Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by thumperr, Oct 19, 2007.
that has happened, and in the case of sprint, seems to be a way to cancel without paying an ETF.
I am in the same boat as Earl here. When I signed up for Comcast in 2003 it was advertised as a completely unlimited internet connection(specifically mentioning unlimited downloads). Beginning in 2004 they began to change their advertising to remove the unlimited tag lines which ironically coincided with Acceptance Use letters going out.
It is concerning to me that after all this time Comcast still has not come out officially with what the formula is for determining Acceptable Use. They just fall back with "if it is negatively affecting our network we have a responsibility to the rest of our customers to act."
I don't see this affecting DoD as I am sure D* has had some contact with the big service providers. It wouldn't make sense to roll out a product that relies on other companies for success and not reviewing it with them first.
Just my 2cents
They can easily monitor, what they can't do is predict what the user totals will be in any given month. When user activity varies greatly and node saturation varies greatly how can they post a number with any accuracy?
What if they say in your node in Tinley Park it's 300Gb per user. During that month they add 10 customers, all of a sudden there is no way they can gurantee the speeds if every user can access 300GB
Conversely, if in your same node they lose 10 users all of a sudden there is enough room for each user to take 400GB. At that point they aren't providing the most bandwidth you could get.
Again, the only true way to do this would be limit speeds which would be marketing suicide.
I think we're getting a little off topic based on what the article said. This discussion isn't about Comcast and their arbitrary assignment on download limits, but more about them cutting a connection to certain 'large volume' sites regardless if you've used 200GB for the month or 12MB.
Based on that, I don't see how this won't translate at some point to Comcast altering the speeds at which subscribers are able to download DTV DoD shows.
Right. So...screw the customer instead of their profits.
It looks like they're using a content delivery network, which do direct deals with big ISPs. (http://www.limelightnetworks.com/)
This is the most resposible thing to do and honestly probably benefits the consumer the most. Either they set a low cap to gurantee everyone the throughput they paid for or set a highcap and have a few users affect neighbors performance.
Edit: I'm not a comcast supporter and I haven't had any cable service in 10 yrs. I'm on slow but always reliable DSL.
But then how am I as a customer going to know I am hitting their limits, and could have my service shut off? Or unkowningly limitted?
They have my email address... they can inform me that my limits have changed... Or maybe a summary on my bill how much I have used, vs the limit for that month.
If they can moitor it, then they can provide the same monitoring aspects to me as a consumer
BINGO! and this is the real reason why they don't.
They want you to think you can do what ever you want, as much as you want...
I would argue that if I'm not getting the 4mb speeds I paid for because my neighbors are downloading 20GB/day on their 7MB line I'm getting screwed. The pipe is only so big and they have to restrict data flows somehow.
Back on topic. It's very easy to limit specific application traffic down to the end user IP level. This I feel would be VERY unfair if it's not specifically stated and not buried in some AUP.
Maybe I'm not being clear in my points. They could easily do what you ask but then you as a consumer run the risk of not getting all the available bandwidth for your node. If they set a static limit and apply it across their entire customer base there are many areas that would be WELL under the pipe limits.
The only way your idea would work would be a daily updates specific to every node in their network. Your limit would be a moving target changing every day.
my guess is that the limit is somewhat flexible depending on how much the infrastructure is loaded, so it probably varies a lot. Comcast is probably betting that more people are happy with this, than known and enforced caps. They only need to cap the real hogs, and everyone else is happy with their "unlimited" internet.
"and this is the real reason why they don't.
They want you to think you can do what ever you want, as much as you want..."
And how is this any different than the way DirecTV advertises? Or any other company's clever advertising?
But to me... that is fine..
So long as I know my "limit"... so I know if I have to upgrade to their bigger package, change my service to a different provider, or change the way I utilitize the connection..
IMHO... Broadband access is gettin very close to being a "utility"
All I want to know is the limits that are on me...
As not just DoD... but VoIP I use... Work... not just for me but my wife.
Video games systems. Music downloads... General email...
The Internet connection in our home is 10 more valuable then our phone connection...
I honestly think that we will start to see QOS restrictions put in place by alot of the big providers allowing them to drop P2P networks etc to a very low priority on the overall network. Until their backbone and local networks can support the ever growing bandwidth demand they might not have a choice.
They don't have to state a limit...it is what they want it to be.
BTW, earlier I saw someone state that Comcast's agreement doesn't allow Slingbox. Well, neither does DirecTV's agreement.
(h) Private Viewing. We provide Service only for your private non-commercial use, enjoyment, and home viewing. The programming may not be viewed in areas open to the public or in commercial establishments. You may not rebroadcast, transmit, or perform the programming, charge admission for its viewing, or transmit or distribute running accounts of it. You may not use any of our trademarks. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9, we or any programming provider may prosecute violations of the foregoing against you and other responsible parties in any court of competent jurisdiction, under the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, and other applicable laws.
Another question? What's private viewing? How many people? Can I have 50 people over to watch the games every Sunday? 300?
The customer agreements that are basically thrust down people's throats are incredibly one-sided and generally allow the corporation to change it any way they want when they want.
Fair enough but I think from a business standpoint it makes more sense to really keep this buried deep in AUPs. 99% of the users will be happy and have no idea there really is a cap. I'm not defending Comcast or the policy but the technology is what it is and there has to be limits.
I aslo noticed in quickly reading the AUP that they don't allow routers to share the connection. I'm sure this is in most ISPs AUPs. Lucky for the consumer they don't enforce this one. I believe I'm approaching 15 nodes on my home network
"The customer agreements that are basically thrust down people's throats are incredibly one-sided and generally allow the corporation to change it any way they want when they want."
Not unlike most corporations.
Technically having people over to watch a sporting event (or anything really) is not legitimate use. There is a lawsuit in the UK right now for something similar with a Car shop where one of the mechanics had a radio being played and everyone in the shop could hear and is currently being sued for copyright infringement.
Didn't Directv win a lawsuit against a Bar owner in NY that had a Football game on in his restaurant?
Here is the link to the people over to watch a game
Exactly.... there are so many clauses in these things... they can really do what ever they want... and cancel your service really at any time.
It will be a terrible day... when we see an article...
"Woman dies... because they couldn't call 911 since VoIP was disabled by COMCAST"
Which is why so much of common law contracts law is inapplicable to a modern consumer society where the party with greater bargaining power drafts one-sided unalterable contracts and presents them on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Traditional contracts law envisions parties with roughly equal bargaining power negotiating contract terms. Unfortunately, the same corporations who impose their contract terms on us also have the money to water down and emasculate consumer protection legislation.
And let's not forget their advertising and marketing muscle. They're so damned good about it that lots of people on this forum leap to DirecTV's defense and demand to pay more for its services.