More cable users are consuming 1TB of data per month, face fines for exceeding caps

[Polycount]

If they found a way to exclude the data used for
1. Forced ad and commercial watching
2. click bait leaders
3. ALL commercial apps

Then we would never get close to the limits. Being forced over the limits by all this junk is sort of like taxation without representation .... Perhaps time for a Boston Data Party where we throw all the servers from our favorite ISP into the river .... but we need to dress like geeks rather than Indians ......

This made me laugh so hard.

 

[jason lee]

This is a spot where some good ole government regulations would be sweet. Make it a law that there cannot be data caps on broadband. Really simple.

I disagree completely with your statement.
Regulations for freedoms (net neutrality) and public safety issues--YES.
Regulation for businesses to provide full disclosure and transparency--YES.
However, once we allow government to regulate what businesses can charge for their services, we're walking a slippery slope.

If consumers don't like being charged on exceeding data caps, it's up to us to take our business elsewhere. Really simple.

 

[deemon]

You guys have data caps in your ISP contracts? Must be a 'murican thing. Cry me a river

1.6TB downloaded in the last 30 days and still fixed 33€ for 300/300M fiber with no caps and corks and filters. Not the cheapest probably and not the fastest, but ... good enough.

 

[PEnnn]

This is a spot where some good ole government regulations would be sweet. Make it a law that there cannot be data caps on broadband. Really simple.

I disagree completely with your statement.
Regulations for freedoms (net neutrality) and public safety issues--YES.
Regulation for businesses to provide full disclosure and transparency--YES.
However, once we allow government to regulate what businesses can charge for their services, we're walking a slippery slope.

If consumers don't like being charged on exceeding data caps, it's up to us to take our business elsewhere. Really simple.

Obviously you don't live in one of the many areas where the government has allowed one ISP to monopolize the crap out of the "free market economy"....and the customers have no choice, aka, are screwed.

 

[Slappy McPhee]

If consumers don't like being charged on exceeding data caps, it's up to us to take our business elsewhere. Really simple.

this type of response is truly shortsighted. most people have no way to take their business elsewhere. they are in a monopoly. I guess you don't really bother to research things before typing or you just feel like trolling. great case in point is there are so many areas where in the US that Spectrum, CrapCast, or even ATT have the ONLY service available. They keep the infrastructure many times in those areas as old as they can to avoid the cost to upgrade when at the end of the day it is the most ignorant and asinine mentality. If they were to upgrade their network backbone in those central offices and nodes they would conversely bring in MUCH more revenue in short order because they could offer better speeds. This also allows them to provide and charge for even more supplementary services. The biggest issue is ignorant and literally "too stupid to chew gum and walk" bean counters. PERIOD. End of story.

 

[J spot]

Clarification needed, please.

Through our provider, Wave, we have cable and internet. We dropped cable TV for Roku devices. We are watching the same shows on the same networks as we did with cable. BUT, our data usage has gone from under 100 MB a month to over 1 TB a month (1.77 TB this month an 4 days left in it). We also had to bump up to 100 MB from 10 MB service.

The same TV shows are coming into our house over the same cable, only now they call it 'internet data' instead of 'Cable TV data'. I have the Roku's set to 720p to keep the 'internet data' down where we received many shows at 1080p on cable TV.

So, since we are receiving the same 'data' does this mean when it was called Cable TV we were using more TBs since we had a lot of 1080p shows? Yet we're paying more for internet because of its supposedly higher data requirements?

I'm confused....

Internet and Cable Television are two completely different technologies. With cable television you're basically watching an amplified signal being transmitted to all at the same time. You're not downloading say an MP4, HEVC file delivered individually to you.

 

[misor]

A top-quality 1080p x264 movie in MKV format is about 10Gb on average, while 2160p x265 MKV movie, using high-quality compression cannot be less than 30Gb, or else the loss of quality is noticeable. So that's at least 3 times increase in the download volume.

but my favorite site's x264 and x265 media show otherwise...

..I mean what favorite site?

 

[Gahl1k]

Wow... And here I am rocking a 25Mbps 50GB-cap for $25 a month...

 

[kvorshk]

This only seems to be a problem in the US, which lets be honest, is a place where businesses would charge by the cubic meter for oxygen consumption, if they were allowed to...

Hey the did that with rainwater in Colorado. Im sure somewhere is taxing breathable air.

 

[kvorshk]

I use a cable provider who has me use their app to watch tv, so I use only the data for all my needs. If they decide to cap the data, they will shut down half the viewers they have at least. I would just fire them and find a different supplier. I agree with gusticles41, the providers need to adapt to the consumer and not the other way around. You want people to spend $100 plus a month consistently, you need to provide better and better support for the product. Ask Blockbuster how not adapting worked.

DO NOT USE THAT APP! That is a way for them to try to normalize segmenting traffic on the internet. Just dont allow that crap to happen. If you allow it you are part of the problem.

 

[kvorshk]

No data cap from my ISP The only downside is they pretty much run a monopoly on the area so unless you are outside of city limits you HAVE to go through them. But paying $49.95 a month for 150mbs down and 15mbps up with no limits is nice.

Ill take that monopoly. But with what you said I am wondering if thats not a municipal ISP?

 

[wiyosaya]

This is a spot where some good ole government regulations would be sweet. Make it a law that there cannot be data caps on broadband. Really simple.

I disagree completely with your statement.
Regulations for freedoms (net neutrality) and public safety issues--YES.
Regulation for businesses to provide full disclosure and transparency--YES.
However, once we allow government to regulate what businesses can charge for their services, we're walking a slippery slope.

If consumers don't like being charged on exceeding data caps, it's up to us to take our business elsewhere. Really simple.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/15/Alleged-Certainty

 

[Thayios]

Clarification needed, please.

Through our provider, Wave, we have cable and internet. We dropped cable TV for Roku devices. We are watching the same shows on the same networks as we did with cable. BUT, our data usage has gone from under 100 MB a month to over 1 TB a month (1.77 TB this month an 4 days left in it). We also had to bump up to 100 MB from 10 MB service.

The same TV shows are coming into our house over the same cable, only now they call it 'internet data' instead of 'Cable TV data'. I have the Roku's set to 720p to keep the 'internet data' down where we received many shows at 1080p on cable TV.

So, since we are receiving the same 'data' does this mean when it was called Cable TV we were using more TBs since we had a lot of 1080p shows? Yet we're paying more for internet because of its supposedly higher data requirements?

I'm confused....

I've always been kind of curious on this side of things. The cable boxes of today are really not much different than an IPTV box (in fact, my last Comcast box before I killed TV all together and went to Plex/Local was able to broadcast channels to other machines in the network, same with Verizon FiOS). So if the same movie flows down the same path but a different end point device, why does that justify an increase in usage.

 

[brucek]

The actual marginal costs of extra data is nothing close to $10 per 50 GB. Providers probably could get away with usage-based charges, if they had some basis in reality -- I.e., pennies.

The issue is that in many cases the costs of the billing system and associated customer care / customer disputes, not to mention the loss customers due to less appealing service, would greatly exceed that marginal revenue.

 

[Carlos GarPov]

Can someone clear this up, please. This company treats cable internet as mobile internet, is this real???
Fook!!! hahahahaha (like Austine Powers Fook Mi and Fook Yu hahaha) What about the customers' defense department, they need weigh in here. Internet is now a UTILITY (like water and power supply) It is UNFAIR to treat this users as they are doing.

 

[Evernessince]

This is a spot where some good ole government regulations would be sweet. Make it a law that there cannot be data caps on broadband. Really simple.

I disagree completely with your statement.
Regulations for freedoms (net neutrality) and public safety issues--YES.
Regulation for businesses to provide full disclosure and transparency--YES.
However, once we allow government to regulate what businesses can charge for their services, we're walking a slippery slope.

If consumers don't like being charged on exceeding data caps, it's up to us to take our business elsewhere. Really simple.

Take their business to where? A vast majority of Americans have a single choice.

Yes America would be such a bad place if we placed caps on the cost of essential services like Internet. Then we'd have the plebs with access to decent internet service all the while the companies are only making a handsome sum! To think those rotten peasants get in the way of a single shilling any company may make!

- America in a nutshell

 

[seefizzle]

I disagree completely with your statement.
Regulations for freedoms (net neutrality) and public safety issues--YES.
Regulation for businesses to provide full disclosure and transparency--YES.
However, once we allow government to regulate what businesses can charge for their services, we're walking a slippery slope.

If consumers don't like being charged on exceeding data caps, it's up to us to take our business elsewhere. Really simple.

Except that in most places there are no other options. This is why their hands must be forced.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

I move over 30GB of data through my iPhone each month due to Sirius XM and photo/video uploads.

I can't even imagine how much data my PC uses.

Verizon FIOS doesn't bother actually telling me on the bill because it's "unlimted"

They make it sound like more data moving through the wires is a problem. It isn't.

 

[captaincranky]

This only seems to be a problem in the US, which lets be honest, is a place where businesses would charge by the cubic meter for oxygen consumption, if they were allowed to...

I think you meant to say, "charge by the cubic foot" for oxygen consumption, but otherwise I'm on board with your sentiment and observation..

 

[loki1944]

More of a city problem. Here in rural America the only internet faster than 180 KB/s is satellite @150 a mo. for the maximum data cap plan of 50GB. If you want more; you'll pay $75 for an additional 25GB. Verizon is the only real competitor, but their most expensive plan only allows 20GB of hotspot data.

 

[Roger E]

Okay the subject of Comcast data use being inflated has been a topic for some time. And I finally figured out the mechanics of it. The counting system increments for all packets even if they are resends because of a transmission error. The cause of the error is completely under Comcast control, because they control the signal strength on each line node. If several people disconnect from node, the lower load causes the signal power to spike for those still connected, aka SNR drops and packets get corrupted frequently. Same applied for a bunch of people jumping on the same sign node, signal strength drops and SNR crashes again.
It is completely under their control because they can change the broadcast strength calibration actively but don't.
So for them there is no incentive, in fact they have an incentive to not fix it because it results in increased billing for them for doing nothing.
That is also why a modem that is off is measured to be using data, resends and pings by the network to see if it is there are also being counted against the customer. And over time the node signal calibration becomes so out of whack that everyone on the node is being dinged.

Some details as I have outlined it are for illustration and not technically perfect descriptions, however the overall scheme is sufficiently described.

Please investigate and get the word out. This needs to be stopped. Feel free to and followup questions, but I think an industry expert with a pedigree will carry more weight than my work on this.

regards,

Roger E.