Surprise: Comcast will complete rollout of data caps everywhere in 2021

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,216
The technology is not the deterrent, it's the cost of backbone connection to their cell towers that will be cost prohibitive...
This isn't 2015; the major carriers have a lot of dark fiber in their backhauls, and are adding more. In the five-year timeframe I'm referring to, it won't be an issue except in certain rural areas.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,786   +3,993
This isn't 2015; the major carriers have a lot of dark fiber in their backhauls, and are adding more. In the five-year timeframe I'm referring to, it won't be an issue except in certain rural areas.
Dark fiber - exactly. Dark, of course, meaning unused and with lots of potential bandwidth.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,786   +3,993
I hate Comcast. I've been with them for 15 or so years and I hate them.

Century Link has been in my area for 8 or 9 years now, but they don't offer any rates or performance any better than Comcast and a few people that I've spoken with that switched to Century Link said they see big performance hits during peak hours at times. They didn't have such issues with Comcast.

Last time I had to contact Comcast (Xfinity) was when I wanted the awful TV aspect of some half-as$ed contract deal that expired. It took me 20 minutes of being on the phone with a call center rep and she kept trying to push more TV related crap on me after I told her countless times that I don't utilize the Xfinity TV service I have now and I have no interest in any TV service...I just want to pay for cable modem only. My bill went from $59.99 (before taxes) to just over $100 when the "contract" period ended.....once I finally got the stupid TV broadcast removed from my bill, I only spend $49.95 a month for cable modem. As long as the price doesn't get jacked for no reason and I don't have to deal with Comcast customer service, I'll be content with what I have.
Sounds kind of like my experience with Spectrum. I had several occasions where I called to complain about their service. One of which was then slamming my elderly mother onto their phone service. On each of the occasions, the rep I spoke with was asking me if I wanted to upgrade my service. I was like "WTF" you really do not get that I am complaining about your service, and you seriously think I am going go pay for more of your crap service? 🤣I challenged the rep one time, and all she could say was "you can't blame us for trying.":rolleyes:

My time with Spectrum is coming to an end, though, thankfully. Our neighborhood is soon to have FTTH and I'll be paying $50/mo for 500Mb / 50Mb. I cannot wait to hear the spiel that I will get when I call up Spectrum to cancel my service. :rolleyes:
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,786   +3,993
There's always that one person, you mean, who understands enough economic history to realize that government intervention is the true anti-consumer practice. What you advocate is a textbook example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Tooting your own horn yet again? Good god man, do you ever give up on that? :rolleyes:

How about the law of unintended consequences for these areas - https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/

There was an article right here on TS where municipal broadband was outlawed even though they offered to provide service at a much lower rates https://www.google.com/url?client=i...FjABegQIARAC&usg=AOvVaw3zGk3iQhY07iv2sFQxbjdr
Basically, a Give-away to crappy service providers like, you guessed it Comcast.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,216
How about the law of unintended consequences for these areas - (link)
Thank you for making my point for me. Your link illustrates precisely why government intervention in markets has catastrophic effects on consumers. And yet we have people in this very thread wanting to go even further down that road ... because just one more law will fix everything, and finally make things right. Incomprehensible. Nonsensical. Asinine.

Your own link points out that the best way to lower broadband prices is through market competition, not government intervention. Let the invisible hand work, and get the government out of it.
 

Reehahs

Posts: 1,161   +796
Bandwidth, however, is a finite resource. It costs money to provide. Answer the question I posed earlier. Should the person who consumes 200X the data as the average user pay 200X the cost? Or the same amount? Or some intermediate value? Someone has to pay the cost of that bandwidth. Why not charge the person(s) most responsible for using it?

Bandwidth only cost money when it is being installed and maintained. The use of it has a fixed cost regardless if 1 person uses it or many. Therefore, calling it a finite resource is moot as bandwidth itself is not consumed but shared as users increase like roads. Roads cost money to build and maintain, but they don't run out whether it is one user or bummer to bummer 24/7 traffic.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,216
Bandwidth only cost money when it is being installed and maintained. The use of it has a fixed cost regardless if 1 person uses it or many.
Yes, but when two customers on your 50-household backhaul use half the total bandwidth, then you either have to pay to install more, or force all 50 users to deal with network congestion issues.

To put it in terms of your road analogy, tractor-trailer rigs use more highway space than autos, and they also increase maintenance costs dramatically. That's why your average rig may pay as much as $15,000 a year in annual road taxes, far more than the fee for one (or even ten) cars. You use more road, you pay more.
 

Reehahs

Posts: 1,161   +796
Yes, but when two customers on your 50-household backhaul use half the total bandwidth, then you either have to pay to install more, or force all 50 users to deal with network congestion issues.

To put it in terms of your road analogy, tractor-trailer rigs use more highway space than autos, and they also increase maintenance costs dramatically. That's why your average rig may pay as much as $15,000 a year in annual road taxes, far more than the fee for one (or even ten) cars. You use more road, you pay more.

What you have said makes sense but that's not what has happened here.

Comcast didn't advertise the service as pay per use, they advertise as blanket no cap use.

What is happening here is akin to paying $15000 road tax as a big rig then getting restricted for driving a higher mileage than average road user.
 

kmo911

Posts: 306   +34
As in norway the adsl telenor was doing this too. if yeah got 5g and suporrted just tel them to go to DOOM. fiber optical line shall anwill be free. or just say bye to the deal.
I had to do a LOL here. give it a finger .... up stairs doom lan play dont last more then a few sec but games updates take enromus place.

red 2 150 gb win upd 15 gb and so on
harware software updates 160 mb-5gb
gettin near that when family playing on 1-6 pc s and that Sam E there.
games getting bigger windows going past 5 gb and you must burn it to a dvd ram 8.5 or 9.6 soon. usb drive of 1 tb bacup to one drive.
DONT pay for adsl caps neither fiber lines. now free isdn 128 kbs 56 kbs modems up nxt.
 
It’s absolutely hilarious to hear the same people who want more, bigger government in their lives handing out free living wages and taking complete care of them from cradle to grave complain about stuff like this. You wanted it, you got it. Now deal with it.

Oddly enough, countries which have been taking care of their citizens pay much less than Americans do, so your anti-whatever your problem is screed is just silly.