
Comcast rolling out 1TB data caps to most states in November - hedora
https://dataplan.xfinity.com/faq/
======
jalaziz
There is nothing reasonable about this. You pay Comcast for bandwidth. It
shouldn't matter how much data you're using as long as you're not exceeding
that bandwidth. If I pay for 250mbps, I should be able to download 24/7
(assuming I did the math right, that's 83.7 TB). Comcast isn't storing the
bits, they're just moving them. This is simply their way of avoiding having to
upgrade their peering arrangements (which are already abysmal). Level3 has a
great blog post explaining a similar issue ([http://blog.level3.com/open-
internet/observations-internet-m...](http://blog.level3.com/open-
internet/observations-internet-middleman/)).

~~~
Benjamin_Dobell
Please Google "contention ratios".

~~~
unprepare
That has nothing to do with how much total data you use in a month.

It doesnt matter if i download 1 TB or 100TB, it only matters if im trying to
use all my bandwidth at the same time as everyone else.

Did you even look it up yourself?

~~~
Benjamin_Dobell
How can you possibly not see these concepts as fundamentally related?

Yes, you're paying for a 250Mbps max connection speed, if your limit is 1000GB
then you can only max out your connection for 9 hours a month, meaning other
users have a chance to use the backhaul bandwidth, not just you!

Applying quota limits means less usage and allows for higher contention ratios
to be used throughout the network. Which is absolutely the only way ISPs can
afford to deliver you an Internet connection without charging thousands of
dollars a month.

~~~
jalaziz
That's not true.

Infrastructure costs money, absolutely. But infrastructure is largely a fixed
cost (plus some maintenance cost). After that, it's all peering arrangements.
ISPs here in the US can have some pretty ridiculous profit margins (probably
exaggerated, but [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-
cab...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-
cables-97-pro_b_6591916.html)).

With gigabit internet slowly becoming standard, ISPs do have to invest quite a
bit in upgrading their infrastructure. However, that investment is easily
amortized over time.

All that being said, the amount of data is never in play. Only the rate at
which you can push data through that infrastructure matters.

Yes, data quotas help ISPs have higher contention ratios, but that's simply
cost cutting and it hurts the consumer. Effectively, the same money you're
paying now is buying you less.

Last-mile ISPs have a very nasty way of trying to lie to consumers about how
the internet works. I highly recommend you read the Level3 blog posts from
around the time of the net neutrality discussions. They're very insightful
into how the internet actually works. Last-mile ISPs can be and are
effectively bullies because they own that last mile.

------
frakr
I don't understand the people who argue that 1TB is a lot of data. Sure, yes
it is right now. What about 5 years from now? 4K TVs and streaming are already
starting to become mainstream. Many online VR experiences are going to be
resource heavy. 1TB isn't even the size of a decent consumer HDD, for people
that do online backups. This seems like a preemptive strike against online
media consumption. I can't wait to have any viable alternative to Comcast.

~~~
Benjamin_Dobell
> I don't understand the people who argue that 1TB is a lot of data. Sure, yes
> it is right now.

We don't _need_ to argue. You just agreed with us.

Comcast haven't said they'll never change this policy or offer greater plans.
They're offering plans that reflect the current marketplace, not doing so is
bad business.

In addition to that, if you read the article you'll see you can still get 100%
unlimited Internet for $200/mo. They're simply asking their high-demand
customers to pay in such a way that reflects what it costs to provide for
those customers.

I don't walk into a restaurant and expect a flat price for my meal that's the
same as every one else... err, unless it's an all-you-can-eat... and they
charge for drinks!

~~~
jalaziz
That's not what's going on. You're not paying a flat price. If you want more
bandwidth, you pay for it. The currency for an ISP is bandwidth. The amount of
data that's transferred does not matter. This is basically pure profit for
Comcast and comes from an artificial excuse that last-mile ISPs have
effectively made up.

~~~
Benjamin_Dobell
But it does matter. ISPs simply don't have the means to provide capacity for
every user to simultaneously max out their connection at once. That is not,
and never has been how Internet infrastructure works. That'd be like building
a 100 lane highway because on Christmas it gets congested.

You're paying for peak performance, not 24/7 performance.

~~~
jalaziz
You're paying for a rate, not an absolute amount. The internet infrastructure
works on that rate (bandwidth). You don't buy a 10GB switch or router, you buy
a 1gbps switch or router. ISPs peer based on bandwidth.

I do understand, though, that by having a data cap they're encouraging users
to use less of that bandwidth. However, again, they're just passing on costs
to the consumer instead of paying a fixed cost to upgrade their peering
arrangements.

------
seanieb
This is an anticompetitive act. Anyone using >1TB is more than likely using
Netflix, Youtube, etc. Comcast are using their broadband service to push
people back to using Comcast cable and digital services!

Please contact the FCC and let them know what you think:
[https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-
us/requests/new?tic...](https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-
us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=38824)

~~~
mayli
I use about 2 to 3 TB every month, and I have a 200Mbps plan for 1 year. The
data cap is not part of the plan when I sign it, is it legal to set a cap
without get acknowledgement from it's customer?

~~~
jalaziz
I've been wondering the same thing. At the very least you should be able to
argue that they've changed the contract and you should no longer be held
liable for early termination.

------
aphextron
Fuck. Comcast.

How is it possible this is the only thing available in Silicon Valley?

~~~
tarancato
Because rolling out a fibre network is very very very expensive. People who
think they are entitled to certain speeds, data caps, or prices, don't
understand this. That's why Google Fiber is reconsidering their investment. It
simply is too expensive.

If you have a problem, you can ask your government to force Comcast to rent
the network, as it happens in civilised countries like mine, but that makes it
harder to compete in price.

~~~
amazon_not
> Because rolling out a fibre network is very very very expensive.

For some values of very very very expensive.

Fiber to the home costs about as much as a MacBook Pro.

------
british_india
So happy I have an alternative to these bastards at Comcast. They are the Evil
Empire, trying to punish cord cutters.

------
dhawalhs
I just logged in to Comcast to see how much data me and my two other roommates
are using.

The max we reached in the last three months for 342gb.

~~~
akerro
That's my monthly. I do daily backups of my 4 PCs and dedicated server, watch
a lot of films in HD + small Tor node.

------
kemiller
I have to say it actually seems very reasonable. I don't quite get where the
entitlement to unlimited data comes from. 1TB is a lot, and it has renewable
"grace" months so a fluke doesn't turn into a giant bill - that's not rent-
seeking behavior. $50 fixed tax on very heavy users is entirely appropriate.
If real time vr becomes a thing and it becomes normal to use more than 1TB
then I imagine the number will increase.

~~~
marak830
To put this in perspective, I'm in Japan. I have 2gb net, and I use more than
1tb regularly.

My wife watches a lot of Netflix, YouTube etc, I play a lot of gaming. Running
at 60+GB a pop for some of these games, plus mods.

I also stream TV and movies while I code(I work from home most of the time),
invariably I'm on a Skype call with video to two or three people while coding
too(it's fine as long as I keep the iPad volume down for movie/TV).

That's with only two of us. I'd hate to imagine how much data we would use if
we had two teenage children.

When I was in Australia, 1tb was very difficult to use, now that I have this
much speed available and we're use to so much on demand, it would be mind
numbing to have to micro manage it.

Oh for the record, that costs me approx USD $50 too. (Maybe 60, I'll have to
ask my wife).

~~~
titzer
I'm not sure where to place your comment. You use a lot of bandwidth, all the
time. Are you proud of that? I'm not judging; I just want to understand what
you are claiming.

~~~
marak830
I'm saying that 1tb of data, once you have the speed available, runs out very
quickly.

If we can run without caps in Japan, there is no excuse for your isp's.

------
forthefuture
I already get throttled and I didn't hit 200GB last month. Moved from NJ to CO
and still have to deal with the long dick of Comcast.

------
kire456
My phone plan (Netherlands) has a data cap of 500 MB. I thought this thread
was showcasing an uncommonly generous service provider.

~~~
Viper007Bond
I struggle to stay under 2GB a month on my phone, and I stream almost nothing.
I'm not sure I could survive on that little!

------
Solinoid
1TB is very generous as far as data caps go. Atleast it's better than Canada
where the big three seem to weaponize data caps to slightly lower than
reasonable for the average household to shock you with a +50$ bill and then
upsell you to a more expensive plan.

~~~
therobot24
Only comes off as generous based on their statistic that 99% of their users
won't exceed it. If they started with something 'less generous' it would be
met with more backlash. However, this is just preparing customers to be used
to a data cap.

------
joelthelion
"xfinity"

~~~
ulfw
Well, it's not called "Infinity" for a reason

~~~
mtgx
To Xfinity and ... not beyond 1TB!

------
LargeCompanies
Oh look they are offering a new plan to customers ... what a bunch of crap...
it should just say we need to make money this is what's its going to be from
now on.

New plan for our customers ...lol. Not your customers more like your
prisoners!!!

~~~
Hydraulix989
Yes, it's the same plan, just more restrictive. Weasel words.

------
jjawssd
This is irrelevant. Three years ago every couple hundred gigabytes Comcast
would simple kill my uplink without warning. The light was simply off on my
modem. Fuck Comcast.

------
joesmo
Does this mean existing customers under contract can break their contract due
to it changing?

------
Benjamin_Dobell
In Australia data caps are the norm, but you can get unlimited plans with
certain ISPs. However, 1TB is a _lot_ of data. To my knowledge there's not a
single 1TB plan available in Australia, it's assumed that even on the
unlimited plans you're not going to be using that much.

I don't have cable and generally don't watch free-to-air TV. I pretty much
stream exclusively, using the highest bitrates available on my 85Mbps
connection. I'm not sure how I'd ever use 1TB of data simply streaming.

Oh, I also work full-time from home as a software developer. Part of my work
involves downloading and uploading large 3D models. I also have regular video
conferences (screen sharing and what not). I've still never exceeded 300GB.

The only reason I've reached close to 300GB before is because I have a fairly
considerable Steam library (500+ games) and decided to download about 50 in
one month.

What is it that people are doing that gets them over 1TB?

~~~
Dylan16807
Have you ever had a TV that's left on? If that was a medium quality 3Mbps it
would blow through 1TB by itself.

~~~
Benjamin_Dobell
((3/8) x 60 x 60 x 24 x 30)/1000 = 972 GB

So no, it wouldn't. Well, okay, on a 31 day month it would ;)

But what streaming service allows you to stream that long without prompting
you? That's 720 hours of footage. Not even Star Gate has enough footage for
you to do that (most which was pre-HD).

I feel like you really have to clutch at straws to come up with how one could
legitimately use 1TB of data on a home Internet connection.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> I feel like you really have to clutch at straws to come up with how one
> could legitimately use 1TB of data on a home Internet connection.

It just depends on what you do. Steam's and my PS4 auto updates for me alone
plow through hundreds of gigabytes a month. Sure, I also work from home so
that adds significant amounts of data to my plan but it's already not hard to
utilize your internet above 1TB. However data usage is only going to go up and
if you add a cap now, you will regret having them in a year.

There is more and more 4K content on small youtube channels and that alone has
added significant amounts of data usage for me. I notice it every time I
tether from my limited phone plan.

------
akerro
I never heard of data caps in Europe, how did US fell into this?

~~~
roel_v
What? Im Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany there have been caps for years.
I don't pay much attention nowadays but it was only, what, 6? years ago whem
the limits on a Belgian connection with the main provider were _10 gb_.

~~~
lokedhs
Are you sure you're not referring to mobile? The article discusses home
broadband connections.

~~~
roel_v
Yes, home broadband.

------
gumby
Interesting that they rolled this out first mostly in red states (except IL
and ME). Was it a coincidence? The Nov 1 rollout is also heavy on red states.

------
RangerScience
Hmm. So - Comparing ISPs to utilities is interesting. Ignoring stuff like
double-dipping, net neutrality, the absurd rate hike for the first tera of
bytes versus the second, that if they sneak it in now they can say "well you
knew about it" when everyone is streaming 360 VR video and blow past a TB...

For internet, I have:

\- A throughput (overall speed)

\- Fluctuation in speed

\- Data caps and overages

\- Use-or-lose-it data (from the caps)

\- Installed equipment I "rent"

For utilities, like water, power, and gas:

\- I have all that I need [for home use]

\- (extremely rarely) Rolling blackouts

\- Tiered pricing by usage

\- Only pay for what you use

\- Installed equipment I own (house?), or am not responsible for (apartment)

The really interesting one here is the data cap + use-or-lose vs tiered + pay
as you go, but the only real difference (that my uneducated ass can see) is
whether I pay for what I don't use.

But here's what's interesting: I turn off my AC to conserve power and save me
money, except when I really want it. I really don't do that with the internet.
I don't think - Oh, this'll cost me X in dollars-per-byte; maybe I won't. And
the internet isn't really built to support that! I can't preview how much a
site will cost to load; I don't have browser tools to "turn of lights in rooms
I'm not using".

The closest thing I can liken it to is economy travel versus business travel.

In economy, I pay for everything a la carte. Aside from sheer discomfort -
there's friction to every action, everything is at least a little aggravating,
and I think about whether I actually want to do any given thing.

In business, I don't. I just ask for what I want and if it's available I get
it. Zero friction (baring load time, I mean, wait time for service),
everything is a little bit soothing, and I don't really think that much about
whether I actually want something.

The second situation is more utopian, although it does occur more environment
cost, since I'm more wasteful.

I think I'd rather have data caps than pay-per-byte [at the consumer level],
and it doesn't _really_ seem reasonable to expect no data caps. I want my
super fast pipe that I use in bursts, rather than a reasonably fast pipe I use
continuously. I want this because I like having an internet where people
aren't thinking about what a page will cost them.

...except some people are, because they're under low data caps (mostly
mobile?).

...but then there's still the edge effect when average internet usage
approaches the caps.

...and maybe it IS a good idea to put pressure on the Web to reduce page
sizes.

It's almost like civilization is a hard problem!

~~~
douche
Worrying about page weight is kind of a red herring and micro-optimization.
You've really got to get into binary data streams before it's possible to blow
through a data cap like this. For example, you could download the full text of
English Wikipedia twice a day, every day, and not come close to hitting 1
TB[1]. Text is cheap.

This is part of why I chuckle about people tearing their hair out to minify
and obfuscate JS or CSS files to reduce them by a handful of kbs - when their
pages load a dozen uncompressed full-resolution images and a 1080p auto-
playing video.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia)

------
MichaelBurge
Comcast has had 300GB data caps for a while now, but they weren't enforced. My
guess is they determined it was too low, and measured that 1TB would be a
reasonable cap based on common usage.

Usually anything higher is the result of a virus infecting a customer's
computer, or some other problem.

~~~
therobot24
>> Usually anything higher is the result of a virus infecting a customer's
computer, or some other problem.

What made you come to this conclusion?

