Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comcast Tells Government That Its Data Caps Aren't Actually "Data Caps"

Posted by Unknown on from the doubleplus-ungood-pirate dept.

mpicpp (3454017) writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica about Comcast's data caps that aren't data caps:Customers must pay more if they exceed limits — but it's not a cap, Comcast says. For the past couple of years, Comcast has been trying to convince journalists and the general public that it doesn't impose any "data caps" on its Internet service. ... That's despite the fact that Comcast in some cities enforces limits on the amount of data customers can use and issues financial penalties for using more than the allotment. Comcast has said this type of billing will probably roll out to its entire national footprint within five years, perhaps alongside a pricier option to buy unlimited data. ... Comcast's then-new approach was touted to "effectively offer unlimited usage of our services because customers will have the ability to buy as much data as they want."

22 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have no faith that the government won't fall for this blatant lie.

    1. Re:Sigh by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course they will, while comcast is telling them this, they are stuffing wads of money in the senators pockets. The longer they talk the more money goes into their pockets... Senators need to keep warm during the upcoming winter....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Sigh by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course they will, while comcast is telling them this, they are stuffing wads of money in the senators pockets.

      You know that talking point is total bullshit, right? What you describe would be a felony offense in the United States. Nor can corporations give money directly to campaigns. They can donate to PACs, which are a special animal in the American political system, but they can't donate directly to campaigns or candidates.

      Hey, uh, just FYI, you know what's another word to describe a "special animal in the American political system"?

      Corruption.

      Enough of your word-mincing. We ALL know how Politicians get bought and sold so let's cut the "total" bullshit here. Call it what you want. I call it what it should be; illegal, because the end result is the same. Corporations controlling government.

    3. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So apparently it's not bribery if you get a third party to deliver the money for you?

    4. Re:Sigh by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are innocent of corruption!

      because they write the legal definition of corruption to insure it does't count them

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    5. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ehh..

      If it's happening with even a single senator or congressman, then guess what... If the rest of the Senators or Congressmen do not corral that criminal in their midst, then the rest of them are guilty of aiding and abetting.

      So, either they rat out the crooks, or they all are crooks and all should be impeached, sent to gitmo.

      End of fucking discussion.

    6. Re:Sigh by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      most of the people in politics hate the system as much as you do.

      I have two words for that comment. "Ha" and "Ha" again.

      Actions speak much louder than words, and Congress had numerous opportunities to make things better and has never done so, continually reducing regulations and oversight while claiming "oh yeah, it's bad and we hate it". If you continue to believe the lie that's your problem, but how about looking at some of the votes for something simple and easy like disallowing congress immunity for using insider trading knowledge.

      If it was "most" as you claim that would have been corrected long ago by a simple vote. No such thing ever happened, so how do you continue to believe they hate the system? Seriously, are you that gullible or just a shill?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    7. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What new technology exists that would bypass the likes of Comcast?

      Emmigration. But it isn't really new. It also comes with health care benefits and previous unknown freedom.

    8. Re:Sigh by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why are you trying to regress back to seventh grade social studies? No, the real world isn't a House of Cards. It's a plain old regular chimp saying, *Pick the fleas off my back, and you can have my girl for the night*.

      Yes, some people actually enter public service for noble reasons, and if they want to maintain that "nobility", they will get nowhere, and will lose the next election if they raise a fuss. If they want to get on some committee with real power and influence, and stay in office, and fix those potholes, then all bets are off. They're going make deals, or it all shuts down. They are animals, in not so cheap suits.

      I won't call any of this "crooked" per se, because it is perfectly natural behavior. People will do whatever they can get away with. The veneer of civility only holds up while there's something to eat and something to fuck. Let's not read anything into it that's not there, and definitely let's not pretend there's any "nobility" in the system.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Sigh by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I say again, I'm not on Comcast's side. I just think that describing Comcast's position in hyperbolic terms (such as "blatant lies") will be self-defeating.

      If they use the word "unlimited" and/or say "unlimited Internet for $X" but then put a limit on it or charge you more than $X, then it's a lie. If they say or print it openly, then it is blatant. Therefore, it is a blatant lie.

      Obligatory car related analogy: Imagine if a gas station put up a sign that says "Unlimited gasoline for $8!" but then charged $6 for every gallon over 2 gallons. Do you think they'd get away with it?

    10. Re:Sigh by fafalone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're either hopelessly naive or thinking of running for office one day yourself. Do you honestly think stuffing a senators pockets with "I'm donating $x to your PAC" is any different than stuffing it with actual currency? Or any of the other dozens of ways you can legally bribe congress, from 'I'll bring tons of jobs to your district' to 'Now might be a good time to invest in a company we're going to announce a buyout on next week' (look at how quickly and quietly they gutted the STOCK Act). All of these are the same thing as outright bribes and to pretend otherwise is nonsense.
      And while on the local level, and maybe the state level, sure you have lots of people that sincerely want to effect change, but those aren't the people advancing to the national level.

  2. Monopolistic thuggish behavior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We need the government to build fiber to every residence in America and lease the glass to anyone that wants it.

    1. Re:Monopolistic thuggish behavior by jxander · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because those jackbooted thugs at the energy company ... wait, no. They're pretty reasonable.
      You were talking about the monopolistic thugs that provide my municipal garbage collection service? No, actually that's pretty cheap too.

      --
      This signature is false.
    2. Re:Monopolistic thuggish behavior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We need the government to build fiber to every residence in America and lease the glass to anyone that wants it.

      Learn your history. The government already paid the LECs a couple hundred billion to do this years ago.

      They squandered it all instead.

      Now the taxpayers are left holding that bag and some of the worst broadband infrastructure on the planet.

    3. Re:Monopolistic thuggish behavior by mjwx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You pay a private company for water? Where is this Randian paradise in which you live?

      The third world where the water piped in isn't potable.

      As I've often said, the blind Randian believers need to go and live in a third world "libertarian paradise" for a few years where you can pay for absolutely anything and have to pay for absolutely everything. Want the police to help you, expect to shell out. Want the court to do anything, reach into those pockets. Need help from the government, dont expect it to come cheap.

      Living in a place like this is great... when you earn western levels of money and a yearly income of $25,000 USD makes you part of the 1%... but not when you're a regular working pleb doing 12 hour days for $4000 USD a year... All Hail Rand.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  3. But what of Netflix by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, what will Netflix do when a customer can't get access to the data that they paid Comcast to deliver to said customer?

  4. Semantics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, it's technically not a cap because you can exceed it. No, this argument didn't work for cellular carriers. Bill shock was invented by AT&T first.

    1. Re:Semantics by crbowman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you claim (in large print) to be selling me unlimited internet access and are then charging me more when I go over some limit, then yes it's a cap, and the FTC dam well ought to be going in and bitch slapping any company doing this type of thing even if they put an asterix with words in tiny print to the effect of "when we say unlimited what we really mean is as long as you don't exceed the limits we actually put on it"

  5. Re:come on Google Fiber by dontbemad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Atlanta resident, here.
    I'm currently paying Comcast a pretty hefty premium for 50 Mbps speeds with a 300 Gb cap every month (which is pretty easy to reach when you torrent and stream a good deal). Google Fiber is possibly coming here in the next year or so, and I can not be happier about it. Even with Google's "reckless spying", supposed GFiber outages, and everything else, what Google is really doing here is a forcing competition in a market that hasn't seen the legitimate face of that... well... ever.

  6. Pre-emptive stance prior to 4K TV services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I suspect the plan is to get these "Caps" in place prior to broader adoption of 4K TV services. Once 4K catches on the users will have a choice of routinely exceeding their 300GB/month limit or buying their 4K content from Comcast who will likely not count their content toward the monthly data limit. Might be a nice way to tilt business away from other content providers such as Amazon, Vudu, etc.

    Regarding these "Caps" I had quite the conversation with Comcast before I dropped them and had to settle for DSL without a cap. First of all, the cap kicks in at 300GB/month, after that you are charged $10 for each subsequent 50GB allotment. This rate is higher than the $/GB before you exceed their limit. There is no rollover for unused GB's. So, if you go on vacation and only use 100GB in August you can not carry the unused amount into July or subsequent months.

    The plan is like cell phone plans years ago. Higher, 'gotcha' rates if you go over. No rollover minutes. You can buy business service from Comcast at a higher rate, a 2 year obligation, and they must own the modem. This effectively doubles your monthly rate before they started the unlimited plan you used to have before the limits were imposed.

    I think it is fare to charge for higher usage. However, the overage fees are prohibitive and will subsequently block the open adoption of future bandwidth intensive services for vendors other than Comcast. I am hoping a new wireless standard will jump past Comcast's copper infrastructure.

  7. Brilliant by ruir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I once run the IT department of an ISP, and data caps were a substancial source of the revenue. Lets say it could reach to 1/3 of our Internet net revenue, some months exceeding it. To be fair, at the time the international bandwidth was severely constrained, and in a post p2p world, you would have a change without some form of control. However, we were very clear about it, those were data caps, period.What I should call it nowadays then? Voluntary taxes? Net speeding fine? Tax for changing to the competition? One is always learning...

  8. Re:come on Google Fiber by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everywhere huh? Google Fiber serves less than 10,000 people (last I checked) out of over 300 million in this country. Google shows up in a town, then asks people to sign up, and only installs where the capacity is concentrated. This ensures the highest amount of profit possible. I keep coming into these threads and trying to explain this but Slashdot seems to be completely oblivious to how ISPs work. Yes, to the tiny part of the country google is offering service they are doing great. But they are never coming to your house... not unless you live in a major metropolitan area. The problem with internet access in this country is not located where Google is offering service. When some rural town gets Google fiber, let me know... then they'll be on to something. But this? They're offering service in areas that are already flooded with ISP options, this is not progress.