comcast question

[molly1216]

has anyone else ever gotten a message from comcast
saying they violated copyright
accusing them of downloading ultimate fighting on bittorrent?

i have gotten 2 so far.
i don't even have bittorrent software on my pc.

[Dunnyman]

If you don't even have the software, ignore it, I know a bunch of people at Comcast and their recent policy is to simply cut your total bandwidth back if you're downloading too much. I'd say it's more likely a hoax from the Ultimate Fighting people trying to scare people away from downloading their crap. Not that anyone actually cares about that lame "sport".

[Dan Mancini]

If you don't even have the software, ignore it, I know a bunch of people at Comcast and their recent policy is to simply cut your total bandwidth back if you're downloading too much. I'd say it's more likely a hoax from the Ultimate Fighting people trying to scare people away from downloading their crap. Not that anyone actually cares about that lame "sport".

Actually, the FCC has put the kibosh on throttling peer-to-peer bandwidth usage. It violates net neutrality.

[Boba Fett]

If you don't even have the software, ignore it, I know a bunch of people at Comcast and their recent policy is to simply cut your total bandwidth back if you're downloading too much. I'd say it's more likely a hoax from the Ultimate Fighting people trying to scare people away from downloading their crap. Not that anyone actually cares about that lame "sport".

Actually, the FCC has put the kibosh on throttling peer-to-peer bandwidth usage. It violates net neutrality.

Yeah, now Comcast just has a 250gig a month bandwidth cap.

The only thing I've ever downloaded from a torrent is 'Turkish Spider-Man,' so I doubt I'll be getting any copyright violation warnings.

[BrettCullum]

If you download Turkish SPIDERMAN expect to have an experience that will rival MIDNIGHT EXPRESS. They will find you my man. They will lock you up. You will be raped, tortured, and degraded. Mark my words...

If you download ULTIMATE FIGHTING you will just feel like you've been in Turkish prison.

[Dan Mancini]

Yeah, now Comcast just has a 250gig a month bandwidth cap.

Get used to it. Caps on data usage (with penalties for exceeding the cap, much the way wireless companies charge for cellphone usage) are probably the wave of the future. I currently work in the cable industry. We were looking at numbers yesterday and in any given month, 85% of the bandwidth is used by 5% of the customer base. And those customers are all over the map in terms of the level of service they pay for. Some of the lowest end customers are the ones who transfer data basically 24X7. The days of pure all-you-can eat service models are numbered. It's technologically feasible (sort of), but totally unsustainable from a business perspective.

[Boba Fett]

Yeah, now Comcast just has a 250gig a month bandwidth cap.

Get used to it. Caps on data usage (with penalties for exceeding the cap, much the way wireless companies charge for cellphone usage) are probably the wave of the future. I currently work in the cable industry. We were looking at numbers yesterday and in any given month, 85% of the bandwidth is used by 5% of the customer base. And those customers are all over the map in terms of the level of service they pay for. Some of the lowest end customers are the ones who transfer data basically 24X7. The days of pure all-you-can eat service models are numbered. It's technologically feasible (sort of), but totally unsustainable from a business perspective.

Yeah a lot of people I know have gone apeshit (mostly people who work at home and don't want to pay for business class which is slightly more expensive but a lot faster and without a cap), but personally at my highest usage, I've never come close to 50gigs up and down.

[Dan Mancini]

Yeah, now Comcast just has a 250gig a month bandwidth cap.

Get used to it. Caps on data usage (with penalties for exceeding the cap, much the way wireless companies charge for cellphone usage) are probably the wave of the future. I currently work in the cable industry. We were looking at numbers yesterday and in any given month, 85% of the bandwidth is used by 5% of the customer base. And those customers are all over the map in terms of the level of service they pay for. Some of the lowest end customers are the ones who transfer data basically 24X7. The days of pure all-you-can eat service models are numbered. It's technologically feasible (sort of), but totally unsustainable from a business perspective.

Yeah a lot of people I know have gone apeshit (mostly people who work at home and don't want to pay for business class which is slightly more expensive but a lot faster and without a cap), but personally at my highest usage, I've never come close to 50gigs up and down.

If I worked from home every day, uploaded all of my home movies to YouTube and all of my photos to Flickr, became a Bit Torrent junkie, and cancelled DirecTV and streamed every TV show I watch, I'm not sure I'd hit 250gigs in a month. Because, you know, there's still the time I spend in non-data-transfer activities like eating, sleeping, reading (printed books), interacting with my family and friends, and generally having a life. If a 250gig cap presents a major challenge to your lifestyle, it's time to re-evaluate your priorities, I think.

[Neal Masri]

I've read that this bandwidth cap is an attempt to save TV as a distinct medium. That is, every show that someone watches streaming is time they're not in front of the idiot box. The cable companies and their advertisers obviously want you watching shows on your TV and not your computer. So, by getting people worried about the bandwidth of streaming video, they'd be more likely to go to the TV instead of the computer monitor.

I personally never watch streaming video so I don't have a dog in this fight. Are the phone companies (like FiOs in my area) also doing the bandwidth restrictions?

[Dan Mancini]

I've read that this bandwidth cap is an attempt to save TV as a distinct medium. That is, every show that someone watches streaming is time they're not in front of the idiot box. The cable companies and their advertisers obviously want you watching shows on your TV and not your computer. So, by getting people worried about the bandwidth of streaming video, they'd be more likely to go to the TV instead of the computer monitor.

Not true. The cable companies provide the infrastructure and services for internet as well as cable TV, so they don't really care whether you watch 30 Rock on TV or stream it to your computer. The cap is driven by the problem of how you deliver TV, IPTV, telephone services, and internet to millions of subscribers (and businesses) while ensuring bandwidth is sufficient to prevent a relatively small number of ultra-heavy users from jacking up everyone else's experience. As services stack up on one another and subscribers become increasingly sophisticated in terms of data usage (meaning a growing number of ultra-heavy users), the current model of an open trough where subscribers pay a single fee and transfer as much data as their downstream and upstream speeds allow becomes more and more problematic (and costly).

[Neal Masri]

I've read that this bandwidth cap is an attempt to save TV as a distinct medium. That is, every show that someone watches streaming is time they're not in front of the idiot box. The cable companies and their advertisers obviously want you watching shows on your TV and not your computer. So, by getting people worried about the bandwidth of streaming video, they'd be more likely to go to the TV instead of the computer monitor.

Not true. The cable companies provide the infrastructure and services for internet as well as cable TV, so they don't really care whether you watch 30 Rock on TV or stream it to your computer. The cap is driven by the problem of how you deliver TV, IPTV, telephone services, and internet to millions of subscribers (and businesses) while ensuring bandwidth is sufficient to prevent a relatively small number of ultra-heavy users from jacking up everyone else's experience. As services stack up on one another and subscribers become increasingly sophisticated in terms of data usage (meaning a growing number of ultra-heavy users), the current model of an open trough where subscribers pay a single fee and transfer as much data as their downstream and upstream speeds allow becomes more and more problematic (and costly).

Fair enough. But it wouldn't ding local advertising to have people see 30 Rock on computer rather than on TV where those commercials would be present? Or is the analysis that just keeping the customer is good no matter which of your services they are using? This is, of course, putting aside people like me who use DVRs and probably see about 10 commercials a year.

[Dan Mancini]

Fair enough. But it wouldn't ding local advertising to have people see 30 Rock on computer rather than on TV where those commercials would be present?

It would, but streaming isn't developed enough as a market to drive cable companies (or networks) to focus a lot energy on the advertising problems -- yet. In all likelihood, we'll eventually see unskippable commercials attached to streaming content (like the network websites often have) and maybe even on content saved to DVRs. Point is, the advertising stuff is solvable and not currently urgent, so it's not responsible for Comcast capping data transfer.

Plus, potential loss of 30 Rock advertising dollars is more problematic for NBC than it is for Comcast.