[UFO Chicago] Comcast Cuts Off Bandwidth Hogs

[Neil R. Ormos]

Brian Sobolak wrote:

> It's funny that this has just come up.  I *just*
> hung up the phone with Speakeasy support.
> Considering I've learned that part of why I'm
> not getting what I pay for bandwidth-wise on DSL
> is because I'm further from the CO than they
> recommend, I was thinking about switching to
> Comcast.

It looks like they're only bothering people at the
high end of usage, which you might not be.

I posted the article because of the Kafka-esque
nature of Comcast's behavior: advertising
"unlimited" service, denying that a limit exists,
later accusing customers of violating the limit
while refusing to specify what it was, futher
denying the limit, and finally terminating the
service.

Although Comcast is the only broadband provider
that has been widely criticized for this kind of
behavior, I wouldn't be surprised when other
carriers adopt this approach in the future.  I
suspect that all large broadband carriers have
provisions in their contract that allow them to
terminate or limit service if, in the carriers'
sole discretion, a customer's usage impacts the
network or other subscribers.

> I want municipal wi-fi in Chicago for a) a cheap
> backup to my existing connection and b) a way to
> scare a bit of price competition into the
> existing broadband providers.  <sigh>

I want *real* broadband: 100 Mbps fiber-to-
the-home, like the services available in Korea and
Japan.  Unfortunately, SBC has adopted a much less
capable fiber-to-the-pedestal technology for their
Lightspeed network, and even Verizon's FiOS FTTH
product is limited compared to the Asian offerings.

--Neil Ormos