Hacker News Reader

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?

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.

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

>My question would be is does the 250g data cap apply when they are watching TV/Movies online via Comcast (XFinity) provided services?

Yes it does. But, of course it doesn't apply to the On Demand services on Comcast Cable, which is where they want to push customers at.

This. Combined with the power of local carrier monopolies, it's exactly the reason we need net neutrality.

I appreciate your opinion but I downvoted you because you said "This."

The "This." meme contributes nothing to the post and is the worst kind of contentless bandwagonism.

"This." is lazy and degrades the quality of the site in general.

I'm not going to downvote you, but that's an incredibly stupid reason to downvote someone.

"Oh, I don't like your word choice, so I'm going to downvote you regardless of the content."

The issue isn't "word choice" it is tone and writing style.

Writing in leetspeek is equally objectionable, for instance, and people do downvote those who write that way on HN.

Explaining yourself and adding an original thought is contributing, but saying "This." is not contributing and degrades the quality of the post and HN in general.

  > The issue isn't "word choice" it is tone and writing style.

Forgive me, my vocabulary failed me when I was writing that particular sentence.

  > Writing in leetspeek is equally objectionable, for instance, and people do downvote those who write that way on HN.

Good point, although leetspeak kills readability, whereas "this." is just a way to say "yes, I agree with you.".

In my opinion, a comment that is simply "this." should get no votes at all, whereas a comment that is entirely in leetspeak should be downvoted into oblivion. Killing readability is a far greater sin than simply failing to realize that the upvote button exists for a reason.

How does "Combined with the power of local carrier monopolies, it's exactly the reason we need net neutrality." not qualify as explanation/original thought?

I don't know... HN has a history of actively downvoting memes. I don't know if 'This.' qualifies as a meme or not, but it's a valid sentiment.

Then again, if you are replying "This." perhaps the better way to go would be with a simple upvote. But that would really only be expressive if we could see vote counts again.

My point was that "this. <explanation and clarification>" does not deserve a downvote (should get an upvote), because it has actual content.

However, a content-free message of simply "this." does deserve a downvote.

How is "This." different than "Exactly." and other expressions of agreement in spoken English?

It might not bring new information, but it tells the reader that the rest of the post should be read in a context of agreement with the parent post, so it's useful.

My question would be is does the 250g data cap apply when they are watching TV/Movies online via Comcast (XFinity) provided services?

Of course not, nor Comcast's VOIP service.

Watching the xfinity tv/news service definitely counts towards the cap, but xfinity voice is a completely separate service - and doesn't count.

But if you used Vonage it would count? Same type of service, different application of rules.

Yes.

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

This. I would never have guessed upstream was counted. I thought this was only about downstream bandwidth.

I have a hard time accepting this fact. Yes, you might not know upload count, but reading Comcast's AUP, it states:

    >> Common activities that may cause excessive data consumption in violation of this Policy include, but are not limited to, 
    numerous or continuous bulk transfers of files and other high capacity traffic using 
        (i) file transfer protocol (“FTP”), 
        (ii) peer-to-peer applications, and 
        (iii) newsgroups.

This seems to be exactly what the person who wrote the article was complaining about.

And in a world where we no longer have unlimited data plans on our phones; I am suprised people forget about the data used while uploading...

Updated: formatting and clairification.

Comcast refused to work with him, even though he was willing and motivated to address the problem. Even after being careful with bandwidth and disabling his public access point, they still cut him off for a year with no appeal.

This mirrors what happened to me. I was given an automated warning. I called the security number but they wouldn't tell me what sort of traffic I should be looking for. They didn't even have a bandwidth meter rolled out in my area at the time! I had to guess what my bandwidth usage was for the next few months. I even called to make sure that I was under the cap, but they wouldn't tell me anything at all. "I'm sure you're fine" the rep said. And then they cut me off. (Turns out it was a misconfigured bittorrent client, but at least I knew that upload counted toward the cap.) I at least managed to switch to a business account, which isn't too much more expensive and has no cap. Last month I pushed over 1TB, no complaints.

>Comcast refused to work with him, even though he was willing and motivated to address the problem. Even after being careful with bandwidth and disabling his public access point, they still cut him off for a year with no appeal.

He obviously wasn't that careful. There are dozens of apps on Windows, Mac, and Linux that can tell you how much bandwidth you're using; it's trivial to set one up, watch your throughput, and start killing off apps until you see what's doing all the work.

He seems to be technically-minded enough to understand core concepts, so why wouldn't he understand that uploading all of his content (his images, his music, etc.) to the cloud is going to use up his bandwidth? It seems obvious to me.

> There are dozens of apps on Windows, Mac, and Linux that can tell you how much bandwidth you're using

Sure, for that machine. So I suppose he could go out and bet a new box, set it up as the router, and then monitor traffic.

Just like I have to install my own electric meter... wait. Or like how I have to install my own flow measuring va... wait again.

Most wireless routers offer some version of this feature, its not too difficult to use.

My newish (~$100) Netgear wireless router actually has a Traffic Meter feature which monitors my traffic on a monthly basis and can warn me when I get close to nearing that cap. Its a worthwhile investment if you're being warned about your traffic.

Most wireless routers offer some version of this feature, its not too difficult to use.

Really? I've never seen one that has it, and I highly doubt the feature was introduced before these data caps became a problem. Even if most wireless routers have the feature, I doubt most people find it "not too difficult to use." My parents, for example, can't even be bothered to learn to use the scheduling feature of their own recently-purchased router (which does not have a traffic meter).

Amazing how generational differences manifest themselves. I certainly wouldn't dream of using a scheduling feature of a router (routers have scheduling? didn't know that, thought routers routed traffic). My parents, now deceased, barely knew what computers were.

Indeed. Once upon a time I helped my grandmother migrate from DOS 3.3 on an XT clone (8MHz!) to Windows 95 on a 100MHz 486. Things that seemed obvious to me were a significant struggle for her, but being the intelligent woman she was, she managed to pick it up and excel.

As for the router's scheduling feature, it's for scheduling routing rules, so certain computers can't access certain destinations during certain hours. I've no use for it in my own house, but I think it would solve a particular use case for my parents, if only they'd be willing to use it.

"...at least managed to switch to a business account, which isn't too much more expensive and has no cap."

Down here we've got Cox, with the same 250GB cap, and business accounts are literally $180 per month more expensive than the residential accounts. I pay $69.99 at home and $250.00 at the office for the exact same service.

If you got two cables to your house, you could pay $140 with a 500GB limit :)

http://ww2.cox.com/aboutus/policies/limitations.cox Full list of Cox's limitations by area. If available in your area, you can get the Premier service, which has a higher transfer cap.

Did your router logs show high bandwidth useage? (If your router has good reporting tools).

The router I had at the time didn't have reporting, but my new one shows I've used almost 250 GB so far this month. I'd guess about half of that is bittorrent. Last month's 1TB was mostly BT.

He admitted that he uploaded terabytes of data. That's not being "careful". Comcast has had data caps for quite some time now. There's quite literally no excuse for not knowing that upstream bandwidth also counts.

The problem isn't comcast's policies themselves, it's the monopoly situation. And that seems like an FCC situation to me.

What, exactly, does Comcast have a monopoly on? Basic internet access might be considered a necessary utility, but an unlimited 15MB line is certainly not.

Also, http://www.google.com/search?q=high+speed+internet+seattle+w...

So why stop the service, charge more for more data use. Or perhaps throttle your speeds. I think he means monopoly in the terms of disallowing service, I guess he should be ok if they charge him more money for more data usage. Either way I believe there is a monopoly where as locations and service providers are concerned and many a times caps such as 250GB are extremely arbitrary. I mean really whats the technical reasoning for a uniform cap of 250GB whether you are in downtown NY of Seattle? Also I would read this... Extremely thought provoking... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2709834

It's cheaper for Comcast to cut off a few "problem" customers than it is for them to actually invest their record profits in upgrading residential infrastructure.

I live in Capitol Hill (right in the middle of Seattle), and Comcast is the only ISP in my area that offers a connection faster than 5mbps.

It's a legitimate problem.

Even if internet access is a right, internet access >5mbps certainly is not.

Just because something is not a fundamental human right does not mean that it's not possible to have a monopoly over it. Monopolies are a problem, regardless of what they're providing.

5mbps? You're lucky. I live in a densely populated area of another major city in the US, and I can't get anything faster than 3mbps from anyone, no matter how much I'm willing to pay...

Assuming Comcast is the only ISP in his area, can he sign up for a Comcast business account? It appears he doesn't just want his account reinstated but he expects unlimited data use.

I was in the exact same situation this guy was in (except they hadn't cut my service yet), and this is exactly what I did. There is no cap for Business Class Internet and the Customer Service is MUCH better. On top of that, you can get Static IPs that you cannot get with a residential account.

I investigated Comcast Business Class in my area, and the contract I was offered was totally outrageous. The worst clause was early termination, where they claim 75% of the cost of the service for the rest of the contract (1yr, 2yr or 3yr) even when the service was terminated. I re-evaluated my needs and realized with cheap VPS proxies and smarthosts, I could do just fine with one dynamic IP. My contract is simple month to month. From my research, it seems that Business Class has a soft limit of 750GB, too, though apparently not enforced. If you want to have some fun, take the standard Comcast Business Class contract, find the Comcast URL that they include by reference about terms of service and bandwidth usage policies, find the 800 number referenced on those pages to obtain the actual documents, and enjoy the totally blank response you get from the drone that answers that phone number. If you have ever actually obtained the Business Class policy documents referred to in their contract, I'd love to get a copy. (Yes, I actually read their 14 page terms of service. The few, the proud...)

The problem may also be that Comcast (and a few other cable ISPs) may refuse to give someone in a residential area a Business account. In my area they refuse to do it ostensibly for zoning issues (which really have nothing to do with it). It's one of the big reasons that I do not use any of the online backup places.

This surprises me. When I had Comcast Business Cable installed at my home, the telephone rep got the install address, paused a moment, asked, "Is that a residential house?". I said yes, and all was fine. No raised eyebrows from the installer either.

In fact, my boss/company owner, who lives outside Scottsdale, who can't get more than 144kbps IDSL got so sick of things that he ordered a first, then a second bonded T1 to his house, without any hiccups.

If I had to guess what the actual issue is; I think my neighbourhood is connected to some rather old copper lines and they can't make the kind of reliability guarantees that they make to business clients on it, and they don't want to upgrade or replace the copper. The neighbourhood is fairly new but the area it's connected to is fairly old (road paved and utilities put in way back in the 80s/early-90s for other places near by). This is all speculation from knowing the area and the fact that their residential services has had a number of unexplained outages/issues with bandwidth fairly often (6-7 times a year it'll be out for a few hours or very very slow, and they say they are working on it).

Or just pay for one of the higher speed options. I've gone over the bandwidth cap without fail every month, and they don't care since I pay for the higher speed option (previously the 50Mbit line, now the 105.)

Even though their contract specifies the same data cap for all speed options... So that means that at any time they can decide to terminate you for the same reason.

Does it matter if they don't? I'm sure you can find clauses in most ISP contracts that enable them to terminate you more or less at will, it doesn't matter much if they don't enforce them.

Yes, but the point is that if they wake up one day and decide to enforce them, you are screwed. No options for appeal and no other good options for service.

Surely you see how there may be a problem when the solution to a local monopoly cutting off service for overuse is to throw more money at the same company with absolutely no guarantee that service won't be terminated again.

It's obviously not an ideal situation, but I'm just pointing out (like the person I originally replied to who suggested a business connection [which is more expensive and slower]) that there are ways to work around these restrictions.

Avoiding and fighting ostensibly-offensive but rarely-enforced laws and policies is essential to preserving consumer freedoms and civil liberties. I, for one, do not want to live in a society with laws that can be applied to anyone but are rarely enforced (as is common now), as in such a society the law will be applied to whomever the enforcer doesn't like.

Whut? Are you stupid? Having a myriad of unenforced laws on the books is by design. Everyone is a criminal all the time and selective enforcement can be brought down like a hammer on your ass.

Yes it makes us non-free, but it is exactly what the man wants.

What if there was another ISP in the area offering a similar service but also had the same restrictions? The problem would be exactly the same and this guy would be in the same situation. Competition and having options wouldn't really change anything. It ultimately comes down to the data cap restriction first and foremost.

Comcast has a geographic monopoly in his area and like every other monopoly should be under some sort of government regulation. What Comcast should do if they are actually under bandwidth constraints is lower his 15Mb connection to 1Mb after he passed the 250GB cap. What they actually did was drop a customer because their profit margins weren't as high as the wanted them to be.

>What they actually did was drop a customer because their profit margins weren't as high as the wanted them to be.

So what else is new. Greyhound fucked over a lot of small cities 5 to 6 years ago by cutting service to them. I'm now a $80 cab ride to any public transport except Amtrack; and Amtrack is really limited both in times and where it goes.

You're right; He broke their policy.

However, to be fair, Comcast isn't very "open" with regard to the policy. You log in, see a graph, click "details" and get some mumbo jumbo about only 99% of users exceeding the cap. Clicking "Learn more" takes you to a page that is filled with questions that will deter many users (similar to a EULA - who "really" reads those?!) Up until this blog post, I had absolutely no idea they counted upstream against the cap (I thought it was just downstream)!

Sure, it's my fault -- I didn't dig deep enough to find this line in the FAQ:

"Data usage, also known as bandwidth usage, is the amount of data, such as images, movies, photos, videos, and other files that customers send, receive, download or upload over a specific period of time."

Then again, maybe they should just plainly state that on their site somewhere that both uploads and downloads count against my cap?

As a Comcast subscriber, in a similar situation where I am uploading a LOT of data (for work, and cloud based services), this was a rude awakening. Fortunately for me, I'm not using nearly as much bandwidth as he is (last month, I hit 100GB) - but I still wish Comcast was more open. Especially with the world moving towards a more "cloud" based computing (with on demand video!) I mean, their "typical/median use" is laughable in this day and age:

Data usage changes over time as our customers use the Internet and the services and applications available for it. Currently, the median data usage by XFINITY Internet customers is approximately 4 - 6 GB each month (these numbers may vary on a monthly basis). This reflects typical residential use of the service for purposes such as sending and receiving email, surfing the Internet, and watching streaming video.