Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AppleTV and trying to curb data usage (aka Goddamn You, Comcast)
- Thread starter mhilferty108
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Here in S. Florida Comcast posts that "the 250 gig data cap has been temporarily suspended" while they test new fee structures in other markets. It's been saying that for at least the last three years. I've gone over 300 gigs a couple of times with no repercussions. Unfortunately for you Atlanta must be one of those "test" markets.
No let's ban caps all together. Or put them so high that the only legitimate way you could reach them is if you were running a server. For cellphones there is at least a grey area where towers may get overwhelmed. For home broadband there is absolutely no case for caps but corporate greed.
I agree about banning caps altogether.
It seems to me that a high "legitimate" cap would always be a moving target and thus always be susceptible to the ISPs abuse. Somewhere in that Comcast FAQ I quoted (about them suspending their data cap) they say that the average home uses 25 gigs a month. That may have been true when it was first posted but today it's laughable.
I'd personally love to see, either for broadband or mobile, is the elimination of data caps in exchange for a prioritization scheme. Rather than limit the amount of data you can actually send/receive, you start at a priority level which degrades over a billing cycle as you use data. If there's minimal contention for resources, having a low priority doesn't matter, but when the bandwidth is busiest, those with the highest priority get first dibs.
Plans would set the starting priority and the rate of degradation, so that power users can pay for the privilege of getting better access at peak times while not artificially cutting off someone who does large data transfers at off-peak.
Plans would set the starting priority and the rate of degradation, so that power users can pay for the privilege of getting better access at peak times while not artificially cutting off someone who does large data transfers at off-peak.
I actually find that a little odd, because I have 6Mbps from U-Verse, and it does fine for me... Now, in fairness, I'm a single guy, so I only have a single stream going at once, but even with my regular surfing happening at the same time (no other video streams), I can stream 1080p Movies and TV Shows from iCloud with maybe 5 seconds load time, and by two-thirds of the way through or so, the show is completely loaded where I can fast forward as much as I want.
I'd say it'd have to be 6Mbps "per person" because I don't think any slower would be workable, but 25 Mbps just to do a single stream of iTunes quality video... that should very much be overkill. (In theory, you should have the video downloaded in about 10 minutes, according to download speed calculators.)
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Theoretical (speeds) does not equal reality. Set up a download and keep the bar on screen. Is it nice & steady or is it jumping and then stopping?
But the bigger point was that some are suggesting Google Fiber coming to town will be the savior for the threat of a Comcast or Uverse raising broadband rates should an Apple or similar take their TV subscription revenue. It implied that Google would drive broadband pricing down but the reality of GF where it is already in place is that it is generally HIGHER priced NOW.
AND GF is also in the TV cable business and would also feel the TV subscription loss revenue pains of an Apple taking their TV business.
So I stand by my suggestion that GF is no savior and that should an Apple succeed in taking cable's TV business, the Cable TV players (Google included) will just make up for any losses with higher prices for broadband.
But the bigger point was that some are suggesting Google Fiber coming to town will be the savior for the threat of a Comcast or Uverse raising broadband rates should an Apple or similar take their TV subscription revenue. It implied that Google would drive broadband pricing down but the reality of GF where it is already in place is that it is generally HIGHER priced NOW.
AND GF is also in the TV cable business and would also feel the TV subscription loss revenue pains of an Apple taking their TV business.
So I stand by my suggestion that GF is no savior and that should an Apple succeed in taking cable's TV business, the Cable TV players (Google included) will just make up for any losses with higher prices for broadband.
Last edited:
that was just an IDEA...I don't know any that have it, just a thought
That would be good.
I have an AppleTV and use it for some movies and the kids watch cartoons on it in the AM, and maybe PM. We generally use 90-150GB per month.
That is me NOT downloading music, or movies to a computer. I just use AppleTV and then download stuff at work.
I know with Fios, I'd sometimes download quite a few movies to computer to watch later. with Comcast I knew they have the Data Cap and decided to take a break.
Well, this has turned into quite the discussion.
To answer Beachguy's question, yes, it was absolutely necessary. I pay for internet. I pay for physical and digital content. Now I'm strong-armed into paying for /more/ internet to watch that content, or not watch that content in its intended presentation.
To steer the conversation back. it seems that Hulu does respond to the quality restrictions, whereas HBO Go does not. I will test further with actual numbers.
To answer Beachguy's question, yes, it was absolutely necessary. I pay for internet. I pay for physical and digital content. Now I'm strong-armed into paying for /more/ internet to watch that content, or not watch that content in its intended presentation.
To steer the conversation back. it seems that Hulu does respond to the quality restrictions, whereas HBO Go does not. I will test further with actual numbers.
For the record, I agree with Beachguy. I should not have to be objected to the blasphemous and revolting word "Comcast" just reading through thread titles on a forum!
I know this is an old thread but it came out at the top of my google search results so I wanted to give it a bump. Our Comcast didn't have a cap until a few months ago. Now they cap us at 1TB, which seems like a lot. I pay for Comcast at boht our home and my mom's. We just upgraded to 75mbps (from 25mbps) and I was totally shocked to get an e-mail from Comcast, just 2.5 weeks into the month, that she was 100gb from the cap! What the heck? She's 75 years old and uses facebook, VOIP for phone service and Directvnow for her television. How was this possible. So, I check the settings on her AppleTV and see that is can use up to 7gb per hour (and she has the TV on all the time). So now, even my mom who just does what I think is retty typical streaming is going to exceed the cap for this month because the AppleTV was set to auto. Dang it! I actually unplugged her for the rest of the month and she will need to watch the few channels we get over antenna, but I'm pretty stunned that her usage was considered excessive...
Welcome to the "flip side" of cord cutting. If Comcast can't get your money from cable they will get it from data. Streaming = data usage, and data = money in the pockets of the ISPs. Even if you throttle the ATVs data usage you may find that mom's 24/7 TV habit may not make sense in a data capped world. Comcast will let you go truly unlimited for an extra $50 a month. You may want to do the math and decide if unlimited data or a limited cable package (less anything you're paying for DTVNow) makes sense.
