Out of Pod Experience

So we had to switch to Comcast for our internet and phone. I log into their site to pay my first bill, and I see something near the top saying that I've used 2% of my 250GB monthly limit (it's in a new house that's still vacant). I'm like, WTF? After doing some research, yup, we as a household are considered using too much internet once we hit 250GB for the billing cycle. Do that three months in a row within a 6 month period, and they suspend your internet for 1 year. Never knew they even HAD a limit!!

My obvious reaction was dump these fools. But before we take such extreme measures, I'm wondering how much bandwidth we'll really use.

I think I'm the most intensive internet user in the family, by playing EVE, World of Tanks, and World of Warplanes Alpha. How much bandwidth do you think 1-3 hours per day of these three fine games take?

I do occasional Youtube. Wife does Youtube for about 1 hour per day around 3 days out of the week, and some moderate surfing.

Third family member does light to moderate surfing and maybe a little Youtube here and there.

No one downloads music or movies, or streams Netflix. Nothing heavy like that.

My GUESS is that between the three of us, we MAYBE use 1GB/day, Maybe 2GB/day, so we may stay well below the limit. We'll have a better idea once we move into that house and use it daily (the meter should update daily or so). Just wondering if anyone can provide input on the gaming bandwidth piece.

Thanks!

High possibility someone is tapping into your wireless signal (if you have one...)

Pretty much this.

Utterly shocked this practice is still in force around the world when there is no reason [that I can conceive] which entitles an 'Internet Service Provider' to charge you additional amounts of cash for using the very service you are paying for.

Someone please correct me: there is nothing which increases their cost to provide you with the service, is there?

AK

Fixed your post.

Quick google search suggests <20MB/hour for most MMOs.

The reason the cap was added is due to how cable inherently was designed. And because a number of kids were doing piracy the entire neighborhood of grandmothers reading mail and getting recipes was seriously slowed.

"Why not divide the area more per connection then?"

Cable isn't that simple folks. The cost to do things on even the most basic level is sky high. Are they stingy? I think yes but for what it would take to raise it to say 500 I hear would be enormous.

You are asking a copper cable designed half a century ago to do things it was never designed to do. Crap like this was bound to happen.

This is why fiber is the future. The fiber cable is cheap as chips it is just that the process of getting it up on the poles and underground is similar to the issues Cable faced during its growth. Yet with fiber you don't install just one but as many as you can get through the worksite as from what I read renting the "dark fiber" is what funds a good chunk of the work. Unlike cable which had mostly a single use for the longest time.

Yet you also got to keep in mind the cost of the equipment to route the crapload of Netflix and Youtube around.

I am a comcast user and I wish they had more competition. Yet getting informed on how difficult this really is lets me cut them a bit of slack.

ISPs (in the US at least) have ALWAYS had these limits. The only difference is that ISPs actually want you to know about the limits now.

250GB is the same limit that AT&T and Charter Communications use for their high-speed internet service, so you aren't alone.

Just understand the reason why the limits are in place. The internet costs ALOT of money to implement folks. For instance analysts are expecting Google fiber to total about (To Google) 3000-6000 USD PER CUSTOMER for the initial investment. However because they are EXPECTING everyone to max out the 1gig connection they are planning with extra fiber and the ability to route more fiber if needed (Home builders are being urged to run tube underground with enough space to handle a bundle of fibers not just one and runners to be able to switch out in the future) Cable does not have this luxury. The entire model was built on the idea of most customers wanting websites to load fast and not watch HD youtube or netflix. Now entire neighborhoods are routinely maxing out the cable leading to the fiber headend.

Cable internet simply was not designed with these in mind. However THEY paid to do all the work to install these systems and until Fiber comes around there is little that can be done. You are asking a coaxial cable invented in the early 20th century to do things that are clearly designed for pure fiber.

Now DSL companies like AT&T I have no sympathy for. As the tech is a direct connection and in my opinion it was just easy to impose the cap so they can save tiny amounts of money on their backbone to backbone rates.

Hopefully. Yet unlikely except in areas where there is plenty of extra bandwidth.

Someone posted a great image to Wikipedia explaining how cable internet works in most areas.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/HFC_Network_Diagram.svg

You can see how it quickly becomes an issue if ALL those homes are on Netflix.

Of course then people ask. "Ok then why not just add more of those node thingies?"

They have in some areas. At great expense. As the entire industry back then was made on the idea of a node serving many customers. Also you have local laws dealing with lines on poles and other things that make running yet more coaxial a nightmare.

The future of the internet is not going to be coaxial. And even Comcast is likely just looking to recover their coaxial investment before starting down fiber.