I hate ISP's more and more every single day.

And how will this affect business subscribers as they often host their own websites and email servers in addition to multiple people using the internet?

Hmmmmm. If implemented correctly (that is a big if) this actually sounds like a reasonable approach to manage traffic and ensure the best service for the largest number of users. It's certainly better than imposing caps.

And how do you define an internet hog? You pay a monthly service charge for say up to 8mbps, are you a hog if you utilize 100% of what you're paying for?

So the people who use your product the most, and are the most saavy about your product get crippled.
Your Aunt who occasionally forwards you emails with lots of animated gifs of kittens and "really funny" photos and chain letters will feel no pain.

Personally, I think that one of the main reasons the cable providers are doing this sort of thing is to undercut online video delivery before it starts to compete too heavily with their television service offerings.

This actually sounds like the most reasonable approach I've heard so far. I still don't like it, but it's the least evil.

How do they define "heavy" though? I don't know a lot about the technical side of this stuff but it sounds pretty vague. Or is it just relative - in a certain area the heaviest 25% or whatever gets reined in?

Fantastic marketing ploy!

1) Make higher speed services available, knowing that heavy users are most likely to go to the highest pricing tier.
2) Charge top tier (speed) users more money.
3) Throttle those same users back down to a lower level "to make the Internet better for everyone."
4) Higher profits for the company!

@johnva: ohhh, that's a sinisterly good thought. There was a study done not too long ago showing that video sites were the largest bandwidth guzzlers. This would certainly at least limit them to a point.

Comcast is surely the Antichrist of telecommunications. It really isn't news anymore to find out that they have cooked up another scheme to screw their customers. I expect that of them.

It is a shame that companies have lost sight of the happy medium between profit and consumer satisfaction. They don't care that they foster a hate relationship with their customers. I think this attitude is going to pave the way for a new breed of companies to spring up that are more consumer oriented. People are just itching for consumer-friendly alternatives and are ready to pay golden dollars for them.

So if I like using iTunes and Netflix to watch movies, I'm screwed?

Guys, this is NECESSARY and the LEAST UNPLEASANT option.

Especially with DOCSIS (the cable modem standard), a few heavy users can mess up everyone else's internet traffic. Without user-fairness based allocation, the system just doesn't work under heavy load for the bulk of the users.

And until you shift to a usage-based pricing, these heavy users are NOT a benefit to the ISP, rather a cost. In flat-rate pricing, it is in the ISP's interest to keep the 95% of the users who aren't heavy bandwidth hogs happy, and if it ticks off the bandwidth hogs, so?

at least this is better than charging for every gb over 40 in a month *cough*....Time Warner....*cough*

This system sounds better than the one proposed by Time Warner where they actually cap your usage and charge you for any overages, which they're testing in TX now. [arstechnica.com] At least Comcast is just throttling it. With TW's system I imagine that about 10 Netflix streamed movies will put you at or really close to your limit and heaven help you if you download mp3s.

Maybe they shouldn't sell the user a 3mb pipe if they aren't willing to let the user use 3mb? Just a crazy thought.

Are there any non-evil high bandwidth ISPs? I don't use Comcast, but I hate my current ISP almost as much.

So penalizing people for actually using the service they pay for is ok now?

@suburbancowboy: They are dealing with a "Tragedy of the Commons", and IF done properly, could be a good solution. Of course, this is Comcast and a big IF, so they will screw the pooch on this one.

On a congested network, you simply have to drop packets. A good strategy on selecting what packets to drop can insure the best service for the most users. This is much better than forging RST packets killing perfectly valid sessions.

I'm already fed up with the fact that Comcast apparently doesn't realize that people might actually, sorta, kinda want to relay mail through a third party SMTP server (eg: say, a guy who owns multiple domains and a VPS server that hosts blogs and such), so they block both incoming and outgoing SMTP ports. Nice of them, eh?

Now they're crippling service because people are using it too much. God forbid they deliver the service they were contracted to deliver. If this goes nationwide, I suppose I'll be seeking a new service provider. Comcast has been pretty solid but between this, the SMTP issue, and the fact that I've been offline for 2 days due to a cable cut in my neighborhood.. and the installers has missed a second appointment now to fix it, I'm pretty sure I'll be finding some other means to connect to the Internet.

Comcast is already throttling YouTube. Can't confirm on other video sites but videos on YouTube take longer to buffer and play on Comcast than on other ISPs.

@darkrose: Screw port 25...Port 587 FTW

God forbid they invest in some infrastructure to improve their network so they can handle the current load.

If this works right this is actually a decent idea.

I really want to know what Comcast defines as a "ordinary Internet user"...

I must be one of these "Internet hogs". After all - I am watching YouTube videos, listening to music, playing games and reading blogs online.

I have a helluva time getting Netflix to work properly, too.

I sometimes wonder why I haven't received a letter from them; between Netflix and Usenet, I have got to be a "heavy" user.

Since the future of everything is data, you'd think they would want to build a network that could support it.

Verizon DSL FTW!

@crabbyman6: It's not just websites they are worried about. They are probably especially worried about Web-based video appliances that plug into TVs, as those could essentially destroy their monopoly on video delivery by offering the same convenience of television with much wider choices and probably lower prices. Personally I think they should just accept that that is the future and gradually move more and more of their delivery bandwidth to Internet uses, but I doubt they like that option because they wouldn't have monopoly control over content anymore.

@acasto: You must not rape torrent daily like I do, please stay silent and be complacent of of giving up rights to the internet in your own home. The NET should stay as unregulated as possible. If we let the corperation take this inch, next year it'll be another.. and another... until its 100% fully metered and tracked on all levels and no longer "annonymous".

@nweaver: The necessary option is to have ISP's sell services that they can provide in the first place, and not to upsell services that they realistically don't have.

The tragedy of the commons remark was right on. When there is a limited resource and demand exceeds those limits, something has to give and this sounds as fair as anything. I'd rather limit the heavy user than the light user. Anything else seems a bit perverse...'Sorry Aunt Jane, you can't send your cute heart and puppy filled email...now hold on while I download another multi-gigabyte file'. The best point I've seen made against the policy has to do with advertising more than can be delivered. But surely there is some disclaimer there...i.e. 'UP TO 3 mb' or whatever. Given that performance varies with network conditions this seems reasonable.

@tehronin: Since when do you have a right to the internet in your own home?

@johnva: Yeah, but nothing quite like that exists yet for TV, though the Netflix box is close. I think another of their big concerns is individual networks streaming their shows online. The only option they really have is to upgrade their infrastructure and I think they're working on it, but who knows, and if this is already in place I'm sure they won't revoke it. Like you said though, it all comes down to them losing their monopoly control over providing TV which is why they fought Verizon on getting TV content. Luckily, I have FIOS in my area and the speed is consistent all times of the day unlike when I had Comcast.

@crabbyman6: Since this all about monopolism, I would hope that the government would step in and try to stop them from barring video competition from the Internet. That's what I really see the whole Net Neutrality thing as being about. It's fine if Comcast, et al want to just sell a crappy Internet service that isn't capable of supporting video. I'm sure they won't fare that well in the free market if they make that choice. It's not fine with me if they try to selectively degrade online video just to preserve their monopoly.

I read somewhere else about a 250gig monthly limit (better then the 40 gig that time warner or whoever was talking about) - and would mostly target those who have high volume during their busiest parts of the day.

I use Comcast - and I use a lot of Comcast, and things that I have asked for about my unlimited usage plan that I signed up for:

1. What is the limit? (up and down)
2. What time of day is the slowest?

If I know these things, I could easily throttle back my usage during the "busy" part of the days, and throttle up my usage during the non "busy" part of the day... and could easily set limits to stay under whatever limit they have.

... but they will never tell me what the imaginary limit was, and not give me any help on helping control my own usage other then saying that I was using too much.

I'm happy to help - but they have to give me the information I need to do my part.

@johnva: Yes, I see Net Neutrality as a protection over potential monopolies in situations like this. Also to prevent the ISP from milking revenue from a source that shouldn't be. However, I'm not really sure this would fall under Net Neutrality even, since they're throttling EVERYTHING "for the good of the system". This will certainly hinder internet TV and movies, but they can say this is a necessary step to protect their network integrity, or some other BS, while in effect doing exactly what they want to anyway. Also, in some cases Comcast has a monopoly over the internet also when you're too far from a DSL hub and Comcast is the only cable provider available. The FCC slapped them with a fine for picking and choosing to throttle bit torrent, which is definitely a step toward Net Neutrality, but what can you do when they're throttling everything?

S Korea and many others have 100Mb service. But here in the US, the inventors of the Internet, we piddle along with 1-15Mb as "broadband".

@crabbyman6: I think the only possible relief will be for there to be more competition in ISPs. Hopefully more wireless Internet options will proliferate (due to lower startup costs) and technology will save us from Comcast or force them to reform.

Seems to me that if you want to make this a "fair" idea for both user and Comcast.. anytime Comcast knowingly, and willfully throttles any given individuals service due to a previous record of high use, and current system demand, so long as that individual has otherwise remained withing the TOS agreement, that Comcast should reimburse the individual for their lost activity. This does not create a slippery slope for customers to demand reimbursement anytime the network slows, as there are from time to time upgrades that must be made, and network slowdowns that do happen. I am referring only to instances where a high use customer who is otherwise "playing by the rules" has been willfully throttled. It is called "Due Consideration" and I don't mean that comcast is being considerate... both parties should benefit from any change in the TOS agreement (especially if there is a contract involved)

Here in Canada Rogers has a 95GB cap. I'm right below that at 60GB, and Apple TV and other services will never pick up here because with one 2GB film you're slowly just eating away at the bandwidth. With Youtube alone I blew threw 6GB in four days. I couldn't believe it. Screw the bandwidth cap, make it 200GB, they charge enough.

@nweaver: Ugh. It is NOT necessary by any strech of the imagination, it's Comcast's spectacular corporate greed. If you look outside the US and Canada you will see that we're soooo far behind Europe and Asia that it ain't even funny. Doing IT work from home, plus YouTube, ITunes, etc, etc... I'm glad (for the moment anyway) that I'm with Time Warner.

In reality the lack of real competition for broadband services in the US has killed innovation here, not DOCSIS standards. If you can get those amazing broadband speeds in Asia for pennies, there is no logical reason we shouldn't be able to get them here too, at a reasonable price.

These companies need to have their 'rights of way' threatened if they continue to pull this sort of crap. They are virtually monopolies (or are monopolies) depending upon where you live. We already pay some of the highest prices in the world for what is poor service when compared to other developed countries.

Out of all the options short of improving their network (because Comcast obviously can't spare the money for it, especially since they need it to fund R&D into how to slow people down), this seems the best. None of this cap stuff where people are just ripped off even more (No benefit for the I-only-check-email crowd, and I bet they studied the average traffic just to put their cap below it). Why couldn't they have just done this in the first place? JollyJumjuck also made a good point about how that technology had better factor in what the user paid for.

I don't know about the conspiracy of impeding web TV (though I wouldn't put it past them, especially after claims of purposefully degrading Vonage), but I think there should AT LEAST be regulation concerning upselling. I know that they cover themselves with the up-to thing, but I would still call it false advertising if 90% of users can never expect to get anywhere close to the promise. It would be like advertising a car that gets 40 MPG* (*In a test environment, going downhill, on the moon). I remember, during the BT-Comcast episode, Comcast said they may have 400 houses on a node. A commenter on that article said that his networking teacher said 100 is excessive. So, a conservative estimate says they are overselling by over 400%. Imagine if an airline tried to get away with that.

It just figures, too - I'm planning on buying a house in Chambersburg at the end of August.

So let me get this straight, if you pay for internet service you might not get the service? If you lose service, which is something you pay for, then you shouldn't have to pay full price. Afterall if you dont pay they cut your service, if they don't provide service then you shouldn't pay.

Too bad it doesn't work like that. They can rape whoever and get away with it.

What's next? Capping TV watching? That is something you pay for unlimted access too. The fact you or I or anyone else uses their unlimted access more shouldn't mean you get punished for it. They should use all that free money they get from "light users" and reinvest it into the company to provide better service. Instead they will sit back and get fat.

Given the ubiquitousness and near necessity of the internet these days, I think the most logical step would be to treat it like a utility where you pay for what you use. Yes, those of us who do a lot of online gaming, downloading, and video services would be paying more, but that's how it SHOULD be. People who use it pay for it and it'd end up being largely self-regulating. And the ISPs could always offer "unlimited" packages for a higher cost.

Of course, utilities that charge for usage (electricity, oil, etc.) have a minimal or zero monthly fixed cost. This $45/month for internet would have to go away, and that's something they'll refuse to do.

@Darkwish: nothing...unless they are using and paying a residential rate. Then, it's, "blame the victim," time.

I think they should increase their network capacity, but this is whole heaps better than cutting out your traffic (IE, you pay for unlimited access, and they give you denial of service).

@suburbancowboy: If done correctly, you will barely notice. It probably won't be, of course. Your connection gets slower when everyone else is using the pipes. This will just make it a wee touch slower for you, but make it far faster for those that conservatively use it. If the implementation is good, of course.

If you normally would get 700KB/, and are dropped to 600KB/s while traffic is heavy, boo hoo.

Being a cable company, especially this one, though, don't let those ifs go. The fact that they are just getting around to it now shows that they are about as on-the-ball as GM...and with less liability, to boot.

Volume based pricing seems fair to me. I am willing to pay for my 1-3 GB per day in consumption. The next guy can pay for his 40GB per consumption and will pay more, while my mom will pay the least because she never hits more than 10MB per day.

@snazzycarrot:

The problem is that the resource doesnt HAVE to be limited. Comcast just wants to keep taking our money and then not REINVEST it in more infrastructure so that they could support EVERYONE being an internet hog.