FiOS is starting to look better and better. If they're going to tier their system, they should do it in monthly charges, not charging by the GB. The mobile phone providers have finally learned, now the cable company wants to go back in time. How about they focus on rolling out DOCSIS 3.0 and giving the US faster access.

If they're going to charge for every 10GB over 250GB on an unlimited plan, do I get refunds when my speed isn't as advertised? They're just looking to add revenue, and it's a bad move for customer retention. I used to miss Comcast now that I have Time Warner, and was anxious to go back, but now I'll be looking for FiOS.

Looks to me like they're making a strategic move to limit Apple Movie rentals to favor their On Demand service. It is probably looked at as a business threat.

Now this is what I'm talking about for putting in my ATV! It would be pretty slick to have 320GB for holding my whole movie library and song library all w/o needing the computer on all the time. Definitely a step in the right direction!

Also, would the 7200rpm make the ATV menus and such faster since it is not having to touch a slower 5400rpm disk?

I had FiOS before I moved to an area where it's not offered. I only have comcast for the internet, but to get the 6-8Mb speed (when I'm lucky) I had to at least get basic cable as well as internet only service only allowed for 4Mb; I don't watch commercial TV, so I'm paying for something I don't even use just to get the higher offering internet speed. It's about $75 a month! No FiOS, last year anyways, was under $50, no limits, 15Mb download speeds (really damn close to this speed all the time) and no newsgroup download capping. Believe me, if there was some other choice for me (DSL is not it) I'd seriously consider it, if it was FiOS, I'd have it hands down. I hate all cable companies.

It seems reasonable on the surface, but is it a precedence? Will they later start to offer different levels of service at 20, 50, 100, etc.? I fear the "frog in the boiling water" approach is being used here.

Could someone please explain to me how COMCAST loses money when subscribers download more often?

Well, you could look at it in the theoretical way. If you've got some massive downloaders on your network, and they slow down a group of other users, those users may end up switching away from comcast due to 'slow' service.

And lest we forget all that money they have to spend to keep track of everything everyone does, in case the feds, the RIAA, or the like decides they want to do some snooping.

However, in the big picture, try to remember that bandwidth is NOT free. I know everyone thinks it is (or just $50 'unlimited'), but ISPs have to get their bandwidth from higher up providers, who get it from their providers and so forth.

This is why some of them offer things like a 'power boost', which is probably some glorified proxy servers and compression software to reduce the need to access the external internet.

Just remember, the internet is basically a small set of really large networks that happen to interconnect. Everyone else is on some sub-node (or sub-sub-sub-sub-sub node) on that network.

I'm sure Comcast is paying someone for their pipe to the internet and what they pay is based on usage. 14,000 users times 250 gigs = 3,500,000 gigs (3.5 petabytes?)

Comcast pays for every single bit that leaves their network. They may have traffic sharing plans in place to reduce that cost, but in the end, every bit that leaves comcast.net is money flowing away from them.

Drop Comcast as your provider if they do this. It's the only answer to these greedy companies like Comcast. They are in business to provide internet service. If they don't want to be doing this then maybe they should stick with LOUSY CABLE TV SERVICE!!!

It is amusing how every company (Comcast, oil companies, Apple, Microsoft, etc) are all GREEDY b******* when it comes to market conditions and raising prices, even though they are FOR PROFIT companies whose job it is to earn a profit. But almost everyone who says that probably works for a company as their job, and that company, when it has to raise prices due to market conditions, is not greedy, but just realistic. And when these people who believe all these companies are just GREEDY b******* want a pay raise, they are not being greedy are they?

It is hilarious how we have all started to think that we are ENTITLED to things and that someone else should have to pay for it. Whether it is internet access/bandwidth, healthcare, or tuition for college, we are ENTITLED to it. If we don't get it the providers are just being GREEDY.

I actually think this is one of the more rational ideas I've ever seen come from Comcast. 250 GB is nearly 10 iTunes one-hour TV show PER DAY! One poster said what if I'm downloading my 300 GB backup. No problem, they give you a once-per-year freebie. If you are restoring your computer more than once a year, perhaps you should consider getting a Mac. :-)

Of the 0.1% of users who are currently exceeding 250GB/month, I'd bet a good portion are using their bandwidth for business purposes. In that case they shouldn't be on the residential plan anyway.

If this means that they'll stop over-compressing my HD channels, then I'm all for it!

is simple. How much bandwidth am I using even now? I mean, at least the cell companies give you this info so you know what you're using. But you can't say "We're going to charge you if you go over" without giving the customer some way to know what they're using and when they get close to the limit.

This is a really bad Idea, Comcast is the second largest provider in the US today. If we let them cap us, by the way, violates the contract I signed..., then the other providers see that this is the way of the future. I know that 250G seems untouchable by todays honest users, but once this gets "wedged" into your current contract, that 250G will become 50G for the price your paying today. Then you have to fork over more an more capital to continue the lifestyle that your current bandwidth has made you accustom to. I live off my business an I require large amounts of FTP up & downloads to survive. not to mention, I use remote desktop connections to control servers placed around my business area. There are thousand of people like me that this will effect and inflate the already large cost of remote IT services currently in place. Again, 250G might be "generous" right now, but this time next year, It might be to expensive to check your netfix or youtube accounts everyday. I'm surprised that e-commerce sites haven't already red flagged this somehow. Put up some sort of fight.