Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Comcast Cuts Off Users Who Exceed Secret Limit

Journal written by SEWilco (27983) and posted by kdawson on Mon Aug 27, 2007 01:22 AM
from the we-won't-tell-you-and-we-won't-tell-you-why dept.
ConsumerAffairs.com has an article up spotlighting Comcast's tendency to cuts off heavy Internet users without defining in their AUP exactly what the bandwidth limit is. Frank Carreiro of West Jordan, Utah, got cut off by the mystery limit and started a 'Comcast Broadband dispute' blog.

Related Stories

[+] Broadband Providers' Hidden Bandwidth Limits 443 comments
An anonymous reader sends us to the Boston Globe for a story that will come as a surprise to few here: broadband suppliers will cut you off if you download too many bits. It tells the stories of several Comcast users who were warned — without specifics — that they were using "too much" bandwidth, then had their accounts summarily cancelled. Looking into the future: "...even if only a tiny fraction of customers are downloading enough to trigger the policy, that will probably change as more entertainment moves to the Internet."
[+] Comcast Hinders BitTorrent Traffic 537 comments
FsG writes "Over the past few weeks, more and more Comcast users have reported that their BitTorrent traffic is severely throttled and they are totally unable to seed. 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?"
[+] Games: Comcast Slightly Clarifies High Speed Extreme Use Policy 618 comments
Alien54 writes "Comcast has finally clarified what 'excessive use' is when it comes to their cable internet service. A customer is exceeding their use limit if they: download the equivalent of 30,000 songs, 250,000 pictures or 13 million emails in a month. '[A Comcast spokesperson] said that Comcast's actions to cut ties with excessive users is a "great benefit to games and helps protect gamers and their game experience" due to their overuse of the network and thus "degrading the experience."'" Maybe they could put that limit in terms other than 'email' or 'songs'?
[+] Comcast Confirmed as Discriminating Against FileSharing Traffic 532 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Comcast has been singled out as discriminating against filesharing traffic in quantitative tests conducted by the Associated Press. MSNBC's coverage of the discovery is quite even-handed. The site notes that while illegal content trading is a common use of the technology, Bittorrent is emerging as an effective medium for transferring 'weighty' legal content as well. 'Comcast's technology kicks in, though not consistently, when one BitTorrent user attempts to share a complete file with another user. Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer -- it comes from Comcast.'" This is confirmation of anecdotal evidence presented by Comcast users back in August.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • I know the limit! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, @01:24AM (#20368619)
    I have top secret information about the limit. They cap you if ... *internet goes dead*
  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Philotic (957984) on Monday August 27, @01:26AM (#20368631)
    Police are handing out speeding tickets to drivers who exceed secret limit.
    • Re:In other news... (Score:4, Informative)

      Yep so true.

      In many places, such as in Pennsylvania, often the state troopers will give a +15 MPH leeway ... so a driver going 79 MPH in 65 MPH zone would likely *not* get a ticket. Personally, I stick with 5 to 10 MPH over the speed limit max, but I know many people who swear by the +15 MPH rule.

      On a related note, in some states, such as Pennsylvania, some speed detection methods, in particular Vascar (timing), has a +10 MPH leeway ... so again, even in lower speed limit zones, such as a 25, one often can drive nearly 15 MPH over that and likely not get a ticket...

      Of course, if the driver admits speeding even 1 mile over than that above stated leeway likely won't matter... also, some states have "absolute" speed limits - there is no leeway so to speak ... something a driver should be aware of when driving through some small towns that rely on speeding tickets for revenue; PA outlawed radar for most local police decades ago for just that reason and thus many local PA towns are forced to use Vascar instead.

      Often an officer will try to get the driver to admit to speeding and then play nice cop by offering to write a ticket for only going x over the limit, etc.

      Digressed, but there really is a "secret" speed limit in most places, though many drivers quickly figure it out over time...

      I'd imagine similar is true for high-bandwidth users ... many of them have figured out how far they can push it.

      Ron
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pla (258480) on Monday August 27, @04:40AM (#20369445)
      (Last Journal: Monday April 03 2006, @07:23PM)
      Police are handing out speeding tickets to drivers who exceed secret limit.

      I wouldn't have responded (and from the subject, thought one of your child posts had already made this point), but apparently some people don't "get" the problem here...

      When you stay within more-or-less "tolerated" speeds above the posted limit, you do so knowing the posted speed and that, at least theoretically, you could get a ticked if a cop wants to give you a hard time (someone mentioned a few states officially allow a certain headroom - True or not, police always have the nebulous "reckless driving" or "driving to endanger" charge when they can't stick you with anything else).

      With arbitrary broadband caps, what "official but rarely enforced" limit could we stay within to avoid the problem? 5GB/mo? 50? 500? I have no idea, and neither does anyone else in this thread, and that causes the problem here.

      If I violate the TOS, however arbitrary they seem, I can at least take some comfort in the fact that I chose to do so. If I exceed a magical unpublished number, the situation goes from "irregular enforcement of a written policy" to "we don't like you, go away".

      Making this even worse, the local cable franchise almost always has a monopoly or at best a duopoly on broadband service. Imagine if the phone company could drop you because you actually use all that free local calling they offer.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by TheRaven64 (641858) on Monday August 27, @06:44AM (#20370019)
      (http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 07, @07:05AM)
      In Soviet Russia... well, actually in Soviet East Germany, this was a common occurrence for tourists. The police would set up a temporary speed limit just around a corner, and pull over any foreign cars that came past, giving them an on-the-spot fine. The reason for this was that East and West German Marks were nominally worth the same amount, so most visitors from the west just paid in their own currency, which was he only thing you could spend in certain shops that sold imported goods. If you offered to pay with East German Marks, they would let you through, since they weren't worth the effort.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:In other news... by rograndom (Score:2) Monday August 27, @08:53AM
    • Re:In other news... by neoform (Score:2) Monday August 27, @09:42AM
    • Re:In other news... by CoderJoe (Score:1) Tuesday August 28, @04:07PM
  • Only a 100 GB cap? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xizer (794030) on Monday August 27, @01:27AM (#20368637)
    I've got to be honest here... I'd take an invisible high bandwidth cap over something as low as 100 GB. I can rarely download less than 150 GB per month. Yeah, it's pretty lame of Comcast to be cutting off customers using a large amount of bandwidth, but from the sounds of it they're randomly cutting off users who consume more than 200 GB of bandwidth per month. Invisible caps are also better than set caps because set caps tend to be pretty low in general. However, when an ISP has an invisible cap, it often takes more bandwidth usage than it would be if it was a visible cap to grab their attention.
    • not sure (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kardar (636122) on Monday August 27, @01:52AM (#20368781)
      I think that ultimately the question that came about (and of course no one REALLY knows (which is the problem)) was that some folks began wondering if the data was incorrect - in other words - if the bandwidth numbers were mistakenly attributed to an individual who hadn't actually used anywhere near that much.

      In other words - digging into the details, it became obvious that one very strong possibility was that (again, no one REALLY knows (which is the problem)) the person who got contacted was not the person who generated the bandwidth. In other words, Comcast keeps asking the poor fellow to cut back, they're looking at 250-300 gigs on their end, while the poor fellow is actually doing about 20-30 gigs and cutting back to even less than that. No matter how much the subscriber cuts back, the next month, erroneous data comes in again - Comcast's info is that he's done another 200+ gigs that month. So this ends up where they cut him off for 12 months (true story). There was no other logical explanation (other than the subscriber lying (which is a possibility, or course)).

      This is where the secrecy creates problems, really. Sure, maybe an invisible something or another is better than a low explicit one, but you can't defend yourself if they've got it wrong, because there's no documentation. They don't even always tell the subscriber how much the subscriber has downloaded, and it appears that they may even lie about that. They don't want anyone knowing anything, basically. "Just cut back".

      But "Just cut back" doesn't cut it when it's not you, now does it?

      It's one thing to have rules, it's another thing to have flexible rules. But no matter how flexible those rules are, if you have this absolute secrecy thing going on, you stand no chance of defending yourself if you actually haven't done it and someone gets something mixed up somewhere.

      Having a "counter" on your account - where you log into your account online and see how much you've downloaded, for instance - if you see data on there that isn't you, or if it's going up too fast, you can be proactive and call in and say "something's wrong here". If, for instance, the gigs are accumulating, and you disconnect your modem - pull it out of the wall -- and the gigs are still accumulating, then you can call in and notify. This isn't ME doing it. But if they won't even tell you how much you downloaded to get the call, or if they lie about it, (again, no one REALLY knows what happened (which is the problem)), how are you to trust that data is actually accurate? That it's not a mixup somewhere?

      In that one particular situation, it did in fact appear that Comcast got the subscribers data mixed up (they actually turned the subscriber's internet back ON). They cancelled the 12-month cancellation because they reviewed their records and they figured out that it wasn't him doing it - they got it mixed up with someone else. The subscriber was downloading 15-30, and their data was saying 250-350. Month after month after month. Try cutting back on that!

      It's creepy, is what it is. It's too secretive - you can't defend yourself. There's no data - no documentation.

      They really ought to change the way they do this - it's very, very creepy.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Only a 100 GB cap? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DDLKermit007 (911046) on Monday August 27, @02:55AM (#20369019)
      Hey, at least it isn't DirecWay (or whatever they call themselves these days). I just got a client off of their services due to them clamping down HARD on bandiwth limits (Cable & DSL don't reach them). 375MB transfer PER day is allowed. If you go over that, the next 24 hours your stuck with 3KB down. If you download too much during that period they nock you off for a day or two entirely. It's something they started doing 3 or 4 months ago. Another case of a provider overselling, and not delivering. My client now has a Sprint EV-DO USB adapter. Same price, lower max (burst) speed, lower latency, and just works a hell of allot better. Sprint is a pain in the ass, but their limits are FAR higher than what a real estate agent will ever use.

      I can't wait for the day Cox pisses at me over doing 300GB+ a month on my connection though. It's a more pricey business account, but I know they'll do it eventually.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Only a 100 GB cap? by Frogbert (Score:2) Monday August 27, @04:12AM
    • Re:Only a 100 GB cap? by forgotten_my_nick (Score:2) Monday August 27, @04:48AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • InsightBB went through this all this past year... by MasaMuneCyrus (Score:2) Monday August 27, @08:58AM
    • Re:Only a 100 GB cap? by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (Score:2) Monday August 27, @11:29AM
    • Re:Only a 100 GB cap? by lennier (Score:1) Monday August 27, @07:12PM
    • Re:Only a 100 GB cap? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Seumas (6865) on Monday August 27, @02:56AM (#20369025)
      I received a warning phone call from the Comcast "security" department a few months ago.

      With an invisible limit, you have no idea what to tone down.

      With a cap, at least you know what to hover around.

      A lot of people argue that if you tell people what the limit is, they'll just abuse that limit to the max all the can. But if you're already using more than they want you to use and they're notifying you to reduce your usage, then telling you a limit to stay under can only HELP.

      I telecommute and I'm online 24x7. I stream high quality radio all day long. I watch a lot of streaming movies. I download a lot of stuff. I play a lot of games online. I download a lot of (legal) downloads from bit torrent. Just a high quality streaming radio station running during business hours over the period of a month will easily reach 80gb. They advertise all these "high media uses" for their fast download speeds, yet then they penalize you if you actually use it for that? If two people in your home listen to a lot of radio, that's 160gb/mo. Don't even think about video.

      My internet usage has remained relatively the same for the last three years. Unlike your grandma who uses her 8mbps connection to check her email and the whether, I actually make heavy use of mine. Probably more than most people I know. I don't want to abuse anything. But I don't want to be denied internet access for an entire year, either (and in America, cable has a monopoly on broadband unless you live right down the street from a central office for DSL).

      Anyway, my usage has remained the same for about three years. Then out of nowhere I get a call a couple months ago warning me that I will be terminated if I don't reduce my use. I ask them what I should stay under and they said "there's no set limit". I asked them to at least GIVE ME AN IDEA. They said they could not. However, they did warn me that if I ever go over this limit that they can't tell me about again *EVER* they will ban me for a year.

      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.

      So, I asked if I could buy additional services. A bigger account? Pay for extra bandwidth? Buy a second broadband account to the same address for another $60/mo? Nope. They just have the one service. That's it. If you want more -- even if you're willing to pay for it -- fuck you.

      So I keep a very close eye on the bandwidth reported by my router every other day and come the end of the month -- I get jittery. I think they ban you based on if you're in the highest usage percentage for that month in your area. By that logic, someone is ALWAYS going to be in the top 10%. Period. So every month SOMEONE is going to get banned, right? So if everyone is at home playing on the internet last month, my usage may be fine. But if everyone in the region is on vacation or busy at work and not using their connection at home, that same usage *this month* might get me banished.

      And as you pointed out, they won't cut you off the first time. But they won't tell you what to reduce it by, either. And what is fine one month -- since you're compared with the current average use in your area -- might get you a second notice (and a ban for a year) the next month.

      I'm quite pleased my taxes go to assist in monopolies such as this.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:_Only_ 100 GB?? by Seumas (Score:2) Monday August 27, @03:02AM
    • Re:_Only_ 100 GB?? by WhatAmIDoingHere (Score:2) Monday August 27, @07:40AM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • This sounds like a good case for breach of contract. Why has nobody sued?

    • Re:Sounds like a breach of contract by Fedhax (Score:2) Monday August 27, @02:01AM
      • Ruled unconscionable for AT&T already (Score:5, Informative)

        by Moraelin (679338) on Monday August 27, @04:44AM (#20369465)
        (Last Journal: Monday June 21 2004, @04:25PM)
        Wasn't that exact same clause ruled unconscionable for AT&T already? I'm pretty sure there was a story about that on Slashdot's front page a couple of weeks ago. So the precedent already exists.

        And frankly, while IANAL, it should have been obviously so all along, even in corporation-owned USA. A clause saying "if you have any grievance with me, I'm the sole judge, jury and executioner on that" just isn't how the rule of the law was supposed to work. It's not just a blatant conflict of interest all the way, it's essentially proclaiming someone exempt from the laws and rules that bind everyone else.

        The contract is _not_ sacrosanct and doesn't override laws in any civilized country. E.g., you can't sell yourself into slavery even if you wanted to, because there's a law against that. Otherwise everyone would sneak "you are now my property" in the fine print or some would go beat someone up until they sign such a contract.

        Heck, AFAIK even in the USA there is this provision that contract clauses that are unexpected and unreasonable to a normal person, are essentially worthless. If you rent a car from my hypothetical car loan shop, I can't come afterwards and say "ha ha, in the small print says I now own your home and I just adopted your firstborn too", because that's clauses which don't belong there and aren't expected. I certainly can't see how an "I'm above the law" clause would be any more allowed.

        So it's just one of those crap EULA-type clauses that's there just to hopefully scare you into believing it, not because it's actually legal or enforceable. Some corporations figured out that instead of just lobbying for more power, they'll just claw away at your rights by just telling you that you're bound to give them some powers, and hoping that you'll actually believe it.

        Disturbingly enough, it seems to actually work.
        [ Parent ]
    • Re:Sounds like a breach of contract by gowen (Score:1) Monday August 27, @02:59AM
    • Re:Sounds like a breach of contract by animelover4all (Score:1) Monday August 27, @05:17AM
    • Re:Sounds like a breach of contract by Mr. Underbridge (Score:2) Monday August 27, @07:05AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Gotta love it... by Shwaffle (Score:1) Monday August 27, @01:36AM
  • Is it still advertised as unlimited? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zakezuke (229119) on Monday August 27, @01:38AM (#20368685)
    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?
    • I believe this issue was settled some time ago, there might have been a lawsuit, but I couldn't find any information.

      To summarize, "unlimited" is an old term from the days of dialup modems, and refers to the maximum amount of time you are allowed to stay dialed in and connected: minutes per session, hours per month, and so on. With today's modern broadband connections, kept always-on and connected 24/7, referring to them as "unlimited" is correct. The definition, unfortunately, is old.

      However, this says nothing about the bandwidth you are allowed to use. This is today's top issue. We really need another definition to describe this.

      With dialup modems, few people really cared about bandwidth consumption, as they were so slow that they didn't make much of an impact, even when continually ran at top speed. With today's fast broadband connections, you can consume a lot of bandwidth in a hurry, and to be affordable at residential prices, they are deliberately oversold.

      There's a reason a T1 line still costs $600+/month. You're allowed to run anything and everything over it, no filtering, no capping, and to keep it maxed out at full wire speed, both uplo