

The Day Comcast's Data Cap Policy Killed My Internet for 1 Year - brown9-2
http://www.ozymandias.com/the-day-comcast%E2%80%99s-data-cap-policy-killed-my-internet-for-1-year

======
devicenull
I'm always confused by the people who depend on their services for work: "Even
worse, today Comcast disconnected me from the ever-evolving cloud services I
use each and every day for life and work.", yet don't actually pay the extra
money for "business-class" services. If your internet connection is that
important to you, isn't it worth the extra $20-40 a month to ensure you don't
have this issue, and you (presumably) receive faster/better support when you
need it?

~~~
wladimir
Whether the extra money is worth it depends on the kind of business that
you're running.

Also, for the same price you can (at least here in the netherlands) have a
second, mobile internet connection. Which both provides the needed redundancy
and can be used on the road.

------
rberger
The entity that controls content should not be allowed to own the transport.
Transport is a Utility. We the ratepayers paid for it and we the Citizens of
the towns and cities that the cable or fiber pass thru own the rights-of-way.
The local physical plant of the Internet should be owned by the Citizens. The
physical plant of the Internet must be open access with no restrictions on
content.

A vibrant marketplace will emerge on top of the Internet Physical Plant if
these basics are enforced, just like public roads, water and sewer plants
enabled life as we know it.

------
kevingadd
The advent of bandwidth caps like Comcast's is vile and indefensible.

I'm all for bandwidth providers coming up with new pricing models if it's what
it takes for them to remain profitable and compete with other providers.
That's fine. AT&T says I get X GB/mo for $Y/mo, and that's fine. It might be a
bad price, but if I don't like it, I can try another wireless carrier (until
AT&T buys them all), or I can pay more money for a larger cap, and when I hit
the cap, I can pay an absolutely retarded amount of money for more bandwidth.
But if I want to use the internet, I can.

Comcast pulled an arbitrary number out of their collective asses, didn't talk
to any customers, and have now decided that if your usage (measured in a way
they won't disclose, over time periods they won't disclose, and the
measurement of which they won't disclose to you) exceeds that arbitrary
number, they're free to terminate your access to their service. They offer you
no way to compensate them for overages, no way to buy a higher cap, and no way
to ensure that you remain below the limit.

If _I_ want to terminate my Comcast service because _I_ feel they have wronged
me in some arbitrary way, I must pay fees to terminate my contract, but
they're free to do this for any reason they come up with.

Ultimately since every Comcast customer signed 500 pages of inscrutable
legalese in order to get internet access (even if there are no other internet
providers in their area, they're still free to not sign), Comcast is legally
in the right by doing this.

But they're still enormous scumbags and I'll say so to the face of anyone who
works there. (I'm sure you're wonderful people, personally.)

~~~
pantaloons
Regardless, the author broke the rules after being warned and received the
punishment which he agreed to. That he should [and inevitably will] get
special treatment for a post-hoc "internet access should be a right" post
borne of no altruism rubs me the wrong way.

