It's not a step backwards because the cap is exactly the same as it has been.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
So if we ignore all the consequences of the cap, it's not a step backwards. Got it.
Your post had too many words for Neva.
I will add what I've read from other sites. People have actually called Comcast up and the people didn't have a clue about this new policy. In addition to that, they requested bandwidth monitoring tools, similar to what you might see on a cell phone website, where you can track your minutes. Comcast doesn't have these yet, but it should.
Fact is, most people don't know where they sit in regards to 250GB. Sure, a lot of people will say that's a lot of fucking bandwidth, but most simply don't know. Most don't have SNMP monitoring software on their router capturing all inbound and outbound bandwidth. They are making quick judgment calls based on how much they think they download.
Oh and, of course, this is computing, what sounds like a ridiculous amount today will be absolutely nothing tomorrow. I haven't had a bandwidth cap on my connection since AOL. And I realize some people have worse caps, all I can say is, sucks to be you. And I'm sure that's what the FIOS users will be saying to me.
What consequences?
The fact that this has been in place for ages and nobody knew shows just how few people this cap effects.
The fact that this policy is coming out now shows that it is soon to have an affect, streaming HD content over the web is a major concern in this area.
Previously there wasn't a cap, there was a conceptual shutoff point where, if you reached it regularly Comcast would begin monitoring the situation and cut you off if they decided you were causing a problem.
Furthermore with a vague cap it will always be a "excessive compared to everyone else" cap. They can't claim that every one of their customers is using the network excessively, so it must naturally be significantly higher than average use. This means the 'fuzzy cap' rises naturally as demand does.
A hard cap is always the same, its a maximum use, not an excessive use thing. Thus they can definately say "all our customers use their maximum allowance" and demand top up fees. Over the next 2-3 years 250 GB will effectively decrease in 'largeness' by a factor or 3 or 4 each year until in 3 years time it will be as if they gave you about 10 GB today. Then they will just start saying $70 for first 250 GB, $10 for each additional 20 GB.
It's not a step backwards because the cap is exactly the same as it has been.
So if we ignore all the consequences of the cap, it's not a step backwards. Got it.
What consequences?
The fact that this has been in place for ages and nobody knew shows just how few people this cap effects.
Jesus Christ, did you even look at my post above?
A "hidden" cap is, for all practical purposes, unenforceable. Comcast's agreement is basically an adhesion contract. That means that because it is non-negotiable (e.g. take-it-or-leave-it) and so one-sided in Comcast's favor, courts won't enforce it.
Think of it like that clause in Apple's agreement for OSX that says you can only install it on Apple hardware. It's utterly unenforceable. Apple knows that. That's why they won't ever take the issue to court. But it's left there to bully and intimidate. It's the same deal with these caps on internet usage. Comcast can say "it's in our sole discretion to determine what is excessive and what isn't, and we don't have to tell you what it is," but they won't go to court over it. And that's for two reasons. First, they don't want their precious bullying provisions to be looked at by a court and potentially struck down, and second, Jimmy the Torrenter may be causing a hassle on his node, because Comcast has so severely overcrowded it, but he's not even causing enough trouble that it's worth paying an attorney's retainer fee (or travel expenses, if he's in-house).
In effect, Comcast's old "cap" could be circumvented by a nasty call to a manager. It's not a fight they want to bother with.
Now with that out of the way, I'm going to refer you to my post above, explaining some of the possible consequences of a formal cap.
Long story short: telecom lock-in, tiered internet.
I don't get the people that say things like "250 GB is plenty", "You'll never use that much", "If it's too much you're using too much internets"
If Comcast said "You're only allowed to watch 8 hours of TV a day" everyone would be fucking up in arms.
The cap can be as big as they want, the fact that there -is- one means someone is doing it wrong.
250gb is plenty. That's like two HD movies every day for a month and still have enough enough for your roommate to do the same thing, and then do some surfing and gaming on top of that. You really aren't likely to reach the cap by legal usage, and if you are {or aren't}, then I guess you need to find another provider. The cap was there before anyways, so it's not like it's any different.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
Everything I would want to watch on TV is on the BBC iPlayer for 7 days for free on the internet without ads and the only decent shows are American and thus must be watched online.
Heck, I could probably cut out some expenditure if I stopped paying my license.
There's a huge fucking difference here. Yes, 250gb isn't something that's going to hold out for several years, but right now in this day an age for a home line, it's way more than enough.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
Games do not use a large amount of bandwidth. More than websurfing, yes, but the idea in multiplayer gaming is to keep latency low, which means keeping the data transferred to a minimum.
What this does however is put a crimp in the downloading of files. Be it games from steam or whatever.
Just thought I'd point out how wrong this is.
Latency is a measure of the time it takes a chunk of data to reach it's destination. It has nothing to do with the size of the data. You can have a 40ms ping and a 140ms ping for the same size packet.
You wind up with shitty latency if the pipe is full. If you have a DS3 attached to your freaking computer, you're going to see no difference between something with good netcode and something with shitty netcode (as an aside, packet size doesn't really differ much for net traffic, number of packets changes. MTUs are pretty static, you can TRY to send 8k packets, but it won't work outside a lan configured for it)
Now, if you send an asston of traffic back and forth your latency will rise. Why? Because those packets need to get there and a response needs to come back (well, kinda..), and if there are more packets, this takes longer.
This is why most games don't send you positional information and action information on everyone in a zone: it would lag the ever living shit out of you. It only sends data on things just outside the draw distance.
Seriously, dude, if you want to make a game that requires 500k up/down to run and compare it's latency to one that requires 5k up/down, we can argue pings. I'm pretty sure that across The Internets, and not inside a lan, the 500k up/down will lag to shit.
This seems like it would be a more compelling argument if computers were actually still limited to 640K of RAM today. Instead, it seems more likely that the limit would be bumped up at some point when 250 GB/month was no longer reasonable as opposed to the company just throwing in the towel because they said 250 GB and by gum that's what they're selling.
As a relatively light user, I do prefer to have tiered pricing that gives me the option to pay less if I'm not going to be downloading HD videos or whatever takes up a ton of bandwidth, and I don't like the idea of my fee supporting someone else's habits. When my local provider offered 1.5 Mbps for $20/month and 10 Mbps for the $40 that had been the only rate up until then, I went to the cheaper option. This seems like much the same thing, although, yeah, you do need some way to tell just how much you're using.
There's a huge fucking difference here. Yes, 250gb isn't something that's going to hold out for several years, but right now in this day an age for a home line, it's way more than enough.
So was 640K back then. That's the whole point.
Really, which seems more likely?
1) The telecoms have the good will to increase the cap in the future, so that it keeps pace with technology?
They haven't even managed to do that with the hardware that taxpayers are subsidizing.
2) The telecoms will offer a higher-priced version with a higher cap?
Yeah, I agree, the idea of paying for more bandwidth if you use more bandwidth isn't going to destroy the industry. The problem is that the telecoms have already displayed an interest in annihilating net neutrality. How long do you think it would be until you need to buy the higher-priced package, because it includes things like packet prioritization, and exclusive access to certain features? Like being able to use Google instead of MSN. Want gaming-class pings? That's $10/month extra. Want your connection to not be throttled during prime time? That's an extra $10/month.
Let's be honest, here: this is nothing but another way to wring money from customers. It's not about offering a lower-priced option for people who use less bandwidth. It's about offering a higher-priced version for people who do. The mean cost for internet access will go up.
This doesn't seem to really matter to me since the college I attend has a 4 GB per week cap (used to be 2 GB per week). Anyone who goes over the cap gets their internet connection slowed to 56k for the rest of the week or, if it keeps going, permanently. My parents do use Comcast but I don't think my family and I use that much bandwidth per month to begin with. I could imagine this may be a problem for a big family with multiple consoles who do a lot of online gaming and web browsing.
s3rial one, that isn't a very good point. We have more than 640k RAM now'n days. In fact, I would say that's supporting the logical idea that Comcast will up the cap as a more bandwidth world calls for it. 250gb per month as of 2008 is more than enough for any home line. When 2010 or what ever rolls around and the cap is still 250gb or less, then you can tell me that you told me so.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
s3rial one, that isn't a very good point. We have more than 640k RAM now'n days. In fact, I would say that's supporting the logical idea that Comcast will up the cap as a more bandwidth world calls for it. 250gb per month as of 2008 is more than enough for any home line. When 2010 or what ever rolls around and the cap is still 250gb or less, then you can tell me that you told me so.
I don't think you understand the meme.
The quote's often misattributed to Bill Gates, but the gist of it is that back in the 80s, when 640K was a huge amount of memory, Gates (supposedly) said that 640K of RAM was enough for anyone. Obviously that didn't quite pan out that way. If the statement was accurate, we'd still be using 640K of RAM.
The moral is supposed to be that it's never an idea to pick some number that happens to represent a sufficient quantity today, and claim it will be sufficient forever.
Yes, the bandwidth requirements for what people want to do online will assuredly increase. Comcast's cap, however, likely will lag way behind the curve.
Really, Neva, if you think Comcast will increase it without first rolling out additional subscription tiers, you're absolutely delusional. Nothing shy of government pressure, lawsuits, or rare-in-the-telecom-business competition will drive them to increase their caps without increasing the cost.
s3rial one, that isn't a very good point. We have more than 640k RAM now'n days. In fact, I would say that's supporting the logical idea that Comcast will up the cap as a more bandwidth world calls for it. 250gb per month as of 2008 is more than enough for any home line. When 2010 or what ever rolls around and the cap is still 250gb or less, then you can tell me that you told me so.
I don't think you understand the meme.
The quote's often misattributed to Bill Gates, but the gist of it is that back in the 80s, when 640K was a huge amount of memory, Gates (supposedly) said that 640K of RAM was enough for anyone. Obviously that didn't quite pan out that way. If the statement was accurate, we'd still be using 640K of RAM.
The moral is supposed to be that it's never an idea to pick some number that happens to represent a sufficient quantity today, and claim it will be sufficient forever.
Yes, the bandwidth requirements for what people want to do online will assuredly increase. Comcast's cap, however, likely will lag way behind the curve.
Really, Neva, if you think Comcast will increase it without first rolling out additional subscription tiers, you're absolutely delusional. Nothing shy of government pressure, lawsuits, or rare-in-the-telecom-business competition will drive them to increase their caps without increasing the cost.
Ok, see the problem here is that you feel this cap is some sort or solid number that the higher ups in Comcast feel is enough for anybody, ever. You're 640K of RAM analogy doesn't fit at all into this situation. It's a fucking cap that's as high as the sky for any home user, and not one that's stated to be all anyone will ever need. You're being very irrational and paranoid about a non-issue.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
I don't think I've ever seen one of these threads anywhere on the Internet where Australians/Canadians/etc with shitty Internet didn't come in and take a shit :P
s3rial one, that isn't a very good point. We have more than 640k RAM now'n days. In fact, I would say that's supporting the logical idea that Comcast will up the cap as a more bandwidth world calls for it. 250gb per month as of 2008 is more than enough for any home line. When 2010 or what ever rolls around and the cap is still 250gb or less, then you can tell me that you told me so.
I don't think you understand the meme.
The quote's often misattributed to Bill Gates, but the gist of it is that back in the 80s, when 640K was a huge amount of memory, Gates (supposedly) said that 640K of RAM was enough for anyone. Obviously that didn't quite pan out that way. If the statement was accurate, we'd still be using 640K of RAM.
The moral is supposed to be that it's never an idea to pick some number that happens to represent a sufficient quantity today, and claim it will be sufficient forever.
Yes, the bandwidth requirements for what people want to do online will assuredly increase. Comcast's cap, however, likely will lag way behind the curve.
Really, Neva, if you think Comcast will increase it without first rolling out additional subscription tiers, you're absolutely delusional. Nothing shy of government pressure, lawsuits, or rare-in-the-telecom-business competition will drive them to increase their caps without increasing the cost.
Well then dont use comcast then. Free market and all that.
Your entire argument and over reliance on the 640k thing is based on an assumption. An assumption which even when taking into account that all companies are evil still doesn't hold weight.
No-one is saying here 250gb is enough for a long time. In fact, there are dozens of ISPs who offer unlimited downloads, all the time.
Years ago, nobody said dialup would be 'enough' either. That shit got replaced super quick.
Seriously, dude, if you want to make a game that requires 500k up/down to run and compare it's latency to one that requires 5k up/down, we can argue pings. I'm pretty sure that across The Internets, and not inside a lan, the 500k up/down will lag to shit.
Bandwidth only affects latency when it is more than the connection can handle. Like wise, latency can affect bandwidth throughput when it is too high also.
And yea, I'd like games to go back to the netquake days, when we didn't pamper every HPB with all the shitty technologies that go into FPS games today. I remember when someone lagged they used to freeze in space until they unlagged, not like today where people can lag and warp or keep moving in 1 direction or speed up really fast.
Years ago, nobody said dialup would be 'enough' either. That shit got replaced super quick.
Years ago my dialup ISP didn't put a cap on my connection. They said use it however you want, if you want to download 56k all fucking day, go for it. AOL did, but AOL was a piece of shit, comcast is getting there.
Meh, whatever. Other companies are rolling out fiber while Comcast is telling potential and current customers that it can't cope with high bandwidth. Whoops.
Except that in most locations where Comcast operates, they hold the region hostage with an iron fist.
Even hoping that FiOS will make it to Chicago is an utter joke of monumental proportions.
victor_c26 on
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
How many people do you think had internet access in the 56k days compared to today?
How prevalent was internet piracy and continuous 24.7 torrent downloads in the 56k days compared to today?
The rationale for the cap is there. Stop arguing about the logic. It makes sense.
Whether or not they will have any customers by the end of the year is another issue. I'm guessing yes, mainly because noone is ever going to use 250gb in a month ever. Ever ever ever.
When you do, and when you get slapped with fees, then come in and complain.
The 'slippery slope' argument as to why to be outraged now and not when it actually happens is damn annoying, and is tantamount to wanting to be angry but not having anything to be angry about.
Whether or not they will have any customers by the end of the year is another issue. I'm guessing yes, mainly because noone is ever going to use 250gb in a month ever. Ever ever ever.
The only factor on whether Comcast retains customers is how many areas don't end up getting FIOS. Their only retention is from lack of the clearly superior option.
When you do, and when you get slapped with fees, then come in and complain.
The 'slippery slope' argument as to why to be outraged now and not when it actually happens is damn annoying, and is tantamount to wanting to be angry but not having anything to be angry about.
In other words, don't do anything until it's too late?
SoCo_and_Lime on
[x] Bolt Bus
[x] Radisson Hotel Boston
[x] Pre-Pax Dinner
[x] BYOC and 3 Day Pass
Ok, see the problem here is that you feel this cap is some sort or solid number that the higher ups in Comcast feel is enough for anybody, ever. You're 640K of RAM analogy doesn't fit at all into this situation. It's a fucking cap that's as high as the sky for any home user, and not one that's stated to be all anyone will ever need. You're being very irrational and paranoid about a non-issue.
No, I don't. You're not very good at analogies, are you?
As I already explained: 250 GB/month is sufficient today for all but heavy use. 250GB will not be sufficient in the very near future. For example, when Microsoft rolls out the Netflix integration with the 360 in November. Or when FFXIII-sized games start hitting digital distribution centers, like Steam.
This isn't about 250GB being always sufficient, or whether anyone thinks it is, which I've already said numerous times. It's about the fact that Comcast knows very well that 250GB is not going to be sufficient for much longer. This formal capping is a setup to launch tiered internet service.
You're getting hung up on concepts like 250GB being good for "ever." I never even said that. It wasn't even part of the analogy, or my argument. The gist of it is: Comcast has set 250GB as their monthly cap. That will not change unless they expressly do so.
So what do you think they'll do once people are starting to push the upper bounds of that 250GB? Reduce profits, and up the cap for free? Or leave the cap in place, and use it to drive customers to pay for Comcast's own services, and as a springboard for tiered internet services that will drive their profits up?
Protip: Corporations are legally bound to maximize profits for their shareholders.
Let's rephrase the story this way: Near-monopoly takes steps to maximize profit at expense of consumers.
My whole take on this situation is the thought that we're supposed to be moving in the other direction. Away from caps, and away from wrist-slappings. It's the internet, man! It's everywhere.
Well then dont use comcast then. Free market and all that.
Without lapsing into a lecture about how a free market is supposed to work, and how the market with services like telecoms actually works, let me ask: do you honestly thing that the modern face of ISPs in the US even vaguely resembles a free market? If so, do you actually know what a free market is?
Industries where companies have to petition for government permission to tear up your lawn and sidewalks to lay physical infrastructure for the services they provide are almost axiomatically not free markets.
Well then dont use comcast then. Free market and all that.
Without lapsing into a lecture about how a free market is supposed to work, and how the market with services like telecoms actually works, let me ask: do you honestly thing that the modern face of ISPs in the US even vaguely resembles a free market? If so, do you actually know what a free market is?
Industries where companies have to petition for government permission to tear up your lawn and sidewalks to lay physical infrastructure for the services they provide are almost axiomatically not free markets.
Maybe it is different in America then. Here in the UK we have choice of like a dozen ISPs, and in london itself even more. even fibre optics.
in fact thinking about it yeah it was pretty dumb of me to say that. the uk is different in every way. as in, every telephone cable and service used to be run by one company in the past. BT - and thus was government controlled.
Well then dont use comcast then. Free market and all that.
Ahahahahahahahaha
Chicago is also known as Comcast-AT&T Land
victor_c26 on
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
As one of those Australasian's stuck with retarded bandwidth caps (here are the private plans for New Zealand's forefront ISP, many don't have much of a choice between ISP's), I think I speak for at least some of us when I say that I don't see Comcast imposing bandwidth caps (whether or not it was announced) as a positive thing. Hell, my bandwidth cap is so goddamn low I'm barely even comparatively better off. But I really don't have very much sympathy simply because 250GB is a ridiculously massive amount of bandwidth. Can you give me an example of a situation in which you would feasibly and legitimately use that much bandwidth in a single month? I'm sure there are ways, and if you really really try you can do it. But I think the reaction to this is mostly unjustified because hitting this cap is simply not going to happen in most cases.
I get by on 10 gigs a month. In this thread some people are angry because they won't be able to use that every day? No, bringing you down to Australasian quality internet service is not going to help anyone, but I would seriously like to see a justification for needing to use more than 8 gigs of internet every single day for a month.
As one of those Australasian's stuck with retarded bandwidth caps (here are the private plans for New Zealand's forefront ISP, many don't have much of a choice between ISP's), I think I speak for at least some of us when I say that I don't see Comcast imposing bandwidth caps (whether or not it was announced) as a positive thing. Hell, my bandwidth cap is so goddamn low I'm barely even comparatively better off. But I really don't have very much sympathy simply because 250GB is a ridiculously massive amount of bandwidth. Can you give me an example of a situation in which you would feasibly and legitimately use that much bandwidth in a single month? I'm sure there are ways, and if you really really try you can do it. But I think the reaction to this is mostly unjustified because hitting this cap is simply not going to happen in most cases.
I get by on 10 gigs a month. In this thread some people are angry because they won't be able to use that every day? No, bringing you down to Australasian quality internet service is not going to help anyone, but I would seriously like to see a justification for needing to use more than 8 gigs of internet every single day for a month.
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
Posts
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
What consequences?
The fact that this has been in place for ages and nobody knew shows just how few people this cap effects.
Your post had too many words for Neva.
I will add what I've read from other sites. People have actually called Comcast up and the people didn't have a clue about this new policy. In addition to that, they requested bandwidth monitoring tools, similar to what you might see on a cell phone website, where you can track your minutes. Comcast doesn't have these yet, but it should.
Fact is, most people don't know where they sit in regards to 250GB. Sure, a lot of people will say that's a lot of fucking bandwidth, but most simply don't know. Most don't have SNMP monitoring software on their router capturing all inbound and outbound bandwidth. They are making quick judgment calls based on how much they think they download.
Oh and, of course, this is computing, what sounds like a ridiculous amount today will be absolutely nothing tomorrow. I haven't had a bandwidth cap on my connection since AOL. And I realize some people have worse caps, all I can say is, sucks to be you. And I'm sure that's what the FIOS users will be saying to me.
The fact that this policy is coming out now shows that it is soon to have an affect, streaming HD content over the web is a major concern in this area.
Furthermore with a vague cap it will always be a "excessive compared to everyone else" cap. They can't claim that every one of their customers is using the network excessively, so it must naturally be significantly higher than average use. This means the 'fuzzy cap' rises naturally as demand does.
A hard cap is always the same, its a maximum use, not an excessive use thing. Thus they can definately say "all our customers use their maximum allowance" and demand top up fees. Over the next 2-3 years 250 GB will effectively decrease in 'largeness' by a factor or 3 or 4 each year until in 3 years time it will be as if they gave you about 10 GB today. Then they will just start saying $70 for first 250 GB, $10 for each additional 20 GB.
Jesus Christ, did you even look at my post above?
A "hidden" cap is, for all practical purposes, unenforceable. Comcast's agreement is basically an adhesion contract. That means that because it is non-negotiable (e.g. take-it-or-leave-it) and so one-sided in Comcast's favor, courts won't enforce it.
Think of it like that clause in Apple's agreement for OSX that says you can only install it on Apple hardware. It's utterly unenforceable. Apple knows that. That's why they won't ever take the issue to court. But it's left there to bully and intimidate. It's the same deal with these caps on internet usage. Comcast can say "it's in our sole discretion to determine what is excessive and what isn't, and we don't have to tell you what it is," but they won't go to court over it. And that's for two reasons. First, they don't want their precious bullying provisions to be looked at by a court and potentially struck down, and second, Jimmy the Torrenter may be causing a hassle on his node, because Comcast has so severely overcrowded it, but he's not even causing enough trouble that it's worth paying an attorney's retainer fee (or travel expenses, if he's in-house).
In effect, Comcast's old "cap" could be circumvented by a nasty call to a manager. It's not a fight they want to bother with.
Now with that out of the way, I'm going to refer you to my post above, explaining some of the possible consequences of a formal cap.
Long story short: telecom lock-in, tiered internet.
???
there are quite of few countries with far more generous connections at much cheaper the price.
PSN: super_emu
Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
If Comcast said "You're only allowed to watch 8 hours of TV a day" everyone would be fucking up in arms.
The cap can be as big as they want, the fact that there -is- one means someone is doing it wrong.
[x] Radisson Hotel Boston
[x] Pre-Pax Dinner
[x] BYOC and 3 Day Pass
250gb is plenty. That's like two HD movies every day for a month and still have enough enough for your roommate to do the same thing, and then do some surfing and gaming on top of that. You really aren't likely to reach the cap by legal usage, and if you are {or aren't}, then I guess you need to find another provider. The cap was there before anyways, so it's not like it's any different.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
A better analogy would be if they said you can only watch 23 hours of TV a day.
Depending on how many TVs they had in their house of course
Everything I would want to watch on TV is on the BBC iPlayer for 7 days for free on the internet without ads and the only decent shows are American and thus must be watched online.
Heck, I could probably cut out some expenditure if I stopped paying my license.
[x] Radisson Hotel Boston
[x] Pre-Pax Dinner
[x] BYOC and 3 Day Pass
There's a huge fucking difference here. Yes, 250gb isn't something that's going to hold out for several years, but right now in this day an age for a home line, it's way more than enough.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
You wind up with shitty latency if the pipe is full. If you have a DS3 attached to your freaking computer, you're going to see no difference between something with good netcode and something with shitty netcode (as an aside, packet size doesn't really differ much for net traffic, number of packets changes. MTUs are pretty static, you can TRY to send 8k packets, but it won't work outside a lan configured for it)
Now, if you send an asston of traffic back and forth your latency will rise. Why? Because those packets need to get there and a response needs to come back (well, kinda..), and if there are more packets, this takes longer.
This is why most games don't send you positional information and action information on everyone in a zone: it would lag the ever living shit out of you. It only sends data on things just outside the draw distance.
Seriously, dude, if you want to make a game that requires 500k up/down to run and compare it's latency to one that requires 5k up/down, we can argue pings. I'm pretty sure that across The Internets, and not inside a lan, the 500k up/down will lag to shit.
This seems like it would be a more compelling argument if computers were actually still limited to 640K of RAM today. Instead, it seems more likely that the limit would be bumped up at some point when 250 GB/month was no longer reasonable as opposed to the company just throwing in the towel because they said 250 GB and by gum that's what they're selling.
As a relatively light user, I do prefer to have tiered pricing that gives me the option to pay less if I'm not going to be downloading HD videos or whatever takes up a ton of bandwidth, and I don't like the idea of my fee supporting someone else's habits. When my local provider offered 1.5 Mbps for $20/month and 10 Mbps for the $40 that had been the only rate up until then, I went to the cheaper option. This seems like much the same thing, although, yeah, you do need some way to tell just how much you're using.
So was 640K back then. That's the whole point.
Really, which seems more likely?
1) The telecoms have the good will to increase the cap in the future, so that it keeps pace with technology?
2) The telecoms will offer a higher-priced version with a higher cap?
Yeah, I agree, the idea of paying for more bandwidth if you use more bandwidth isn't going to destroy the industry. The problem is that the telecoms have already displayed an interest in annihilating net neutrality. How long do you think it would be until you need to buy the higher-priced package, because it includes things like packet prioritization, and exclusive access to certain features? Like being able to use Google instead of MSN. Want gaming-class pings? That's $10/month extra. Want your connection to not be throttled during prime time? That's an extra $10/month.
Let's be honest, here: this is nothing but another way to wring money from customers. It's not about offering a lower-priced option for people who use less bandwidth. It's about offering a higher-priced version for people who do. The mean cost for internet access will go up.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
The quote's often misattributed to Bill Gates, but the gist of it is that back in the 80s, when 640K was a huge amount of memory, Gates (supposedly) said that 640K of RAM was enough for anyone. Obviously that didn't quite pan out that way. If the statement was accurate, we'd still be using 640K of RAM.
The moral is supposed to be that it's never an idea to pick some number that happens to represent a sufficient quantity today, and claim it will be sufficient forever.
Yes, the bandwidth requirements for what people want to do online will assuredly increase. Comcast's cap, however, likely will lag way behind the curve.
Really, Neva, if you think Comcast will increase it without first rolling out additional subscription tiers, you're absolutely delusional. Nothing shy of government pressure, lawsuits, or rare-in-the-telecom-business competition will drive them to increase their caps without increasing the cost.
Ok, see the problem here is that you feel this cap is some sort or solid number that the higher ups in Comcast feel is enough for anybody, ever. You're 640K of RAM analogy doesn't fit at all into this situation. It's a fucking cap that's as high as the sky for any home user, and not one that's stated to be all anyone will ever need. You're being very irrational and paranoid about a non-issue.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
Well then dont use comcast then. Free market and all that.
Your entire argument and over reliance on the 640k thing is based on an assumption. An assumption which even when taking into account that all companies are evil still doesn't hold weight.
No-one is saying here 250gb is enough for a long time. In fact, there are dozens of ISPs who offer unlimited downloads, all the time.
Years ago, nobody said dialup would be 'enough' either. That shit got replaced super quick.
Bandwidth only affects latency when it is more than the connection can handle. Like wise, latency can affect bandwidth throughput when it is too high also.
And yea, I'd like games to go back to the netquake days, when we didn't pamper every HPB with all the shitty technologies that go into FPS games today. I remember when someone lagged they used to freeze in space until they unlagged, not like today where people can lag and warp or keep moving in 1 direction or speed up really fast.
Years ago my dialup ISP didn't put a cap on my connection. They said use it however you want, if you want to download 56k all fucking day, go for it. AOL did, but AOL was a piece of shit, comcast is getting there.
Except that in most locations where Comcast operates, they hold the region hostage with an iron fist.
Even hoping that FiOS will make it to Chicago is an utter joke of monumental proportions.
How prevalent was internet piracy and continuous 24.7 torrent downloads in the 56k days compared to today?
The rationale for the cap is there. Stop arguing about the logic. It makes sense.
Whether or not they will have any customers by the end of the year is another issue. I'm guessing yes, mainly because noone is ever going to use 250gb in a month ever. Ever ever ever.
When you do, and when you get slapped with fees, then come in and complain.
The 'slippery slope' argument as to why to be outraged now and not when it actually happens is damn annoying, and is tantamount to wanting to be angry but not having anything to be angry about.
The only factor on whether Comcast retains customers is how many areas don't end up getting FIOS. Their only retention is from lack of the clearly superior option.
In other words, don't do anything until it's too late?
[x] Radisson Hotel Boston
[x] Pre-Pax Dinner
[x] BYOC and 3 Day Pass
As I already explained: 250 GB/month is sufficient today for all but heavy use. 250GB will not be sufficient in the very near future. For example, when Microsoft rolls out the Netflix integration with the 360 in November. Or when FFXIII-sized games start hitting digital distribution centers, like Steam.
This isn't about 250GB being always sufficient, or whether anyone thinks it is, which I've already said numerous times. It's about the fact that Comcast knows very well that 250GB is not going to be sufficient for much longer. This formal capping is a setup to launch tiered internet service.
You're getting hung up on concepts like 250GB being good for "ever." I never even said that. It wasn't even part of the analogy, or my argument. The gist of it is: Comcast has set 250GB as their monthly cap. That will not change unless they expressly do so.
So what do you think they'll do once people are starting to push the upper bounds of that 250GB? Reduce profits, and up the cap for free? Or leave the cap in place, and use it to drive customers to pay for Comcast's own services, and as a springboard for tiered internet services that will drive their profits up?
Protip: Corporations are legally bound to maximize profits for their shareholders.
Let's rephrase the story this way: Near-monopoly takes steps to maximize profit at expense of consumers.
Still not a step back?
Industries where companies have to petition for government permission to tear up your lawn and sidewalks to lay physical infrastructure for the services they provide are almost axiomatically not free markets.
Ahahahahahahahaha
Maybe it is different in America then. Here in the UK we have choice of like a dozen ISPs, and in london itself even more. even fibre optics.
in fact thinking about it yeah it was pretty dumb of me to say that. the uk is different in every way. as in, every telephone cable and service used to be run by one company in the past. BT - and thus was government controlled.
Chicago is also known as Comcast-AT&T Land
I get by on 10 gigs a month. In this thread some people are angry because they won't be able to use that every day? No, bringing you down to Australasian quality internet service is not going to help anyone, but I would seriously like to see a justification for needing to use more than 8 gigs of internet every single day for a month.
http://revision3.com/
http://twit.tv/
http://www.channelflip.com/
http://podcasts.1up.com/
http://www.steampowered.com/