This was definitely without my permission, and raises the question about who has control over my computer, me or Microsoft. If Microsoft can put files on my computer without my knowledge, then it is really Microsoft's computer, which is control that I find extremely objectionable.
time for me to modify my firewall to block everything from microsoft.com
EULAs are notoriously unenforceable in court. Mostly because they're not present at the time of purchase. You can't tact on agreement requirements after the purchase has been made.
Otherwise, what's to stop your landlord or bank from demanding more money after you sign a lease/mortgage? Or your car dealer from telling you your car is worth $10k more now and they've upped your car payments?
Not to mention there are certain rights a person cannot give away. for example, I can't put myself up on Ebay and sell myself as someone's slave. That goes against a few laws (not to mention would piss off Ebay). People have other rights too but I think that demonstrates my thoughts:-)
I've love to see the EULA defended in court. it would be interesting to see what would happen. Much like changing a contract (Like what AT&T and Comcast did) and expecting you to abide by the NEW contract without your signature.
EULAs are notoriously unenforceable in court. Mostly because they're not present at the time of purchase. You can't tact on agreement requirements after the purchase has been made.
Otherwise, what's to stop your landlord or bank from demanding more money after you sign a lease/mortgage? Or your car dealer from telling you your car is worth $10k more now and they've upped your car payments?
They would LOVE to have a single sided contract with hidden terms. Oh wait, comcast already has that:-)
While it is annoying, it has to be said that copy protection only got so nasty because of the virtually unrestricted internet sharing of games. We've all done it at some point or other, so we're all to blame.
which is why I won't be purchasing this product just like I avoided the latest splinter cell or rainbow six games. I'm not interested in sharing the games nor am I interested in dealing with the inconvenience of their copy protection. If I really wanted to it's not hard to avoid their protection schemes, but then I'm getting into all sorts of other problems with doing that (violating EULA and possibly other things). So I don't bother.
There are plenty of other good games which are interested in giving consumers the best overall gaming experience.
"I was saddened (though not surprised) to read that the Justice Department opposes net neutrality saying that it could "hamper development of the internet." While it may seem counter-intuitive to me, they argue that allowing ISPs to provide different levels of service/speed for different content will benefit consumers.
I don't see service/speed benefiting consumers. In fact I'm hearing more people are complaining of being terminated by a certain Internet provider. It does nobody any good and America is turning into the caveman of the Internet with super slow speeds.
Besides, if we already paid for high speed internet then why don't we have it?
If any ISP did, it would kiss away any hope of a DMCA safe-harbor claim. As an ISP or other such party, if you know about it, you're supposed to stop it, not throttle it. Not stopping it immediately upon discovery and confirmation IIRC constitutes complicity.
Actually Comcast did monitor traffic and in 2002 were taken to court for violating the 1984 Telecommunications ACT. I found it while googling. I've been tempted to post it on my blog but save it for later in case this raises it head again. I don't know what the verdict was. I've been sending letters to the lawyers representing the case and have searched for it. All I could find was an article on Infoworld or maybe that was PC World. Don't recall off the top of my head.
Anyway, it's illegal and they were slapped. If they did this for P2P, they would have BIG issues to deal with... again.
Recent decisions have changed the playing-field for revisions to contracts over the Web. Unless Comcast sent their updates out to customers, I'm not sure the updates will hold up.
This is how I got in trouble with Comcast and was terminated shortly afterwards. I signed up after receiving an advertisement for "Unlimited use for a flat monthly fee". Now I don't know about your definition of unlimited but I know what Websters says. Even my 4 year old understand unlimited:-)
I'm curious where this all will go. Comcast has for years been messing with it's customers and recently has begun terminating accounts with greater frequency I believe. Now I know why Brian Roberts believes they have plenty of bandwidth. They are terminating every day people who use it too much despite the belief they have unlimited use as advertised. Pathetic.
Oversubscription is what makes it possible for ISPs to offer 10Mbps service under $80.
Because the top ~5% of customers (ab)uses ~90% of the bandwidth, over-subscription reduces the ISPs' infrastructure costs for typical users by >90%.
So, they oversubscribe their services and charge us monthly for the service. What did we purchase? A line with a consumption limit? Did you find where Comcast is stipulating the consumption limit? It's not in the AUP/TOS. I've looked many times and even had a lawyer look at it once.
What do you get for your purchase?
Comcast has thus far been unwilling to define what is acceptable. And that's the problem all along.
- you lose you job - you lose access to social security - you lose access to medical treatment - you are fined 2000 quid for each offence of not turning up and they keep this up till you submit or die of starvation.
These have been considered junk stocks for awhile. Now they're simply laughable junk stocks. Expect to see them in your spam e-mails with scams claiming they'll be opening at a nickel and closing at a dime.
I guess this means it's too late to sell and make a few bucks?
When SCO declared they were going to start charging $699 Linux licenses, it was the little guys who were concerned. Then they picked on Novell and IBM and look where they are now: Litigated into oblivion.
Either you can provide the service as advertised or you can't, which is it? Time to fess up so we know not to ever consider your service again.
That's what I asked Comcast after they terminated my account in January. I even pointed out this is looking like a bait and switch since the advertisement was VERY clear. We purchased a residential account with "Unlimited use for a flat monthly fee". Most people have sufficient grasp of the English language to understand what this means.
Hopefully we can bring more competition in to our city and put Comcast in it's place.
Thats up to 20 GB a day for a normal workweek. If you do that much for 'work' your employer should be footing your bill for a business line.
Just what exactly do you do that requires you to download that much data in a single day?
I was accused of downloading up to 300 Gigs a month. And the blog has screen shots of what I'm using currently. My ISP (xmission.com) shows I'm using less than 50 Gigs in any single month. Period. Acceptable use is stated as 100 Gigs a month or 25 Gigs a week.
This is mildly off subject, but is about Comcast. My brother and I have Comcast for our phone, though we'll be dropping it soon, which our sister set up. When she moved out, we tried contact Comcast to have the name on the account changed, but Comcast decided that changing the name would require a reinstall and demanded that we pay them $20 for the name change. Needless to say, we refused to pay and the account is still under our sister's name. What you've gone through with them is significantly different, yes, but both of these examples go to show that Comcast cares nothing for their customers.
Doesn't surprise me anymore.
When we returned our Cable modem the place was packed. I couldn't resist. I loudly asked if anyone was returning their Comcast equipment because they were unhappy with the service/product. Over half the hands went up. The comments made were not flattering. The company has some serious issues and it will take more than PR spin doctoring to fix.
Most didn't know what Utopia in Utah was (no, not the Mormon Church or anything) (Yes, that was a funny btw::grinz::). Utopia is fiber to the home. Looks like West Jordan City won't be looking into it anytime soon. From what I'm hearing we may be unable to count on our City Council to bring it and build the future. Third largest city in Utah too. Unreal.
Anyway, I'm done with Comcast and I will tell everyone what could happen if they use the "Unlimited use for a flat monthly fee" service too much.
Pathetic. Time to remove their common carrier status and government monopoly protection.
that would be amazing if Comcast actually owned up to their screw up here. They advertised "unlimited use for a flat monthly fee". I have the advertisement on my blog in case anyone didn't understand what I signed up for nearly 4 years ago.
I still don't believe I was using 300 Gigs a month. What people have missed in reading through my blog is I received one number in a conversation with their abusive department (I mean the abuse department) while my wife received another number. I was told we're using 297 Gigs for December and my wife was told we're using 250 Gigs. While it's only off by 47 Gigs, that suggests someone is making crap up. What did we REALLY use and what is acceptable?
Oh well. I've left other relationships where the girl was mental. Must be her cousin running the company:-)
Seriously, this is a dupe. Eventually people are just gonna have to accept that "reasonable" limits do exist on a service.
I'm fine with that. I even asked a dozen people from lower to higher in the comcast food chain what is "reasonable". They wouldn't say. Their CSR's even will tell you there is no limit. Huh? So how can you violate AUP if there is no limit?
I think they should specify what those limits are, but lots of limits in life are not strictly specified, basically be reasonable. speed limits might have a specified limit, however everyone goes at a speed of whats reasonable and ignores the hard limit.
But that's the issue here. We aren't told what is reasonable. I'm happy to follow the rules, if they had rules they could share with their customers. That's the crux of the problem. You can't consume too much in their "all you can eat" service without being terminated for 12 months.
this is a dupe because it is now known comcast does this. it isnt news, it isnt shocking, it is well known, it is stupid but it isnt gonna change.
I'm afraid I don't know anyone who was aware of this. I've spoken with dozens of Comcast subscribers in my area. Even the Mayor of West Jordan wasn't aware there was a limit. He began investigating as soon as I brought this to the City Councils attention and has been surprised by what he's learned.
they should just specify somethign in their agreement and be done with it, "250 gig transfer per month" no one really gives a shit if its called "unlimited" anyways, all they care about is how fast it is.
Works for me. However they have burned the bridge with me. I'll never join Comcast again. I'm saving money going with Dish TV and DSL anyway. Getting better service and I know what is acceptable. What a thought:D
However I'm not really that sympathetic to the people hitting it. 300GB is a shitload of traffic. I run a couple web servers (business class cable account) and download anything that catches my fancy like large demos, as well as watch any video I want online, and I've never hit that. That's 10GB a day, for the whole damn month. You really have to try to generate traffic like that. I mean I absolutely don't restrict myself in any way, I pay for a business account it really is unlimited (I have an SLA) and the connection is fast 10mb/1mb. Still rare the month I even do half of that, and that's accounting the 50GB or so that the servers do.
I agree with you however I don't believe I was downloading 300 Gig a month. First, how the heck does one download that much in a freaking month? Second, what if they got it wrong? How does the customer validate this for the "unlimited use for a flat month fee" residential account? Third, what ever happened to speaking with a customer when there is a problem and trying to resolve it?
Calling under dubious circumstances, leaving a reference number which can't be verified by the customer (I called customer service several times) and demanding you upgrade to a business account sounds like phising over the phone. I thought I was a victim of an ID theft attempt. They didn't even call me, the guy who pays the bill on time the last 4 years. They called my wife.
See a pattern here?
I understand your viewpoint. It is valid. However there is much more to the story than how much bandwidth was I entitled to consume a month though that's also an issue. Unlimited means unlimited. If they don't like it then they should tell me what the new terms of our relationship is. I'm happy to abide by them.
One more note before leaving my soap box. My current ISP (xmission.com) advertises 100 Gigs a month cap (over DSL). 25 Gigs a week. I've already posted on my blog what I used the first two months. We've used less than 50 Gigs a month and we were pushing it. Hard.
This is why I think Comcast is wrong. That we never consumed as much as they claim we did. It's not like they are infallible and can't get it wrong. Anyway, I'm running the blog to warn other's and push for an infrastructure that provides you, the consumer, with choice. A company goes crazy (like Comcast did), you can switch and tell them to screw off.
Most people can't do that these days. And that's why they can get away with this.
When it was advertised as unlimited, I can see where a user could complain that it would be a FTC violation if they limited your service, but these days i've only noted in the adverts always on. What's the advertising stance presently on comcast service?
There is nothing suggesting it's unlimited anymore. However it used to be and I posted it on the blog (don't have the exact date handy, sorry). What it is now? Heaven only knows as their Customer Service will say there are no limits.
Sounds deceptive since they are terminating user accounts. I know of several people personally in my neighborhood and the Salt Lake Valley. This is getting silly.
I'm not looking to abuse services. I'm not looking to rip anyone off. I'm not looking to piss anyone off. My usage needs are higher than the average persons, what with my VPN use and streaming services and such. Fine. But don't tell me "if you go over this limit again, we're cutting you off -- but uh.. we can't say what that limit is". I asked if I needed to cut it by just a few percent. Or by half. Or by 80%. Or what... no answer. They refused to say.
I agree 100% with you. I'm Frank from the article and have been very frustrated dealing with Comcast. They seem to be employing robots (or great script readers) who say the same things over and over again. You can't talk to a person capable of understanding the lunacy behind this.
I too spend a great deal of time online. It's my job. My kids learn from the age of 2 how to turn on the computer and run their favorite program and some get online. They also use the Internet heavily and so far from what I've seen, legally.
I've been accused of many weird things however it doesn't change the issue. If there is an expectation then it needs to be shared with customers. I have no problem following the rules. Just tell me what is acceptable consumption of bandwidth. Comcast claims I was using up to 300 Gigs a month. That's about 10% of my bandwidth capability I believe. Using the driving examples here on slash dot, that's like driving about.3 MPG down a residential street(think slowsky commercial). If I go faster than I'm breaking acceptable use policy. Does that make sense? Now Comcast is advertising faster speeds. So their customers can get into trouble faster? That's my interpretation:-)
Anyway, this is why I'm pushing hard for Network Neutrality and fiber to the home. Services such as Utopia would make a company abusing it's customers (such as Comcast) think twice. Piss off your customers and they go somewhere else. That's what the market does. Eventually the company comes around or goes bankrupt. But with a Government produced Monopoly (or duopoly)?? The free market fails to work. I have been trying to work with my City Council and Mayor to understand this and bring Utopia to our city. It is the 3rd largest in the State of Utah. We should be leading rather than following IMO.
I'm encouraging everyone to write Congress and their representatives. This problem is far larger than just affecting.001% as Comcast "claims". I've found many people with little effort. Over 4 weeks time I found about 100 people and a couple people down the block have been terminated this year. I think that's an indication of a bigger problem.
Ok, I'm off my soap box. Sorry but I'm very passionate about this problem.
and for the suckers still on Comcast the added competition has forced them to drop their prices in the area to $33/month (well, at least until you add in all the random taxes + fees + surcharges), so even the big guys are having to play along. The best part of this all is that the city doesn't actually pay for the fiber at all unless the project fails, so the only question is why all of the towns in this area don't have it already.
Believe me, if things go well then Comcast will have competition like never before.
I'm in West Jordan and working with several people to help move Utopia forward. I've spoken with my City Council though some still think wireless is awesome compared to fiber. some need to be educated on how silly that really is. Other's still think S.B. 66 is alive and well (prevented other cities from joining Utopia. Thanks Comcast!)
Other cities are starting to figure it out. White City Township (South of Sandy) is VERY interested in joining Utopia. My wife and I attended their last council meeting. Very interesting. Some guy wanted them to bring in Comcast thinking it would be better. We "enlightened" him before the meeting:-) Explained what the company is doing with terminating people's internet access. What a screwy company.
Draper is also discussing bringing Utopia to the city. My wife and I will be speaking with their City Council in case anyone starts talking about bringing Comcast into the picture (or any other non-Utopia provider). We're also visiting with other cities who are looking at bringing Utopia to their area. It's my intention of making sure people understand what a bad idea it is to rely on companies that wish to maintain their Government sponsored monopoly.
I keep telling people Utopia is like public roads or public airports. We need that infrastructure if we want to compete with the world. We're already in 24th place with broadband penetration. Very sad.
It will always cost as much as you are willing to pay, and the upgrade does not matter here at all.
That's the cool thing about this. We've already paid for it and have yet to see it built.
From the article I linked
Starting in the early 1990's, the Clinton-Gore Administration had aggressive plans to create the "National Infrastructure Initiative" to rewire ALL of America with fiber optic wiring, replacing the 100 year old copper wire. The Bell companies - SBC, Verizon, BellSouth and Qwest, claimed that they would step up to the plate and rewire homes, schools, libraries, government agencies, businesses and hospitals, etc. if they received financial incentives.
- By 2006, 86 million households should have already been wired with a fiber (and coax), wire, capable of at least 45 Mbps in both directions, and could handle 500+ channels. - Universal Broadband: This wiring was to be done in rich and poor neighborhoods, in rural, urban and suburban areas equally. - Open to ALL Competition: These networks were to be open to ALL competitors, not a closed-in network or deployed only where the phone company desired. - This is not Verizon's FIOS or SBC's Lightspeed fiber optics, which are slower, can't handle 500 channels, are not open to competition, and are not being deployed equitably. - This was NOT fiber somewhere in the network ether, but directly to homes.
Comcast doesn't seem to discriminate between legitimate and infringing torrent traffic, and most of the BitTorrent encryption techniques in use today aren't helping. If more ISPs adopt their strategy, could this mean the end of BitTorrent?"
Personally I don't think it does because someone will come around with a solution to their "solution". Always happens.
I'm stunned this is the solution Comcast selected rather than invest in their infrastructure. I guess I shouldn't be surprised after having received (drum roll please) "The Call". Such a large company with a myopic vision of the future.
It's time for a change. I'm hoping people will contact local Government and demand Fiber to the home solutions. This way when a company does crap like this you simply select another vendor. Easy enough today for any other product or service. Nearly impossible except for very select area's in the US.
When a user loads an ad-driven copyrighted website, he produces a copy of the work due to the inherent architecture of the Internet. If this user is using Adblock to screen out annoying advertisements, he is creating an unauthorized derivative work analogous to skipping television commercials. By the letter of copyright law, this practice would most likely be seen as an infringing use.
so if I don't read the ads and just read the article am I also in violation of copyright law?
"[Commercial-skipping] amounted to creating an unauthorized derivative work, namely a commercial-free copy that would reduce the copyright owner's income from his original program, since "free" television programs are financed by the purchase of commercials by advertisers."
If I go to the bathroom during a commercial would I also be in violation of copyright law?
We've become way too crazy during this copyright craze. If this crap keeps up then nobody will want to watch their junk anymore and just watch DVD's or something:D
Slashdot Mirror
This was definitely without my permission, and raises the question about who has control over my computer, me or Microsoft. If Microsoft can put files on my computer without my knowledge, then it is really Microsoft's computer, which is control that I find extremely objectionable.
time for me to modify my firewall to block everything from microsoft.com
EULAs are notoriously unenforceable in court. Mostly because they're not present at the time of purchase. You can't tact on agreement requirements after the purchase has been made.
:-)
:-)
Otherwise, what's to stop your landlord or bank from demanding more money after you sign a lease/mortgage? Or your car dealer from telling you your car is worth $10k more now and they've upped your car payments?
Not to mention there are certain rights a person cannot give away. for example, I can't put myself up on Ebay and sell myself as someone's slave. That goes against a few laws (not to mention would piss off Ebay). People have other rights too but I think that demonstrates my thoughts
I've love to see the EULA defended in court. it would be interesting to see what would happen. Much like changing a contract (Like what AT&T and Comcast did) and expecting you to abide by the NEW contract without your signature.
EULAs are notoriously unenforceable in court. Mostly because they're not present at the time of purchase. You can't tact on agreement requirements after the purchase has been made.
Otherwise, what's to stop your landlord or bank from demanding more money after you sign a lease/mortgage? Or your car dealer from telling you your car is worth $10k more now and they've upped your car payments?
They would LOVE to have a single sided contract with hidden terms. Oh wait, comcast already has that
While it is annoying, it has to be said that copy protection only got so nasty because of the virtually unrestricted internet sharing of games. We've all done it at some point or other, so we're all to blame.
which is why I won't be purchasing this product just like I avoided the latest splinter cell or rainbow six games. I'm not interested in sharing the games nor am I interested in dealing with the inconvenience of their copy protection. If I really wanted to it's not hard to avoid their protection schemes, but then I'm getting into all sorts of other problems with doing that (violating EULA and possibly other things). So I don't bother.
There are plenty of other good games which are interested in giving consumers the best overall gaming experience.
How hysterical. Earlier the blue screen of death came at no charge. No you have to pay to get the black one.
What I want to know is will the black screen of death be customizable?
"I was saddened (though not surprised) to read that the Justice Department opposes net neutrality saying that it could "hamper development of the internet." While it may seem counter-intuitive to me, they argue that allowing ISPs to provide different levels of service/speed for different content will benefit consumers.
I don't see service/speed benefiting consumers. In fact I'm hearing more people are complaining of being terminated by a certain Internet provider. It does nobody any good and America is turning into the caveman of the Internet with super slow speeds.
Besides, if we already paid for high speed internet then why don't we have it?
If any ISP did, it would kiss away any hope of a DMCA safe-harbor claim. As an ISP or other such party, if you know about it, you're supposed to stop it, not throttle it. Not stopping it immediately upon discovery and confirmation IIRC constitutes complicity.
Actually Comcast did monitor traffic and in 2002 were taken to court for violating the 1984 Telecommunications ACT. I found it while googling. I've been tempted to post it on my blog but save it for later in case this raises it head again. I don't know what the verdict was. I've been sending letters to the lawyers representing the case and have searched for it. All I could find was an article on Infoworld or maybe that was PC World. Don't recall off the top of my head.
Anyway, it's illegal and they were slapped. If they did this for P2P, they would have BIG issues to deal with... again.
Recent decisions have changed the playing-field for revisions to contracts over the Web. Unless Comcast sent their updates out to customers, I'm not sure the updates will hold up.
:-)
This is how I got in trouble with Comcast and was terminated shortly afterwards. I signed up after receiving an advertisement for "Unlimited use for a flat monthly fee". Now I don't know about your definition of unlimited but I know what Websters says. Even my 4 year old understand unlimited
I'm curious where this all will go. Comcast has for years been messing with it's customers and recently has begun terminating accounts with greater frequency I believe. Now I know why Brian Roberts believes they have plenty of bandwidth. They are terminating every day people who use it too much despite the belief they have unlimited use as advertised. Pathetic.
Oversubscription is what makes it possible for ISPs to offer 10Mbps service under $80.
Because the top ~5% of customers (ab)uses ~90% of the bandwidth, over-subscription reduces the ISPs' infrastructure costs for typical users by >90%.
So, they oversubscribe their services and charge us monthly for the service. What did we purchase? A line with a consumption limit? Did you find where Comcast is stipulating the consumption limit? It's not in the AUP/TOS. I've looked many times and even had a lawyer look at it once.
What do you get for your purchase?
Comcast has thus far been unwilling to define what is acceptable. And that's the problem all along.
say it ! and add a "lawsuit" to the end. Such "companies" deserve it.
They do but unfortunately companies such as Comcast don't care. Cost of doing business in their mind.
Sad state of affairs with that company.
- you lose you job
- you lose access to social security
- you lose access to medical treatment
- you are fined 2000 quid for each offence of not turning up
and they keep this up till you submit or die of starvation.
what do you loose if you are a visitor?
These have been considered junk stocks for awhile. Now they're simply laughable junk stocks. Expect to see them in your spam e-mails with scams claiming they'll be opening at a nickel and closing at a dime.
;-)
I guess this means it's too late to sell and make a few bucks?
Yes, that was a joke
When SCO declared they were going to start charging $699 Linux licenses, it was the little guys who were concerned. Then they picked on Novell and IBM and look where they are now: Litigated into oblivion.
::grinz::
Who?
Either you can provide the service as advertised or you can't, which is it? Time to fess up so we know not to ever consider your service again.
That's what I asked Comcast after they terminated my account in January. I even pointed out this is looking like a bait and switch since the advertisement was VERY clear. We purchased a residential account with "Unlimited use for a flat monthly fee". Most people have sufficient grasp of the English language to understand what this means.
Hopefully we can bring more competition in to our city and put Comcast in it's place.
300-400 GB!?
:-)
Thats up to 20 GB a day for a normal workweek. If you do that much for 'work' your employer should be footing your bill for a business line.
Just what exactly do you do that requires you to download that much data in a single day?
I was accused of downloading up to 300 Gigs a month. And the blog has screen shots of what I'm using currently. My ISP (xmission.com) shows I'm using less than 50 Gigs in any single month. Period. Acceptable use is stated as 100 Gigs a month or 25 Gigs a week.
Now THAT'S an ISP with customer service!
What do I do? I Post on slashdot all day man!
This is mildly off subject, but is about Comcast. My brother and I have Comcast for our phone, though we'll be dropping it soon, which our sister set up. When she moved out, we tried contact Comcast to have the name on the account changed, but Comcast decided that changing the name would require a reinstall and demanded that we pay them $20 for the name change. Needless to say, we refused to pay and the account is still under our sister's name. What you've gone through with them is significantly different, yes, but both of these examples go to show that Comcast cares nothing for their customers.
Doesn't surprise me anymore.
When we returned our Cable modem the place was packed. I couldn't resist. I loudly asked if anyone was returning their Comcast equipment because they were unhappy with the service/product. Over half the hands went up. The comments made were not flattering. The company has some serious issues and it will take more than PR spin doctoring to fix.
Most didn't know what Utopia in Utah was (no, not the Mormon Church or anything) (Yes, that was a funny btw::grinz::). Utopia is fiber to the home. Looks like West Jordan City won't be looking into it anytime soon. From what I'm hearing we may be unable to count on our City Council to bring it and build the future. Third largest city in Utah too. Unreal.
Anyway, I'm done with Comcast and I will tell everyone what could happen if they use the "Unlimited use for a flat monthly fee" service too much.
Pathetic. Time to remove their common carrier status and government monopoly protection.
The problem for anyone to define acceptable
:-)
How about "AS ADVERTISED"?
that would be amazing if Comcast actually owned up to their screw up here. They advertised "unlimited use for a flat monthly fee". I have the advertisement on my blog in case anyone didn't understand what I signed up for nearly 4 years ago.
I still don't believe I was using 300 Gigs a month. What people have missed in reading through my blog is I received one number in a conversation with their abusive department (I mean the abuse department) while my wife received another number. I was told we're using 297 Gigs for December and my wife was told we're using 250 Gigs. While it's only off by 47 Gigs, that suggests someone is making crap up. What did we REALLY use and what is acceptable?
Oh well. I've left other relationships where the girl was mental. Must be her cousin running the company
Seriously, this is a dupe. Eventually people are just gonna have to accept that "reasonable" limits do exist on a service.
:D
I'm fine with that. I even asked a dozen people from lower to higher in the comcast food chain what is "reasonable". They wouldn't say. Their CSR's even will tell you there is no limit. Huh? So how can you violate AUP if there is no limit?
I think they should specify what those limits are, but lots of limits in life are not strictly specified, basically be reasonable. speed limits might have a specified limit, however everyone goes at a speed of whats reasonable and ignores the hard limit.
But that's the issue here. We aren't told what is reasonable. I'm happy to follow the rules, if they had rules they could share with their customers. That's the crux of the problem. You can't consume too much in their "all you can eat" service without being terminated for 12 months.
this is a dupe because it is now known comcast does this. it isnt news, it isnt shocking, it is well known, it is stupid but it isnt gonna change.
I'm afraid I don't know anyone who was aware of this. I've spoken with dozens of Comcast subscribers in my area. Even the Mayor of West Jordan wasn't aware there was a limit. He began investigating as soon as I brought this to the City Councils attention and has been surprised by what he's learned.
they should just specify somethign in their agreement and be done with it, "250 gig transfer per month"
no one really gives a shit if its called "unlimited" anyways, all they care about is how fast it is.
Works for me. However they have burned the bridge with me. I'll never join Comcast again. I'm saving money going with Dish TV and DSL anyway. Getting better service and I know what is acceptable. What a thought
However I'm not really that sympathetic to the people hitting it. 300GB is a shitload of traffic. I run a couple web servers (business class cable account) and download anything that catches my fancy like large demos, as well as watch any video I want online, and I've never hit that. That's 10GB a day, for the whole damn month. You really have to try to generate traffic like that. I mean I absolutely don't restrict myself in any way, I pay for a business account it really is unlimited (I have an SLA) and the connection is fast 10mb/1mb. Still rare the month I even do half of that, and that's accounting the 50GB or so that the servers do.
I agree with you however I don't believe I was downloading 300 Gig a month. First, how the heck does one download that much in a freaking month? Second, what if they got it wrong? How does the customer validate this for the "unlimited use for a flat month fee" residential account? Third, what ever happened to speaking with a customer when there is a problem and trying to resolve it?
Calling under dubious circumstances, leaving a reference number which can't be verified by the customer (I called customer service several times) and demanding you upgrade to a business account sounds like phising over the phone. I thought I was a victim of an ID theft attempt. They didn't even call me, the guy who pays the bill on time the last 4 years. They called my wife.
See a pattern here?
I understand your viewpoint. It is valid. However there is much more to the story than how much bandwidth was I entitled to consume a month though that's also an issue. Unlimited means unlimited. If they don't like it then they should tell me what the new terms of our relationship is. I'm happy to abide by them.
One more note before leaving my soap box. My current ISP (xmission.com) advertises 100 Gigs a month cap (over DSL). 25 Gigs a week. I've already posted on my blog what I used the first two months. We've used less than 50 Gigs a month and we were pushing it. Hard.
This is why I think Comcast is wrong. That we never consumed as much as they claim we did. It's not like they are infallible and can't get it wrong. Anyway, I'm running the blog to warn other's and push for an infrastructure that provides you, the consumer, with choice. A company goes crazy (like Comcast did), you can switch and tell them to screw off.
Most people can't do that these days. And that's why they can get away with this.
if your internet is cut off?
:-)
It's really hard but possible. Dial up sucked but crafting the pages locally then posting via dial up was painful.
I don't recommend it
When it was advertised as unlimited, I can see where a user could complain that it would be a FTC violation if they limited your service, but these days i've only noted in the adverts always on. What's the advertising stance presently on comcast service?
There is nothing suggesting it's unlimited anymore. However it used to be and I posted it on the blog (don't have the exact date handy, sorry). What it is now? Heaven only knows as their Customer Service will say there are no limits.
Sounds deceptive since they are terminating user accounts. I know of several people personally in my neighborhood and the Salt Lake Valley. This is getting silly.
I'm not looking to abuse services. I'm not looking to rip anyone off. I'm not looking to piss anyone off. My usage needs are higher than the average persons, what with my VPN use and streaming services and such. Fine. But don't tell me "if you go over this limit again, we're cutting you off -- but uh.. we can't say what that limit is". I asked if I needed to cut it by just a few percent. Or by half. Or by 80%. Or what... no answer. They refused to say.
.3 MPG down a residential street(think slowsky commercial). If I go faster than I'm breaking acceptable use policy. Does that make sense? Now Comcast is advertising faster speeds. So their customers can get into trouble faster? That's my interpretation :-)
.001% as Comcast "claims". I've found many people with little effort. Over 4 weeks time I found about 100 people and a couple people down the block have been terminated this year. I think that's an indication of a bigger problem.
I agree 100% with you. I'm Frank from the article and have been very frustrated dealing with Comcast. They seem to be employing robots (or great script readers) who say the same things over and over again. You can't talk to a person capable of understanding the lunacy behind this.
I too spend a great deal of time online. It's my job. My kids learn from the age of 2 how to turn on the computer and run their favorite program and some get online. They also use the Internet heavily and so far from what I've seen, legally.
I've been accused of many weird things however it doesn't change the issue. If there is an expectation then it needs to be shared with customers. I have no problem following the rules. Just tell me what is acceptable consumption of bandwidth. Comcast claims I was using up to 300 Gigs a month. That's about 10% of my bandwidth capability I believe. Using the driving examples here on slash dot, that's like driving about
Anyway, this is why I'm pushing hard for Network Neutrality and fiber to the home. Services such as Utopia would make a company abusing it's customers (such as Comcast) think twice. Piss off your customers and they go somewhere else. That's what the market does. Eventually the company comes around or goes bankrupt. But with a Government produced Monopoly (or duopoly)?? The free market fails to work. I have been trying to work with my City Council and Mayor to understand this and bring Utopia to our city. It is the 3rd largest in the State of Utah. We should be leading rather than following IMO.
I'm encouraging everyone to write Congress and their representatives. This problem is far larger than just affecting
Ok, I'm off my soap box. Sorry but I'm very passionate about this problem.
and for the suckers still on Comcast the added competition has forced them to drop their prices in the area to $33/month (well, at least until you add in all the random taxes + fees + surcharges), so even the big guys are having to play along. The best part of this all is that the city doesn't actually pay for the fiber at all unless the project fails, so the only question is why all of the towns in this area don't have it already.
:-) Explained what the company is doing with terminating people's internet access. What a screwy company.
Believe me, if things go well then Comcast will have competition like never before.
I'm in West Jordan and working with several people to help move Utopia forward. I've spoken with my City Council though some still think wireless is awesome compared to fiber. some need to be educated on how silly that really is. Other's still think S.B. 66 is alive and well (prevented other cities from joining Utopia. Thanks Comcast!)
Other cities are starting to figure it out. White City Township (South of Sandy) is VERY interested in joining Utopia. My wife and I attended their last council meeting. Very interesting. Some guy wanted them to bring in Comcast thinking it would be better. We "enlightened" him before the meeting
Draper is also discussing bringing Utopia to the city. My wife and I will be speaking with their City Council in case anyone starts talking about bringing Comcast into the picture (or any other non-Utopia provider). We're also visiting with other cities who are looking at bringing Utopia to their area. It's my intention of making sure people understand what a bad idea it is to rely on companies that wish to maintain their Government sponsored monopoly.
I keep telling people Utopia is like public roads or public airports. We need that infrastructure if we want to compete with the world. We're already in 24th place with broadband penetration. Very sad.
That's the cool thing about this. We've already paid for it and have yet to see it built.
From the article I linked
Feels like fraud doesn't it.
Until we have fiber to the home like Verizon FioS or Utopia we won't have the infrastructure to handle future needs.
Comcast doesn't seem to discriminate between legitimate and infringing torrent traffic, and most of the BitTorrent encryption techniques in use today aren't helping. If more ISPs adopt their strategy, could this mean the end of BitTorrent?"
Personally I don't think it does because someone will come around with a solution to their "solution". Always happens.
I'm stunned this is the solution Comcast selected rather than invest in their infrastructure. I guess I shouldn't be surprised after having received (drum roll please) "The Call". Such a large company with a myopic vision of the future.
It's time for a change. I'm hoping people will contact local Government and demand Fiber to the home solutions. This way when a company does crap like this you simply select another vendor. Easy enough today for any other product or service. Nearly impossible except for very select area's in the US.
When a user loads an ad-driven copyrighted website, he produces a copy of the work due to the inherent architecture of the Internet. If this user is using Adblock to screen out annoying advertisements, he is creating an unauthorized derivative work analogous to skipping television commercials. By the letter of copyright law, this practice would most likely be seen as an infringing use.
:D
so if I don't read the ads and just read the article am I also in violation of copyright law?
"[Commercial-skipping] amounted to creating an unauthorized derivative work, namely a commercial-free copy that would reduce the copyright owner's income from his original program, since "free" television programs are financed by the purchase of commercials by advertisers."
If I go to the bathroom during a commercial would I also be in violation of copyright law?
We've become way too crazy during this copyright craze. If this crap keeps up then nobody will want to watch their junk anymore and just watch DVD's or something