
Comcast cuts off customer for going over 250GB of legitimate use - ek
http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/the-day-comcasts-data-cap
======
scelerat
Internet access is required to file a police report in Oakland, or so I was
told by the OakPD switchboard operator when I called to report my car being
broken into and vandalized.

i.e. they would not send a car; they would not take information over the
phone. I was told I must file the report online.

When an essential service like Police require you to use a service, it
definitely seems like that service has moved from the category of "novelty,"
or "luxury," into "utility."

There are possibly good reasons for internet providers to continue to be
private, but like water and power and other utilities, they should be heavily
regulated. Going over a bandwidth cap should not land you in a position where
you cannot (e.g.) file a police report after you have been the victim of a
crime.

~~~
lhnn
This is absurd. Another reason not to trust police to have your interest as
their primary concern...

If you were presently witnessing the car being broken into, then that would be
911 level.

EDIT: There is a correlation between my use of the word "absurd" and
downvotes.

~~~
rdl
Oakland has had huge budget cuts, directly affecting police. The irony is that
(perceived or real) high crime in Oakland is one of the main reasons few
businesses move there (here, sadly); Pandora and Oaksterdam are the only new
ventures I've really seen. Other than that, it's mostly legacy companies like
some big insurers, the Port, etc.

I'm sure if you were actively watching a crime, 911 would be accepted, but
trying to move everything else to an online report seems like a reasonable
cost cutting step. If it were possible to take the report online and keep 1-2
cops out for an extra hour, it's probably worthwhile. There should be an
exception process for "come in to the station and file on paper", and for in-
progress crimes, and for more serious/life threatening crimes, but as a step,
this isn't that unreasonable.

Of course, if someone broke into my house here, I'd probably be calling my
attorney before I called the Oakland PD.

------
bradleyland
The author had me up until the moment he claimed that internet access is a
"right". Ok, so let's say internet access is a "right". Rights often come
within a framework. You have many rights that are yours for the losing. Your
freedom to come and go freely, for example. If you break a law, you lose your
freedom by being put in jail.

To say something is a "right" is to say that it ought to be available, or that
the government should not infringe upon your ability to seek that right
unduly. In this case, the author broke the rules of the framework, and thus
his right was suspended.

What a right to broadband is _not_ : an irrevocable license to use as much of
a shared resource as possible for a fixed price you deem appropriate.

Author, if you're reading, this is why people are saying you sound entitled.
You're conflating "rights" with your own viewpoint that you should have
unlimited internet access at a fixed price.

~~~
megaman821
Your water and electricity utilities most likely also have caps on how much
water or electricity you can use before they cut you off. Except if you go
over a few times they won't ban you from their service for a year. They just
want you to curb your use, which is exactly what this guy was willing to do.

~~~
matwood
_Your water and electricity utilities most likely also have caps on how much
water or electricity you can use before they cut you off._

Most utilities cannot just shut you off. Many states have laws that determine
when and how. The biggest thing about a utility though is that you pay for
usage. If you want to leave your lights on all day, they really don't care as
long as you continue to pay your bill.

Personally, I don't see a problem with metered broadband, and only have a
problem with the current pricing structures. Look at the mobile space to see
how messed up it can be. Companies set prices at a usage level that is just
below what a person really needs so they force people into the next tier with
the hopes the person will not actually use it. Instead, I would support a flat
rate per GB. I've seen numbers like $6/GB thrown around for mobile (it would
obviously be a lot lower for line connected broadband, but you get the idea).

 _If_ we do end up with broadband treated as a utility in the US, I would bet
that it will be metered and charged for usage. It's the most fair way to
support the system and will naturally prevent people from doing something
similar to leaving their lights on all day.

~~~
aeontech
$6/Gb on mobile? That would be wonderful compared to, let me check... $20/Mb
that I just paid for checking google maps over AT&T roaming when lost in
another country. Sigh.

~~~
matwood
I think the $6/GB came from the original unlimited plans in the US that were
$30/month and had soft caps of 5GB. Pretty much all those plans have since
disappeared.

The point is, I think most consumers are fine with metered data if they feel
like it's mostly fair.

~~~
chris11
Virgin mobile has unlimited internet plans that start at $25 a month. I'm not
sure what the soft cap is though. [http://www.virginmobileusa.com/cell-phone-
plans/beyond-talk-...](http://www.virginmobileusa.com/cell-phone-plans/beyond-
talk-plans.jsp)

------
naner
_I listened to him read his canned warning that if I exceeded their cap again
I'd be cut off again._

Ok. Sure, the data cap sucks, but this guy broke a Comcast policy, got a
warning, and then broke the policy again. I'm not surprised he got cut off.

 _I do not recall details on how long the cut off would be, likely because I
spent the next few minutes working with the service agent to add notes to my
record about my detailed displeasure with Comcast's policy here. I
specifically noted (and asked that it be recorded) that if this happened again
I would contact the FCC, various news organizations, and otherwise make a
stink. The CS agent was polite and reactivated my broadband._

Wha? Why would the FCC or news orgs care that you exceeded your broadband cap?
And why are you threatening the service rep?

This whole thing stinks of irresponsibility and entitlement. This guy ignored
or didn't care about the whole data caps thing (which was announced a long
time ago), didn't pay attention to his warning from Comcast, and now he got
burned by it and suddenly decides unlimited broadband is his right. Too late.

~~~
crs
Actually if you read his post from a day ago, you will see him state he
stopped the open access point. He took steps to stop what he thought was the
issue. It was not until the cap was broken a second time that he realized it
was his backup system uploading to a 3rd party service.

That is not entitlement at all. If anything it was ignorance of the fact that
your upload data is also measured against the cap.

I agree with him about going to the FCC. The fact that he has no where to turn
to purchase a competing service means that Comcast can dictate peoples
internet usage behavior. My question would be is does the 250g data cap apply
when they are watching TV/Movies online via Comcast (XFinity) provided
services?

~~~
naner
Perhaps if he was more civil with the service reps and just explained the
mistake he would have been given a reprieve. Regardless, it doesn't sound like
he's willing to cut back his data use.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Yeah, maybe if he bought them a cake and rented a hooker, everything would be
peachy!

------
peapicker
Seriously, this is a technology company? If they mean to cap at 250GB per
month, just halt service during the month when 250GB is hit. Don't let the
customer go over, warn, go over, and then suspend them for a year. Seriously,
if they are metering it, they can implement a technology solution to halt when
the cap is hit that month and not even have this ridiculous abuse of customers
having to 'self monitor' the behavior of all the software they have running.

If they want to cap, they need to cap customers with a technical solution.

~~~
Splines
I completely agree. Use over 250GB? Your internet gets slowed down to molasses
until the start of the next month. Customers will notice and adjust.

Here, Comcast is saying "we don't want you as a customer", which they're
allowed to do, but doesn't generate very much goodwill. Having a clear cap and
predictable consequences would be much preferred.

I don't know why they also couldn't put a little meter on your comcast.net
homepage, showing how much you've used.

~~~
seabee
> Use over 250GB? Your internet gets slowed down to molasses until the start
> of the next month. Customers will notice and adjust.

This is how most sane ISPs deal with it. I really cannot see how disconnecting
your customers completely is a better solution - there's certainly no
technical reason for it, given that (IIRC) Comcast already have throttling
measures for BitTorrent users.

------
dbingham
I am entitled. I am entitled to a competitive market. I am entitled to
companies that have to compete for my business, not take it for granted. I am
entitled to companies that always try to move forward and improve their
products, not jack up the price while offering less.

Right now, that doesn't exist in the broadband market. And as with any other
market that requires high levels of infrastructure investment, I'm becoming
less and less convinced that it can exist.

~~~
zinkem
Yes, I agree.

Isn't Comcast abusing their position here to protect their cable business? My
friends recently got cut off for going over their limit; well they went over
their limit because its a house of 4 using Netflix and downloading games on
Steam all the time. This seems obvious to me but nobody else is bringing it up
so I must be missing something.

In many markets Comcast is the only option, and they aren't offering
connection upgrades or pay per gb. This is the part that doesn't seem right.
This is the part that makes me think they are just railing against Netflix
users.

------
slavak
I've seen a lot of posts about US telecoms having "soft caps" for usage on
what they call "unlimited data" plans, and I can't for the life of me figure
out how in the hell something like that can possibly be legal.

If you have a written service contract with your provider that does not
explicitly state the service has a bandwidth cap, then how can them shutting
off or artificially limiting your access speed /not/ be a breach of contract?

Even if there is a clause in the contract about the traffic cap - without them
explicitly informing you of the clause, wouldn't you be able to claim
deceptive advertising?

~~~
lesterbuck
Alas, I suspect you have not read your contracts with these companies. These
are known as contracts of adhesion, as there is no negotiation, no crossing
out things you don't like, and no power balance between the contracting
parties. I was handed a set of contract documents for Comcast Business Class
Internet. On the "Starter" line was an X, and a price of $64.95. I read every
line of every document, and _nowhere_ was "Starter" ever defined. There was
the clause that reads "data rates are not guaranteed", but I was hoping that
the contract itself might hint that there was some specified difference
between Starter, Preferred, and Other. With this contract, the day after you
sign up, your data rate can go to 1Kbps and you are still locked into an up to
three year business contract.

~~~
slavak
Don't make the mistake of assuming everyone on here is an American. I'm not
from the US, and I'm reasonably aware of what my ISP is and isn't allowed to
do.

Regardless, if what you're saying is accurate then the legal system over there
is seriously fucked up.

------
VonGuard
The worst thing about this is not the cutting off of the service, but the fact
that this guy has no reasonable alternative to Comcast in his area.

Tyranny of the last mile still exists, and isn't going away any time soon.

~~~
corncobpipe
This crybaby's in Seattle and he's complaining about the lack of ISPs? Hell,
there's Speakeasy to begin with.

~~~
jheitmann
I won't claim that Seattle is a terrible place for broadband, but it's also
not wine and roses.

On the cable side, Comcast "competes" with Broadstripe. Broadstripe has both
terrible customer service and poor internet service. Broadstripe also happens
to have a bunch of apartment and condo complexes covered in an exclusivity
agreement. Broadstripe makes Comcast look great in almost every regard.

On the DSL side it's true that Speakeasy is available, but if you are willing
to ignore customer service, Qwest DSL is almost always dramatically cheaper.
It's a good option, but sometimes not available above 1.5mbps, even in
extremely central areas like Belltown, which is a neighborhood of condos and
apartments directly adjoining downtown.

I'm on Comcast residential now and I'm pretty happy with it compared to my
past experiences with all the companies I mentioned above, but next time I
move within Seattle I now know one of the top questions to ask is what kind of
internet access options the place has.

~~~
jeramey
Since Speakeasy was bought by Best Buy and then shuffled off into MegaPath's
maw, their customer service has gotten progressively worse. Qwest's customer
service is OK as long as you're willing to learn the right magic phrases that
they use. That's the hard part. On the flip side, their field techs have
always been uniformly competent when I've dealt with them in spite of having
to cope with the massive wad of bureaucracy that goes along with working for a
huge telecom company.

DSL in general is slow in Seattle because the city hasn't spent much effort in
upgrading its (or encouraging telecoms to upgrade their) old copper telecom
infrastructure. When line lengths aren't just really long, they're often
running over corroding 40 and 50 year-old copper. In about half the buildings
I've lived in, the NID was still the very old nut-and-bolt screw down terminal
style interfaces. 66 and 110 blocks? What are those?

~~~
VonGuard
Here here. I have had Speakeasy since 1999. I used to love them with a
passion. But over the years, they've basically stood still. My bandwidth has
never increased, even when they said I could get 15 MB down. That turned out
to not be possible (Major packet loss, unreliable connection). So, here I am
paying the same amount I paid in 1999 for the same bandwidth I had in 2000.
$100 a month for 3.0/768.

I hate it! But there are no other options in my neighborhood, except Comcast.
I even live in Oakland. If I was in SF, I could get Astound, which I hear is
awesome. But in Oakland, where I live, it's Comcast or something super
inferior.

Speakeasy has had about 10X more outages this year than they have had over the
past 12 years, BTW.

------
xenophanes
You have to switch to a small business account instead of a residential
account with comcast. Then you get genuinely unlimited use, no bandwidth cap.
That is the only way to get past their 250GB cap. It's absurd that they won't
_sell_ you more bandwidth on any residential plan at any price, and that they
kick people off the service rather than charging overages.

You do not need to have a business location to do this, or actually have a
business. They will sell you small business cable internet at your residential
apartment.

~~~
res0nat0r
Business internet plans for personal use are way too expensive IMO. $100/month
for 22Mbits? That's terrible.

~~~
xenophanes
What are you suggesting? Is there a competing product available to buy which
is better? I don't know of one in most areas. IMO bandwidth is worth paying
for.

You can say there "should" be better deals available. But it doesn't do any
good. If you think it's so easy to provide better internet then start a
company.

~~~
iamdave
_You can say there "should" be better deals available. But it doesn't do any
good. If you think it's so easy to provide better internet then start a
company._

Because sitting idly watching ISP's ratchet up costs and lower the quality of
service sure is getting things done.

~~~
xenophanes
I just said don't be idle. Be an entrepreneur. You are neither listening nor
solving the problem, just idly complaining.

------
etheric
From Comcasts AUP: What will happen if I exceed 250 GB of data usage in a
month?

The vast majority - more than 99% - of our customers will not be impacted by a
250 GB monthly data usage threshold. If you exceed more than 250 GB, you may
receive a call from the Customer Security Assurance ("CSA") team to notify you
of excessive use. At that time, we will tell you exactly how much data you
used. When we call you, we try to help you identify the source of excessive
use and ask you to moderate your usage, which the vast majority of our
customers do voluntarily. If you exceed 250GB again within six months of the
first contact, your service will be subject to termination and you will not be
eligible for either residential or commercial internet service for twelve (12)
months. We know from experience that most customers curb their usage after our
first call. If your account is terminated, after the twelve (12) month period
expires, you may resume service by subscribing to a service plan appropriate
to your needs.

They say they will help you identify the reason you went over your cap. "When
we call you, we try to help you identify the source of excessive use and ask
you to moderate your usage, which the vast majority of our customers do
voluntarily." Which they clearly didn't do in this case. This would be
acceptable if we had another option for broadband internet, but we don't.

------
emelski
How is it reasonable for somebody to expect to be able to upload "terabytes of
RAW images, musics tracks ripped in lossless format, etc."? That seems to be
substantially outside the scope of what both Comcast's home user internet
service is designed for, and, I would guess, Carbonite as well -- although I
note that Carbonite does offer "unlimited" backups for home users. I agree
with other commenters -- this sounds like a serious case of entitlement. I
don't know whether Internet access should be considered a right or not; but
even if it is, I would say it only really works if people are reasonable and
responsible in their usage of it. Just like it's a right for me to speak my
mind, but people will still shun me if I insist on doing so at full volume in
all venues at all times, in a way that impedes others from enjoying _their_
access to that right.

~~~
brianleb
> How is it reasonable for somebody to expect to be able to upload "terabytes
> of RAW images, musics tracks ripped in lossless format, etc."? That seems to
> be substantially outside the scope of what both Comcast's home user internet
> service is designed for,

You're suggesting that people only use the internet in certain ways and you're
deeming services that you don't use unnecessary for other people.

How did you use the internet five years ago? Does it differ from how you use
it now? What about ten years ago? Times change, and the internet changes
faster than most things. Every day, there are more people online, more devices
online, and more services online to take advantage of.

For some people, 250GB/month _is_ unreasonable. This guy is obviously one of
them. In five years, it will be unreasonable for a larger percentage of
people, as the way we use the internet evolves. Netflix is the most obvious
example of this.

> Just like it's a right for me to speak my mind, but people will still shun
> me if I insist on doing so at full volume in all venues at all times, in a
> way that impedes others from enjoying _their_ access to that right.

How do my internet habits interfere with your internet habits? These are not
at all analogous.

~~~
emelski
> For some people, 250GB/month is unreasonable.

If 250GB/month is unreasonable, then those people should not be signing up for
a 250GB/month service plan. There's nothing stopping him from getting a
business plan, for example, with a larger cap or no cap at all. It's not
reasonable for this user to expect to dictate both the bandwidth limits _and_
the low price point. Even if we stipulate that internet access is a human
right, I don't think it's reasonable to assert that everybody is entitled to
unlimited bandwidth to the internet, at somebody else's expense.

> How do my internet habits interfere with your internet habits?

As far as I know, at some point this guy's connection is going through a
shared resource, whether that is a switch or router or hub or whatever. Those
gadgets only have so much bandwidth available, which is shared amongst all the
connections going through it. Sure, most of the time the limit of that
hardware vastly exceeds the demands of those connections, but there _is_ a
limit, and it is possible (albeit, perhaps, unlikely) that one guy, uploading
_terabytes_ of data, could impede his neighbor's ability to enjoy the
internet.

------
Thangorodrim
If he is using the circuit for work, then pay the additional cash and get a
commercial class circuit which is, effectively, uncapped.

He already had one disconnect and chose to ignore it rather than take
appropriate steps to modify usage. He agreed to their cap.

The idea that internet service is a right is bizarre bourgeoisie bollocks.

~~~
sloak
No! "internet is a right" is not bollocks, but "unlimited internet is a right"
is.

------
meow
Indian ISPs found a curious way of tackling these situations. Since they sell
their plans as unlimited, they can't fully cut off the internet access. So as
soon as the fair use limit is crossed, the speed drops to punishing 256kbps
till the month gets over :|.

~~~
decadentcactus
256kbps isn't as terrible as it may seem. My internet used to be cut to 56k
when it went over, and 95% of websites wouldn't even finish loading. Now I
think it cuts back to 512kbps, so things at least load, just no downloading
really.

------
Oompa
I'm worried about this. I live with 4 other internet heavy users, so I checked
our usage last week, and saw that we've consistently been blowing past the
250GB cap. Last month, we hit 566GB.

Comcast hasn't contacted me or shut off our service yet, and I hope they
don't.

~~~
dotBen
How did you check, I couldn't see anywhere on Comcast's site that gave this
info.

I used to have a DD-WRT router with bandwidth monitoring but we're now using
an Apple Airport Extreme, and I don't think it has such capability :/

~~~
Oompa
If you log into the Comcast Website and go to "Users & Settings" you should
see "High-Speed Internet Data Usage" next to the sidebar.

~~~
cshesse
It can be flaky, sometimes the bar doesn't appear, but usually it does. I have
the page bookmarked to I can check it easily. It sorta feels like I'm living
in the 1990s and checking on my dial up modem.

------
wccrawford
I totally disagree about broadband being a right. And neither is electricity,
insurance, or clean water.

However, I do agree that it's a necessity for modern living, just like the
rest of the above. As such, I think it should be protected in the same ways.

~~~
ryannielsen
Presumably you're also paying a fixed monthly fee for "unlimited" broadband.
It's likely you're paying per amount used for electricity and water. I'd bet
your insurance is a fixed periodic fee with coverage capped at a certain
amount. If my assumptions are correct, then your broadband services is
_already_ treated very much like your insurance service.

How do you propose things change?

~~~
wccrawford
Most companies have overage charges you can elect to pay, instead of canceling
your account. That would have been a good start.

Others mentioned not pretending to be unlimited. Actually charge for usage,
instead. (I actually hope companies don't do this, as I'm WAY above the norm
for usage.)

Another thing that some companies do is limit your speed once you hit the cap.
That makes sure that you can do anything you -need- to, but can't go too much
further over the cap.

~~~
ryannielsen
Returning to a pay for usage model is a fine suggestion, and would make
internet service much more like electric service.

It is amusing to remember how people disparaged pay for usage models just over
a decade ago, though. :-)

~~~
nitrogen
The two arguments I still see against pay-for-usage models:

1\. ISPs will structure the rates so that _everyone_ ends up paying more.

2\. The early adopters and developers that push technology forward are often
at the high end of bandwidth usage, and in exchange for bringing new
technology to the masses, the masses should be okay with 0.1% of their bill
paying for the early adopters' bandwidth.

------
nestlequ1k
I posted 1.2TB of usage last month. I love the little graph on their
comcast.com homepage. Nice big and red bar way way over the 250GB limit. No
one contacted me about it.

But I'm paying for the super extreme 50mb/sec burst plan for 120/mo so I'm
guessing that's the reason they leave me alone

"what are you downloading" -> starcraft replays, also downloading video
backups to S3

------
svin80
HA-HA-HA. Living in third world country (Moldova) i have real unlimited 20Mbs.
500Gb a month is the minimum traffic i have.

------
reustle
Source blog post: [http://www.ozymandias.com/the-day-comcast%E2%80%99s-data-
cap...](http://www.ozymandias.com/the-day-comcast%E2%80%99s-data-cap-policy-
killed-my-internet-for-1-year)

------
jrockway
This is why I pay $130 a month for Speakeasy broadband. They give me 6M and I
can use 6M 24/7 with no complaint.

Bandwidth costs money. So consumer "ISPs" (and I use that term in a very loose
sense) tell you what the burst bandwidth is, and then hope that you don't
burst very often. When you do, they drop you, because you cost them money. The
solution is to just get a real Internet connection. "Business" is the magic
word.

The alternative to Comcast's cap strategy is that everyone would be paying
$500 a month for Internet access, or you'd be limited to 768kbps with no
burst.

~~~
Bud
No, the alternative, clearly and obviously, is net access the way it is in
Europe, where it's both cheaper and much faster than here.

Personally, I think Comcast should be stripped of the right to sell net access
at all. They're clearly a bad actor.

------
joelhaus
If only the market was competitive, this would be a non-story. "Right" or not,
our future economic success depends on driving broadband prices down and
service quality up.

------
ctingom
I am surprised Comcast doesn't just offer a 500GB month plan. Or 750GB
month... just set a price and tell him he needs to pay it.

~~~
darksaga
I thought about that or just do what the wireless companies do and charge him
per KB over his limit. The first $2,000 bill should get him back into line
pretty fast.

------
noonespecial
He went over his usage, broke his eula etc. Comcast has the right to restrict
him, perhaps by slowing his connecttion or charging overages. But seriously,
"No net for you! 1 YEAR!"????

Who wrote that policy? Seinfeld?

That's damn ugly monopoly behavior that should be brought to the attention of
the FCC.

------
smackfu
This is stupid. Comcast makes it very easy to monitor your monthly bandwidth,
and the 250 GB limit is clearly stated. You may disagree with the entire
concept of limits, but they aren't selling the service as unlimited, so it is
what you agree to.

------
gst
Is Comcast really a monopoly in some parts of the US? Aren't there any other
viable options?

~~~
cshesse
In San Francisco, where I live, they have basically a monopoly on high speed
internet. Here are the options and speeds I have tested:

1) DSL (through ATT or Sonic.net, I got Sonic's ADSL2 service) ~$60 a month,
3.4/0.86 Mbps

2) Monkeybrains local wireless rooftop ISP: $35 a month, ~10/10Mbps, depending
on location (large building to the north blocks service to my building)

3) Webpass, same as Monkeybrains, but only handles buildings with like 10+
apartment units, $45 a month, 100/100 or 45/45 Mbps, basically has to already
be available where you live, so not me

4) Comcast residential service, ~$60 a month, 22.3/4.34 Mbps, this is what I
went with

5) Find someone with a fast internet connection and set up some sort of
wireless directional antenna or free space optics to use their connection from
the roof - expensive and I don't know anyone with a connection that fast
within sight of my building.

Nobody can run fiber because of ATT and Comcast having basically monopolies on
running cables anywhere. I mean, the city isn't too proactive anyway in that
area, but ATT and Comcast are clearly slowing it down a lot

------
ddelony
I'm surprised no one's noticed all the conspiracy theories mentioned on the
main site.

------
mrbonner
Not sure if this is a right. The fact that ISP limits the data cap is
ridiculous but it is only for the good of others. This story I think only
applies to say less than 1% of normal population. Ok, 250GB/month is not that
high, may be making it 500GB/month is more appropriate.

What ISP could do is still put the cap on and charge extra for every 10GB
after that with a small fee. I think most people dont want to pay extra even
if it cost several dollars a month. This models the way we pay for gas, power,
water too.

But the points are: \- Increase the cap to 500GB for example \- Don't
penalize, charge for each extra 10GB

------
fourk
Interesting. I'm on their 50/20 (mbps down/up) plan and regularly go WAY over
the 250GB 'limit' in San Francisco's Mission district and have had no
repercussions for doing so. I wonder what the specific conditions are for
when/where they choose to enforce this limit, or if it is entirely arbitrary.
I've hit a TB down in a single month, and have never heard a word from Comcast
about it.

Do they turn a blind eye because I'm on a more expensive plan, or is it
because of lack of network congestion in the Mission, or maybe due to the
availability of alternative internet service providers?

------
jeggers5
Oh come on. You're completely abusing Comcast's Service and now you're telling
some sympathetic story about how it's unfair. 250GB/month is massive, and you
knew full well that you were on your last chance, and it's not surprising that
they measure upload data as bandwidth (what on earth did you expect?).

If you were going to be using the service like that, you should've asked
first. Don't try and tell us you 'forgot' that you had a server down stairs
moving gigabytes of data around. I wouldn't want you as a customer either.

------
daimyoyo
I have cellular Internet and while the speed is not ideal (about 2Mb/s during
the day and 7Mb/s at night) I have unlimited data. I even asked their customer
service "so I could run 100Tb of data a month and that would be ok?" And they
told me it would be. Granted it's not ideal, but I can stream 360p video on
it(my laptop resolution isn't enough for anything higher to make a difference)
and since I use it at night most of the time I never have a problem with slow
download rates.

------
bugsy
The basic problem here is that 250GB per person is not sustainable with the
current networks, nor is it sustainable at rates people are willing to pay for
access.

Cloud and other services that depend on enormous bandwidth costs to be
absorbed by others leads to the free rider problem. NetFlix is the biggest
free rider around. Their rates do not cover the cost of bandwidth because
their basic business model is parasitical.

------
Zarathust
In Montreal caps are around 20gb up+down per month.

While 250 gb seems "unlimited" for most of you, 20 gb is not. I suggest you
start fighting now.

------
henryw
I think I broke the 250GB cap for 6 months straight (using around 280GB to
350GB), and they didn't care. When I did 1TB in a month, they called me and
thought my WIFI was hacked and warned me to not go over. The next couple month
I think I did like 275GB. Overall, they are pretty nice about it. I still have
my Internet.

I'm curious how far over this person went.

------
zzzmarcus
I have Comcast in Seattle and have gone over the limit 2 of the last 3 months
uploading backups to CrashPlan. 260gb in April and 455gb in May. I haven't
gotten a warning and my service hasn't been cut off.

I'm not sure what he did to incur their wrath, but it makes me think he was
probably exceeding the limit for at least 3 months prior to the warnings.

~~~
kenjackson
I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast also does audits and sees, "Oh, this is to
CrashPlan" or Carbonite/Mozy/etc... In those cases I _suspect_ they're a lot
less likely to pursue than if it was torrents or serving video streams from
your house.

------
t_krupicka
The most neutral resolution to this is instead of comcast denying service to
this user, they need to install fees for excessive amounts of data used. While
this person thinks of bandwith as a utility and a right, a utility is not
based on a flat rate, and the writer obviously voided their agreement of their
right to use data.

------
peterwwillis
Talk about first world problems. This guy is acting like his access to water
was denied because he can't stream movies or use Dropbox.

I lived without internet for a year. _I was fine._ Nobody shunned me from
society and I didn't lose the ability to make money. For a while i'd walk over
to Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts if I needed an hour of 'net access. When I had
to do some interviews from home I went and got a month of Virgin Mobile 3g
data for $40.

I do believe everyone should have the right to use the internet, since as a
communication tool it's more ubiquitous than the telephone and some things
like government services require online registration (ex. vehicle inspection
at the DMV where I live requires an online-only form). I also believe the poor
should get free access, and maybe some day free 'loaned OLPC netbooks.

However, he's going about explaining why being banned from the internet is
wrong in entirely the wrong way. His defense is basically "I should have the
right to be entertained and use free services that there are offline
alternatives of!!" If I were an ISP i'd want to ban a guy who uploaded 3
copies of the same song and RAW images too.

------
beatpanda
This is only going to get worse, and claiming that internet is a "right" or a
"utility" will evnetually invite government regulation, which will amplify the
pervasive and inevitable problem of corporate malfeasance.

We need to build an internet without ISPs if we want to keep what we have.

------
ankimal
_...and that if I had any decent competitive options in the neighborhood I'd
dump Comcast in a heartbeat. Since I don't .."_

I think its important to note the lack of competition. I wonder what that cap
and price would be if there were even one other provider in the same area?

------
pragmatic
What amazes me is only having one broadband option in Seattle of all places.

I live in a small mid-western city and have as of now 3 wired choices plus N
wireless choices (depending if you you 4g providers, etc).

~~~
res0nat0r
I really wished I'd moved into a place in Seattle which is serviced by
condointernet. 100Megabits! No caps!

<http://condointernet.net/>

------
dennisgorelik
In Russia internet providers simply trim the bandwidth of the customers who
use too much traffic. Internet still works, but slower. Comcast may consider
doing the same.

------
donpark
I doubt anything one has to pay for could be a 'human right' but, if so, my
bet is on '3 meals a day' becoming a human right before 'internet access'
does.

------
gte910h
If you have a monopoly, your rights as a service provider go waaaaaaay down.

I think the monopoly should be stripped from them if they can't handle proper
pricing.

------
devicenull
Repost? <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2757142>

------
etfb
Convinced of his rights, and completely oblivious to his obligations,
particularly the one that involves reading the details of any contract he
signs. Sounds like classic Entitlement Queen behaviour. I'd sympathise more if
I weren't paying AUD$90 (about USD$100) for 200Gb -- granted it's with
Internode, one of the most magnificently customer-focused businesses on the
planet, so I'm not complaining...

------
alphaoverlord
Implicit in the title of "250GB of legitimate use" is the assumption that
torrenting or things of that nature are not legitimate.

And also supports Comcast's claim that 99% of people do not use that much
bandwidth. Sure a bandwidth cap is not a one size fits all solution, but if
this is the only guy complaining, it sounds like a one size fits most
solution.

~~~
zinkem
Why is Comcast cutting people off for a year instead of just charging per GB
above the cap or upgrading to a higher class service?

This is a punishment without a trial.

~~~
alphaoverlord
In this case, there is no need for a trial. The evidence is indisputable and
the OP admits to the action.

In a free market, I should charge what I want. Why does Comcast need to create
a higher tier when 99.9% don't need or want it?

------
parsifal
I'm not sure that I totally trust this guy. We stream things all the time, and
I actually don't feel like it affects our usage at all. I sort of wonder if
things like Netflix, et al., aren't whitelisted.

------
code_duck
250GB is a rather absurd amount. But there's no reason Comcast couldn't just
cut him off _for the rest of the month_ , right? Seems pretty dumb.

------
dennisgorelik
I wonder why he did not agree to pay more for his extra traffic?

------
rajpaul
Comcast fired you as a customer. I can imagine scenarios where this would be a
profitable business tactic for them.

------
rudle
> My opinion on all this is simple. The ability to access broadband internet
> is a right, and should be defined as an essential utility.

Yawn... first world problems.

Broadband is assuredly not your "right", it's a privilege. If the terms of the
contract are broken (and they were, _twice_ ) you have very little recourse.

More to the point, get a Comcast business line. You will get hassled less, and
I hear it may actually be unlimited.

~~~
fuzzmeister
I would agree with your argument if the broadband market were actually
competitive. The author has no legitimate options for broadband besides
Comcast, meaning Comcast can do essentially anything it wants to him. That is
not the way a capitalist economy should work.

~~~
Thangorodrim
Actually, that _is_ the way capitalist economies work in reality.

This is a lot of crying for attention. If he wants to have a commercial use
case, he should get a commercial circuit.

~~~
Locke1689
You have made a logical fallacy sometimes known as the is-ought fallacy or is-
ought problem.

The key point is that the parent is stating that things _ought_ to work a
certain way. While your statement that things _are_ a certain way may be true,
it is actually a non sequitur in relation to the ought proposal.

If you wish to make a cogent argument you'll need to address the ought section
of his argument or connect your "is" statement to be no longer orthogonal.

