]

65. That is not FIOS that is older DSL (in areas with no fios).

Fios is 15mbps, 25mbps, or 50mbps.

VZ DSL is 768 or 3mbps.
Of course you neglected to notice the price.

wireless data runs about $50 - $60 per month w/ 5GB limit.

VZ DSL is $20 for cheap plan, $30 for faster plan which is roughly same speed as 4G.

For $50 a month you can get a 15Mbps (4x as fast) fios connection.
For $65 a month you can get a 25Mbps (6x as fast) fios connection.

Wireless will always be slower, more expensive, and have lower cap.

People are upset with Comcast and their 250GB montly limit. VZ, Sprint, and AT&T all limit wireless bandwidth to 5GB a month (2% of Comcast cap).

VZ isn't scared of 4G. They are rolling out both Fios and 4G network (starting in 2010) aggressively. However 4G and high end internet are not competitors.

VZ is the only carrier with a a nationwide single frequency license from the 700mhz (old TV) auction for 4G. They also likely will have their 4G network up and running the fastest. I have a good chunk of Verizon stock from my days working for them. I am confident their 4G network (called LTE long term evolution) will destroy AT&T and Sprint. A 4G iPhone running on VZ superior network will bring in big piles of cash for shareholders.

However 4G will NEVER EVER compete with fast wired connections. It will replace traditional cellular, it will replace laptop users, it will replace low bandwidth users however there will be no contest between 4G and a landline like FIOS in terms of speed.

Verizon concentrates Fios in densely populated areas because when they lay down a loop it is expensive (like $20 mil expensive) and they need the highest ROI on that cash. Dense areas will generate more revenue faster.

However FIOS loop is 3.6Gbps (3600Gbps) 4G will never even come close to that speed.

[kristopher]

82. Sorry about that, I thought it was FIOS

I glanced at the headline for the page, saw FIOS and concluded wrong.

I'm not completely convinced but as I said, I understand where you are coming from and the reasoning is sound. I still have to give credence to the gent from PJM, however, he too knows what he is talking about.

[Statistical]

83. Well powerline networking has been an utter and awesome failure.

Even in a completely wired world (no wireless anything) it would still be a failure.

Powerline LAN networking (inside home) is pretty decent however "last mile" powerline network has been an massive and expensive failure.

Just way way way too much noise on the line combined with the fact that our grid is a hodgepodge of conflicting equipment, bridges, switches, etc.

4G will be a "game changer". It will allow nearly unlimited mobile devices. Not just cellphones but 4G aware devices like cars, or remote sensors.

Currently 3G data is clumsily "bolted" on top of existing voice network.
4g will be completely IP. Voice will simply be another packet of data (with highest priority).

However for heavy lifting wired will always have more capacity then wireless.
They aren't really direct competitors. Some people may device to "cut the wire" but they will be chosing mobility/cost over speed, not that wireless will be faster.

[Born_A_Truman]

59. On DirecWay it's called FAP

I have the pro plan. 300MB per day. Go over it (like yesterday when I had a huge Office update) and it slows me down to slower than dialup speeds for 24 hours! They have finally added a 1 time per month free re-set and I used it yesterday.

All downloading between 11pm-4am (PT) is FAP FREE so I try and do updates then but somehow the Office update snuck through on its own.

[laughingliberal]

67. I had them when I first moved to rural America. Slow, constantly having to reconnect

Then I got hit with being over the limit once, kept trying to fix the connection. Finally called them (I had been on their service for 2 years at this point) and they tell me about the FAP. Not averaged over a month (which many days I never even turned the computer on) but ANY day I went over. Apparently I had gone over one night (how, I know not) and no recourse. Just had to wait for the 24 hours to pass. I hated them. Good to know they now allow a 1 time reset per month.

[Born_A_Truman]

76. I have the newer modem now HN9000

Much better speeds and less retarts. And, if you have used your 1 freebie that month, you can buy one for $7.95 (depending on your plan) which could come in handy! When hubby got his Macbook he was doing auto updates on Sundays and FAPing me out on Mondays until we figured out what was causing it. Since I work from home, dialup isn't an option for me but I do have it as a backup. We'll never get DSL or cable out here where I am.

[laughingliberal]

77. Thanks. That will help if I ever move back to my house.

The day I got FAP'd I really had stuff I needed to get done and was miles from my office. Really sucked!
I don't see much hope of any other options where my house is, either.

[Blue-Jay]

62. Dumping Comcast was one of the best things we've ever done.

Constant outages and high prices are a thing of the past. Now I don't have to deal with their nosy ripoff ways either.

[Sebastian Doyle]

66. I wish I could dump the right wing greedy bastards

They constantly overbill me and disconnect me once a year (on average) when I won't pay the false charges, and they never show any interest at all in correcting the bill. I came close to going homicidal in their office once, because the employee was so goddamn arrogant and rude about their errors (or should I say denial of)

Unfortunately, there are no other realistic options for internet access around here. It's either Comcast or Qwest, and I'd have to pay some ridiculous $300 deposit to sign up with their pathetic DSL service, and probably pass a bullshit credit check, and the reason I don't have an extra $300 lying around would be the same reason I wouldn't pass a credit check.

So I'm stuck with the sons of corporatist bitches. :evilfrown:

[onenote]

72. who did you replace them with?

[Blue-Jay]

78. We went with WOW.

http://www1.wowway.com/

I don't know if that's available in your area, but I recommend it if it is. They even came out and installed a dedicated internet line for free. No problems that are worth mentioning after 3 years or so.

Comcast sucks donkey dicks. Shitty customer service, shitty prices, and shitty interface with my DVR unit. Basically, Comcast is a shitty company, and now they're spying on you. Dump 'em if you're able.

[onenote]

81. thanks for the info

not available here

[Geek_Girl]

68. I just got rid of Comcast!

Our local Electric company has fiber optic for phone, internet and Cable TV. I have higher speed internet access, more channels and I'm saving 50 a month.


I'm Free, Free Free at Last!

:party::party::party::party::party::party:

[mcablue]

74. Here's the link to the whole story. Sorry guys, I forgot to include it

http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/2009/12/01/comcast-rolls-out-data-usage-meter-to-broadband-customers/

[Lucian]

79. Oh great. So it's like we're going back to the days of dial-up.

But instead of getting so many hours a month, we'll be getting so much data usage and that's it.

That's fucked up. If I'm paying for unlimited internet access every month, then god damn it, I better be getting fucking unlimited internet a month!