Slashdot Mirror


Comcast Expanding Data Cap Locations, Training Reps To Avoid Subject (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader sends news that Comcast is about to expand its 300GB data cap to more cities in the Southeastern U.S. "Newly capped areas include Little Rock, Arkansas; Houma, LaPlace, and Shreveport, Louisiana; Chattanooga, Greeneville, Johnson City, and Gray, Tennessee; and Galax, Virginia." This happened at the same time organizations are calling on the FCC to investigate Comcast for this practice. A helpful Comcast employee decided to leak the internal training on how Comcast plans to message these data caps to consumers. For example, they direct their representatives to tell customers that areas without a data cap actually have a 250GB cap, but it just isn't being enforced. They even suggest avoiding the term "cap," instead preferring "usage plan." There's also this: "If a customer calls in with any questions associated with the usage policy and how it relates to Net Neutrality, Netflix or observations about how XFINITY services are or are not counted relative to third party services, do not address these items with the customer."

39 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Downloading the intertubes, Daily by jimmifett · · Score: 5, Funny

    Soon as this hit my area, I signed up for the $30 extortion fee, bc 300 gigs is a joke and my household crosses that in a week easy. Now, I make it a point to use as much bandwidth as I can, downloading every goddamn cat video on the internet, twice, daily, while playing games online and streaming netflix on multiple devices most of the day, just because.

    I'm getting every damn pennies worth out of it.

    1. Re:Downloading the intertubes, Daily by Mark19960 · · Score: 2

      Except they can still do something about it....
      Page 5:
      "... internet service must be consistent with our acceptable use policies for residential services and network management system"

      Pretty much leaves the door open to whatever they want to do about it.

    2. Re:Downloading the intertubes, Daily by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      10gb a day is nothing. If this was to fix congest it would be so much during congestion period but all you can eat at 4am. This is a grab for more money plain and simple.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    3. Re:Downloading the intertubes, Daily by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      If you have the tech to do a monthly usage based you can do any arbitrary time base.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    4. Re:Downloading the intertubes, Daily by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just curious. How do you burn through 300 GB in a week? I think an hour of Netflix programming ~= 1GB, so 24x7 use of Netflix would be about 100 GB in a week. What's a bigger bandwidth hog than that?

      He spends a LOT of time masturbating to UHD/4k porn.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:Downloading the intertubes, Daily by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      You might be better off signing up for one of their business plans. I don't think that Comcast requires actual verification that you are running a business.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:Downloading the intertubes, Daily by chas7926 · · Score: 2

      Excellent idea! If only there was available competition in my city to go to. Comcast is the only game in town. AT&T is here, but doesnt offer any fiber or DSL. Their system provides speeds of 768K.

      --
      Linux User #296508 Get Counted!
    7. Re:Downloading the intertubes, Daily by GrooveNeedle · · Score: 2

      The problem is there is rarely, if ever, somewhere else to go play. Monopolies are the problem and why these pricing schemes survive where in any other industries they would be laughed at and fail.

      It's also not about the cap, which is fairly arbitrary. The real issue is that most of these ISPs were given government subsidies (taxpayer money) to build out the network in exchange for the monopoly. Then they pocket the subsidies and the network lags behind in technology and is not expanded to meet the expected and obvious growth in an area. Several metropolitan areas are currently working on suing Verizon for this exact thing.

      If the ISPs actually did with the money what people are giving them money for (both the government and consumers), then caps wouldn't even be needed! They'd rather just funnel it up the chain of command so they can have their second mansion or third jet.

      Not to mention the marketing ploy of selling you Unlimited data, but then capping/throttling it later (or the whole time). If they were just upfront with everything and priced accordingly (which won't happen without competition), it wouldn't be as much as an issue.

    8. Re:Downloading the intertubes, Daily by Whorhay · · Score: 2

      The poster did indicate it was a family using the connection. It is entirely possible that a family with teenagers might have several people using streaming media on a nearly constant basis while at home and not sleeping. 300 GB in a week still seems a bit excessive to me, but then again I don't even use a cellphone so who knows what the kids are doing these days.

    9. Re:Downloading the intertubes, Daily by dmomo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Well, it's their fucking system. You play by their rules, or you go play somewhere else.
      No. Not when said company has a local monopoly on broadband. This is exactly when you should have an issue with it.

    10. Re:Downloading the intertubes, Daily by Jawnn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why then, do we in the U.S. pay more and get less? Is there some technical reason that bandwidth is such a "finite resources" in the U.S.?
      Answer: No. Of course not. It's a business reason, so STFU and take what our corporate overlords deign to give us, on their terms. Right? Do you have any idea how idiotic your argument sounds?

    11. Re:Downloading the intertubes, Daily by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Well, it's their fucking system. You play by their rules, or you go play somewhere else.

      That's fine, as long as they tell you upfront and don't sell it as "unlimited."

      Also, it should be pointed out that it's not their fucking system......in many cases they were granted a monopoly by the municipality (which is the representative of the people), and they thus have certain obligations that must be fulfilled.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Downloading the intertubes, Daily by B1 · · Score: 2

      You are speaking my language. We've got two teenagers at home that basically live off streaming video and game downloads. The general rule is that when they're awake and home, video is streaming.

      On a typical school day, we use about 10 GB of bandwidth. Some days, we use much more -- 20 GB in one day isn't unusual. Our high score is about 35GB in one day.

      As for how we use that bandwidth, kids do the darndest things.

      Sometimes they'll turn on Netflix for background noise, while they download a game from Steam or XBox Live. To pass the time while that game is downloading, they'll start watching YouTube on their iPad.

      Sometimes, they'll listen to a YouTube music video while they shower. Teenagers know nothing of quick showers.

      Sometimes they'll watch a YouTube video at bedtime, then fall asleep with it playing. Thanks to YouTube's autoplay feature, they automatically stream YouTube all night. Netflix has something similar, but at least you can disable it on an account-wide basis. I haven't yet found a way to do this on YouTube (especially the XBox 360 or iPad apps).

      Once in a while, I download a new Linux distro, VM appliance, or OS update, but compared to our streaming video usage, that's probably a rounding error.

      In any case, I am not looking forward to the day Comcast rolls out bandwidth caps in our area. Whatever their cap is, we're going to blow it out of the water (unless we can change some habits!)

  2. Data cap scam by wardrich86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd be okay with "usage plans" if I got credited back for the data I didn't use. If I use 200 of my 250 plan this month, then use 300 next month, I shouldn't be charged an overage. I'm paying to use X amount of data. Where the hell is my change back for the stuff I didn't use?

    1. Re:Data cap scam by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      AT&T had a patent on that, at least as applied to mobile phone minutes ("rollover minutes"). Nobody else was allowed to do it.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Data cap scam by swb · · Score: 2

      Business method patent, one of the worst kind.

      But it may only apply to cellular telephone minutes and not generally to all data on every communications platform.

    3. Re:Data cap scam by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      Data is not a finite resource, but bandwidth suffers from"The Tragedy of the Commons", meaning basic economics indicates there must be some economic penalty for heavy bandwidth users, or else everyone else is subjected to multiple "buffering..." messages every time they try to watch porn. (Which is very annoying... er, not that I have any personal experience with the issue!) I've been saying for 20 years now that ISPs _should_ be charging by the byte for internet service in one way or another. The difficulty of accurately metering every byte indicates a tiered model should be used, with heavy usage placing you in a higher priced tier.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:Data cap scam by wardrich86 · · Score: 2

      Thanks to Netflix and other streaming services, that "email/websurfing" crowd has actually become a heavy-usage crowd.

    5. Re:Data cap scam by tepples · · Score: 2

      bandwidth suffers from"The Tragedy of the Commons"

      Demand for bandwidth also fluctuates over time. Would it be a good idea to reintroduce a distinction between peak time and off-peak time, so that subscribers can schedule their game downloads, purchased movie downloads, major operating system updates, and the like for early mornings? It might even encourage Netflix and its competitors to push their licensors harder for the right to offer a feature to buffer a movie now and watch it later using a lower-bandwidth stream of only decryption keys for each second of video.

    6. Re:Data cap scam by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      Blowing a mod point where I gave you a "Funny" on the "ripping off the customer patent" but ...

      The problem I have with charging by the byte is a lot of bytes I get are not something I asked for. All the ads and most of the autoplay videos are superfluous to me and I would object to having to pay for something forced on me like that. If they started charging by the byte they'd need to charge the other end for the superfluous bytes they force on us.

    7. Re:Data cap scam by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Won't work, too much prior art.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    8. Re:Data cap scam by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 2

      The problem I have with charging by the byte is a lot of bytes I get are not something I asked for. All the ads and most of the autoplay videos are superfluous to me and I would object to having to pay for something forced on me like that.

      In the context of a webpage the ads are data you asked for, from a certain point of view. You requested a web page. Part of that web page's contents is ads (as ad revenue is how the page creator can afford to offer you a webpage in the first place). If you don't want the ads, don't request the webpage.

      --
      I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
    9. Re:Data cap scam by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      Can you explain to me how I requested the hundreds of thousands of bytes of port scan and malware scanning that comes in on my modem unrequested?

      There are a lot of things that use bytes that you didn't request. I'd wage up to 5% of your monthly use is stuff that you didn't in any way request.

  3. Continuing behavior trend by Blue23 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comcast support is so horrible it's the go-to for making memes. Anecdotally, the people I know with Comcast have no other viable solution. If that's a more general case, it's monopolistic lock-in based on area. If it's not, why do people still use them?

    --
    LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
    1. Re:Continuing behavior trend by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Funny

      Three guys walk into a bar together and sit down at a table. The hostess comes up asks them what they do for a living.

      "I work in finance," says one
      "I work at Comcast," says the second
      "I am unemployed and my wife just left me," says the third--and pulls out a gun and shoots himself in the head.

      So the bartender asks the hostess what happened.

      "Did you know one of those poor bastards works for Comcast?" she replies.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  4. Lies, damned lies, and customer service ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So basically they have a formal policy to mislead, misdirect, or lie to their clients in order to implement a policy and pretend it's always been there?

    Isn't shit like this illegal?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Lies, damned lies, and customer service ... by MitchDev · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not if you buy enough congressmen...

  5. Painting yourself into a corner by kheldan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's what Comcast has done. Their network capacity has been so overbooked that if everyone actually tried to use what they think they're paying to get, the whole thing would grind to a halt. It makes me wonder how many network engineers tried to tell management that what they were doing was a really bad idea, and how many of them got fired for daring to explain it to them. Now they're painted into a corner, and rather than invest in expanding their network to meet demand, they'll just tell everyone who is paying them 'tough shit, deal with it, it is what it is' and hang up the phone in your face -- then badger you to death when you try to cancel their 'service'. They've painted themselves into a corner, and are denying it furiously. Meanwhile they're allowed to buy up more and more other companies so they can corner the market.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Painting yourself into a corner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Caps don't help with network congestion. They only make network usage more uneven: People use the internet less when they need it least and don't change their usage when they really need or want to use the internet, which is at the same time for almost all people. Consequently, caps reduce usage off-peak and don't help with on-peak congestion.

      Caps serve two purposes: They are a method of market segmentation and they make certain network dependent services unattractive. Comcast is a cable operator, and the biggest consumer of bandwidth is video streaming. You figure it out.

  6. Chattanooga by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pretty sure that any Chattanoogan in their right mind doesn't even have Comcast to begin with.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  7. its a trial, because the FCC wont buy it. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    after common carrier reforms were passed this year its really shocking to see internet providers still pulling crap like this. Comcast considers this a trial because its hoping if it rolls the whole thing out slowly enough then maybe, just maybe, it wont face scrutiny by the FCC and a class-action lawsuit.

    caps, wireless hotspot whoring, advertisement injection and yes, even SRVFAIL hijacking should have come to an abrupt halt under the FCC reform. Turning your callcenters into crisis hotlines that grill you in ESL about what you use the internet for are also a pain in the ass. stop advertising internet service i can buy over the internet if it just means i have to spend 2 hours on the phone to seal the deal 3 days later when a truck drives by to hook my internet up.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  8. Real Reason For Caps by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comcast was saying at one point that caps/overage fees were needed to reign in bandwidth hogs who were clogging the network. Since then, they've admitted what we all knew from the beginning: This isn't about network management/congestion.

    The reason reason for caps and overage fees is simple: Cable TV. Cable TV revenues are declining as people move from watching Cable TV to getting video entertainment from Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and other online sources. The cable companies don't like this because it means money flows to other companies instead of to them.

    Now, cable companies tend to have a monopoly for wired, high-speed Internet access in their areas. (If not a monopoly, then likely a duopoly with the phone company.) They are using their monopoly control over Internet access to prop up their Cable TV business. By establishing caps and overages, they can ensure that people: a) Are limited in what they can stream and b) wind up paying the cable company if they stream too much. The overages raise the price of streaming videos. Instead of paying under $20 for Netflix and Hulu, you might wind up paying $40 or more. Suddenly, streaming "costs more" than cable TV would and (Comcast hopes) people will abandon streaming and come back to the cable company.

    The big problem (for Comcast) in all of this is that it's illegal for a company to use their monopoly position in one market to squash competition in another market. That's exactly what Comcast is doing here and the FTC/DOJ needs to investigate and stop them.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Real Reason For Caps by Shadow+IT+Ninja · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The duopoly is exactly what I have in my area. AT&T is my alternative to Comcast and Verizon FiOS is available as close as just half a mile away. They are not enforcing a bandwidth cap here at all. I exceed 300GB on a regular basis, although a good part of that is backup scripts which run in the wee hours of the morning. I guess they are better here because of the potential competition. Either that or... I do have this pet theory that they have put a flag on my account which says "influential nerd. Keep this guy happy." Actually, I have no idea how good or bad their tech support is. In nine years, I have never used it.

  9. I remember by fredrated · · Score: 2

    when 640k got you a lot!

    1. Re:I remember by k6mfw · · Score: 2

      when 640k got you a lot!

      Post Of The Month!

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  10. Not everyone lives alone by tepples · · Score: 2

    How do you burn through 300 GB in a week?

    By having more than one person in the household, for one. If one copy of Netflix downloads 1 GB/hr, three will download 3 GB/hr.

  11. Taken out of context by cdrudge · · Score: 3, Informative

    I love to hate on Comcast as much as anyone, but the quote in the summary really was taken out of context.

    There's also this: "If a customer calls in with any questions associated with the usage policy and how it relates to Net Neutrality, Netflix or observations about how XFINITY services are or are not counted relative to third party services, do not address these items with the customer."

    The full quote from the document is:

    Third Party Services: If a customer calls in with any questions associated with the usage policy and how it relates to Net Neutrality, Netflix or observations about how XFINITY services are or are not counted relative to third party services, do not address these items with the consumer. Immediately escalate to the Customer Security Assurance (CAS) Team.

    Leaving off the last sentence escalating the call to someone who is more thoroughly trained in how to bullshit the customer changes the narrative. Without it, it sounds like the policy is to just ignore the customer.

  12. Foot in the door by Kyogreex · · Score: 2

    For example, they direct their representatives to tell customers that areas without a data cap actually have a 250GB cap, but it just isn't being enforced.

    Well of course. It's called getting your foot in the door. They roll out a "cap" that isn't enforced, and simply start enforcing it little by little in different locations. Why are you complaining when it was there all along? /s

  13. Data Usage by Hulfs · · Score: 2

    As a forced Comcast user, out of curiosity, I checked my usage. It's day 5 of the month and I've used 70GB so far...previous months I've downloaded anywhere between 260 - 290 GB of data.

    I work from home and access all my work data over my internet connection (I move very few files around - it's mostly rdp/ssh sessions, git interactions), use voip phones (both work and home), my kids almost exclusively watch "tv" via Netflix and YouTube and I would say my wife and I maybe watch 4-5 hours of streaming tv a week. Apart from that our internet usage isn't anything out of the ordinary and we're still exceeding the cap.

    Comcast is insane if they think classifying anyone over 250GB of consumption a bandwidth hog especially as streaming services continue to grow in popularity - and eat into cable revenues.

    If I had any real choice of provider, I'd be switching away from Comcast in a heartbeat.