|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 20, 2011 7:48:44 GMT -5
articles.cnn.com/2011-07-14/tech/comcast.bans.internet.wired_1_spokesman-charlie-douglas-comcast-voip-service?_s=PM:TECHThere's lot of interesting stuff said in the article, but I thought they only shut off your internet. I didn't know two overages in six months meant a ban. Holy crap. Just think of all the bandwidth-using tech that's become commonplace since 2008. Steam has exploded, Netflix is focusing on streaming, we have Pandora, Hulu, VoIP is used by a ton of people, other gaming and video demands, iTunes, eMusic, Amazon MP3....I won't even touch torrents due to the majority of the traffic being illegal, but....The cap is the same. Though what really gets me is Comcast claims its average user's bandwidth is 4-6 GB, which is what they were claiming when they put this cap on in the first place. So the number of things you can use your high bandwidth connection for has gone up almost exponentially, but your user average hasn't changed at all in 3 years? What, for every Netflix junkie, someone's given up Youtube and lolcatz?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 20, 2011 10:23:28 GMT -5
Depends on how they define average. Do they mean the mean, the median, or the mode? I bet a lot of people barely use their internet and it is possible for one of these measures of the average to still be low. But, it would be nice to see the actual data and what percentage of people use how much bandwidth.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 20, 2011 11:06:46 GMT -5
Depends on how they define average. Do they mean the mean, the median, or the mode? I bet a lot of people barely use their internet and it is possible for one of these measures of the average to still be low. But, it would be nice to see the actual data and what percentage of people use how much bandwidth. Even then, one would expect to see some degree of shift in that number. Also, it's kinda funny that this is part of their agreement not to throttle bandwidth for p2p users when, far as I can tell, Comcast still does that. As a Comcasr subscriber I have to jump through several extra hoops just to make my (legal) torrents download.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 20, 2011 11:24:34 GMT -5
The mean won't shift if only high end users do more but low end users do the same stuff.
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Jul 20, 2011 11:28:32 GMT -5
Just think of all the bandwidth-using tech that's become commonplace since 2008. Steam has exploded, Netflix is focusing on streaming, we have Pandora, Hulu, VoIP is used by a ton of people, other gaming and video demands, iTunes, eMusic, Amazon MP3....I won't even touch torrents due to the majority of the traffic being illegal, but....The cap is the same. That's why they're instituting the cap. Oh, not because those take up more bandwidth, if that was the issue they'd just throttle at peak hours. Because when you're watching Netflix and Hulu you're not buying their shitty cable TV packages.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 20, 2011 11:32:04 GMT -5
Now that's just cynical, which is probably why you're right.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 20, 2011 13:35:52 GMT -5
The mean won't shift if only high end users do more but low end users do the same stuff. Assuiming the number of people who are each are the same or the increase is same. I have trouble buying that the increase in use of these services has left the low end users unchanged. I mean, I know it's possible, but it seems with the huge increase unlikely. Plus, even my grandma uses Youtube and Netflix now. I know it's just an anecdote, but again, we're talking about why I find it hard to believe, not my concrete proof of why they're lying.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 20, 2011 13:37:02 GMT -5
Just think of all the bandwidth-using tech that's become commonplace since 2008. Steam has exploded, Netflix is focusing on streaming, we have Pandora, Hulu, VoIP is used by a ton of people, other gaming and video demands, iTunes, eMusic, Amazon MP3....I won't even touch torrents due to the majority of the traffic being illegal, but....The cap is the same. That's why they're instituting the cap. Oh, not because those take up more bandwidth, if that was the issue they'd just throttle at peak hours. Because when you're watching Netflix and Hulu you're not buying their shitty cable TV packages. They even suggest that in the article. My problem with cable is they keep jacking my rates without ADDING anything. So I cut it. I would use Netflix AND cable if cable didn't cost so freaking much.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 20, 2011 14:17:22 GMT -5
My ex-gf's ISP shut off her internet for excessive use of Netflix. It exploded so fast they thought something illegal was happening. It took a couple of days for the ban to lift.
I seem to have unlimited data (i.e. a very high cap) since I stream and download quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 20, 2011 14:18:43 GMT -5
The mean won't shift if only high end users do more but low end users do the same stuff. Assuiming the number of people who are each are the same or the increase is same. I have trouble buying that the increase in use of these services has left the low end users unchanged. I mean, I know it's possible, but it seems with the huge increase unlikely. Plus, even my grandma uses Youtube and Netflix now. I know it's just an anecdote, but again, we're talking about why I find it hard to believe, not my concrete proof of why they're lying. They're lying with what I'm saying too, they are using statistics dishonestly. Using the median or mode when the mean is more appropriate is lying. Ignoring that high end users are using more and more internet in favor of setting the rules to favor low end users is also lying. I just think it is probably that they can use some measure of "average" to lie to their customers while still claiming what they said was not technically inaccurate. For an unrelated example: Both graphs here display the same data, one is far more honest than the other. That is the kind of manipulation I suspect Comcast (and other ISPs) are committing.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 20, 2011 15:15:11 GMT -5
I understand the mathematical point you're trying to make, but there's manipulation of numbers and outright lying and I suspect the latter.
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Jul 28, 2011 3:02:03 GMT -5
All ISPs have systems in place to get rid of power users. Unfortunately it is in their contracts They only want normal users who pay for services they barely use. That makes the most profit for them. They tolerate people who use the limit of what they deem acceptable but they dont like them because those users are not as profitable. As for the power users, well ISPs just want to get rid of them.
In short its capitalism at its best.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 28, 2011 10:33:11 GMT -5
All ISPs have systems in place to get rid of power users. Unfortunately it is in their contracts They only want normal users who pay for services they barely use. That makes the most profit for them. They tolerate people who use the limit of what they deem acceptable but they dont like them because those users are not as profitable. As for the power users, well ISPs just want to get rid of them. In short its capitalism at its best. Few ISPS have been as dickish as Comcast. I'm just saying. But yeah, one of my big issues with "capitalism" is its application in certain fields. One of my favourites is insurance. After my mom got injured in the accident that totaled my car, the hospital started to get really angry with my mom because they weren't getting paid. They weren't getting paid because the insurance company was fighting to not pay. Accidents in Vermont deal with your auto insurance for the purpose of medical bills and the like, in case it's different elsewhere. Since she was injured in an automobile accident, her regular insurance couldn't/wouldn't cover it and the at-fault party;'s insurance did not wish to pay up. My mom's been berated by a couple of "free market" types that she should have had insurance. Not having insurance wasn't the problem. She was put in serious financial trouble over this. They want your money, but don't want to pay out. It is my understanding that many people who had insurance in the fire that ruined my apartment are still having trouble getting the company to pay up. We're talking people's lives here. I got off fairly lucky in the deal, despite no renter's insurance, but some people got hit hard, and had insurance, and might as well have been covered as well as I was. one of the points within the article here is that internet should be treated along the lines of a utility. Due to the nature of "capitalism," it seems like this is a serious issue worth considering. Regardless, the internet is expanding and there's more demand. It seems to be worth the concern that their actions are particularly regressive within the field of a technology that has become a borderline necessity.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Jul 28, 2011 10:50:51 GMT -5
The insurance industry in the USA is damn near a criminal enterprise, and if it wasn't for their billions-a-year lobby spending, would probably be classified as organized extortion.
The problem is the capitalist business model. When you combine it with the insurance business plan, you have created a business which is most profitable when it refuses to provide the service it was contracted to provide. That's why in every instance when an insurance company is expected to provide significant benefits for a client, they will spend seemingly ridiculous amounts of time and money fighting their obligations. You just don't make a profit in the insurance industry by paying claims. You manipulate every letter in the fine print to attempt to justify why you are not, in fact, liable for this particular incident, and if you can't do that, you drag the process out as long as possible and make it as difficult as possible in the hopes that the claimant will eventually just give up in frustrated exhaustion.
That's why most insurance companies prefer the "we'll reimburse you" method rather than the "we'll pay the bill" approach. I changed my motorcycle insurance last year because of a small claim in which I was instructed to pay the bill and send them the paperwork for reimbursement. I am still awaiting my money. It's been a year. When I called the company, they say that yes, sometimes it can take up to SIXTEEN MONTHS to process these claims. When I told them I was cancelling because of this, I was "informed" that if I cancel, that can make the process take even longer. You know what you call that? You call that a threat. Which is why I no longer talk to them; my lawyer does.
This is one of the major problems with US health care. We have turned control of the access to health care over to an industry that makes the most money by denying you access to health care. They would prefer, from a profit point-of-view, for you to DIE rather than receive health care because if you die, now it's someone else's problem and they don't have to pay any bills for you.
That's why Obamacare, while a step in the right direction philosophy-wise, is bullshit. It allows the insurance industry to remain in control of your access to health care. Hell, the insurance industry loves Obamacare because it will force those 40+ million Americans who don't currently give them money to sign up. We will never have significant, real health care reform in the USA until the current insurance industry is dismantled.
And because of the hundreds of millions the industry spends each year lobbying in Washington, no politician has the balls to take them on.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 28, 2011 11:31:07 GMT -5
They're definitely extortion.
It's a shame they're government backed.
"Nice prostate...It'd be a shame if something happened to it."
|
|