Comcast extends 1.2TB monthly Xfinity data cap to nearly all customers

Posted:
in General Discussion
Comcast plans to implement monthly data caps for Xfinity home internet customers across nearly its entire service area in 2021.

Credit: Comcast
Credit: Comcast


The data cap will be 1.2 terabytes a month, and will apply to a slew of states in the northeastern U.S. starting in 2021. A similar cap is already in effect for non-unlimited customers across most of the other areas that Comcast services.

Starting in March, non-unlimited customers who exceed 1.2TB a month will be charged $10 per additional 50GB of data over that limit. The maximum additional charge per month is $100.

To ease users into the new caps, Comcast will give Xfinity customers who aren't on an unlimited plan a credit for any usage over that data cap in January and February.

Comcast will implement the new data caps in Connecticut; Delaware; Massachusetts; Maryland; Maine; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New York; Pennsylvania; Virginia, Vermont; West Virginia; Washington, D.C.; and parts of North Carolina and Ohio.

According to the internet service provider, 95% of its customers don't hit the 1.2TB-a-month threshold.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,724member
    We did and used our one free overage so next time it will cost. We have gigabit service and because of COVID we’ve been watching too much TV. Big Sur is a 12GB download so we’ll eat up a bunch with that. 
    philboogie
  • Reply 2 of 32
    I despise this company with a passion. Talk about monopolists, they just extort whatever the market will bear. In the SF area Sonic is destroying them with $50/month uncapped fiber service (Comcast charges more than double for their crappy gigabit capped service and its pathetic upload speeds)
    Caps are just another way they found to maximize profits. Mind you, Cox in Las Vegas is even worse, charging more for less. In every market, whenever a provider has a monopoly on fast broadband, they take advantage and fleece users. It’s about time that PoS Ajit Pai get shown the door and we see some regulation in this area.
    ronnp-dogOferjay3000Dogperson
  • Reply 3 of 32
    I specifically left Comcast for this reason. They gave me the same line about “95% of users not hitting the limit” but apparently I’m in the 5%. I have a 6 person household with a slew of device (phones, iPads, laptops, consoles, etc) and we primarily stream all our TV. Every month I was over the 1TB limit so I had to either pay overages or an additional $50 a month for unlimited. Switched to AT&T and I now get unlimited data automatically since I have TV service with them as well. I will 1000% NEVER use Comcast again or suggest anyone does. EVER. 

    These caps are 100% artificial and if 95% don’t hit them, what’s the point? Comcast has already stated the caps are not due to congestion or network management. 
    edited November 2020 ronnp-dogDogpersonthtcharlesatlas
  • Reply 4 of 32
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,640member
    No data caps with Charter/Spectrum in the midwest... SO FAR.
    JWSCravnorodom
  • Reply 5 of 32
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,350member
    Gigabit Att Fiber with no limit here.  $80/mo.  
    thtfocher
  • Reply 6 of 32
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,053member
    Everyone here is bitching about market economics that are ultimately self correcting.  One bitches about Comcast being a monopoly but, in SF Sonic is beating them on cost.  Another bitches about Comcast and then moves to AT&T.  What do you guys want - the Government to regulate everything and stifle infrastructure development?  Come on!

    You must acknowledge that a small percentage of households are extreme bandwidth users compared to the rest.  It’s not necessarily fair to the rest that this small percentage take advantage of everyone else’s bandwidth.

    We don’t necessarily have to like any of these companies.  But they do spend billions on infrastructure.  Do you want that to continue?  All I’m saying is, be careful what you wish for.  You may get it.
    georgie01
  • Reply 7 of 32
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,323administrator
    JWSC said:
    Everyone here is bitching about market economics that are ultimately self correcting.  One bitches about Comcast being a monopoly but, in SF Sonic is beating them on cost.  Another bitches about Comcast and then moves to AT&T.  What do you guys want - the Government to regulate everything and stifle infrastructure development?  Come on!

    You must acknowledge that a small percentage of households are extreme bandwidth users compared to the rest.  It’s not necessarily fair to the rest that this small percentage take advantage of everyone else’s bandwidth.

    We don’t necessarily have to like any of these companies.  But they do spend billions on infrastructure.  Do you want that to continue?  All I’m saying is, be careful what you wish for.  You may get it.
    Not everybody has the same options that you do in SF. I only have to go about 30 miles south or west of DC for there to be only one provider -- Comcast.
    ronnp-dogFidonet127williamhjay3000Dogpersonllamadewmecharlesatlas
  • Reply 8 of 32
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,053member
    lkrupp said:
    No data caps with Charter/Spectrum in the midwest... SO FAR.
    Here in Tucson we have AT&T unlimited data with four iPhones and 2 Apple watches - 6 lines total for $300+ a month.  It’s expensive but fast and reliable.  AT&T will throttle data above a certain limit.  We have received warnings about approaching the data throttling limit but have never actually crossed the line.
  • Reply 9 of 32
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,053member
    JWSC said:
    Everyone here is bitching about market economics that are ultimately self correcting.  One bitches about Comcast being a monopoly but, in SF Sonic is beating them on cost.  Another bitches about Comcast and then moves to AT&T.  What do you guys want - the Government to regulate everything and stifle infrastructure development?  Come on!

    You must acknowledge that a small percentage of households are extreme bandwidth users compared to the rest.  It’s not necessarily fair to the rest that this small percentage take advantage of everyone else’s bandwidth.

    We don’t necessarily have to like any of these companies.  But they do spend billions on infrastructure.  Do you want that to continue?  All I’m saying is, be careful what you wish for.  You may get it.
    Not everybody has the same options that you do in SF. I only have to go about 30 miles south or west of DC for there to be only one provider -- Comcast.
    That sucks.  But alternatives, some with OK service and some extremely bad service such as HughsNet are available now.  And Starlink is coming.  The market is not stagnant.
  • Reply 10 of 32
    I think my name lets you know what I think about this.
    Oferphilboogiejay3000Dogpersonlordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 11 of 32
    JWSC said:
    Everyone here is bitching about market economics that are ultimately self correcting.  One bitches about Comcast being a monopoly but, in SF Sonic is beating them on cost.  Another bitches about Comcast and then moves to AT&T.  What do you guys want - the Government to regulate everything and stifle infrastructure development?  Come on!

    You must acknowledge that a small percentage of households are extreme bandwidth users compared to the rest.  It’s not necessarily fair to the rest that this small percentage take advantage of everyone else’s bandwidth.

    We don’t necessarily have to like any of these companies.  But they do spend billions on infrastructure.  Do you want that to continue?  All I’m saying is, be careful what you wish for.  You may get it.
    You seem to be assuming there is completion.  For a lot, if not most of the US that just isn't true.  And Comcast has worked hard and spent a lot of money to make sure it has no completion.  Broadband in the US is the very antithesis of a free and open market.  The government do in fact regulate broadband buy restricting who can enter markets.  So yea, I'd like to see the regulation changed to allow competition, not hand incumbents wads of cash.
    ronnDogpersonlordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 12 of 32
    Here it is Comcast with good speeds, Verizon DSL or Satellite. We have Xfinity Mobile and that gives us cheap cell service. 
  • Reply 13 of 32
    50€/month for 2Gb/s down - 600Mb/s up, with unlimited calls to landlines and mobile phones in Europe, US and Canada, and 150 TV channels.
    No data cap.
    That's in France.
    And there are way cheaper alternatives.

    Telecom prices in the US are ridiculous.
    While the free market is very efficient for consumer goods, some form of regulation seems to help for infrastructure.
    ronnjay3000lordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 14 of 32
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,645member
    rob53 said:
    We did and used our one free overage so next time it will cost. We have gigabit service and because of COVID we’ve been watching too much TV. Big Sur is a 12GB download so we’ll eat up a bunch with that. 
    Big Sur's 12GB download is chump change.

    Blu-ray discs hold more than that and that technology is about a decade old. And that's just the 1080p stuff, not the more recent 4K Blu-ray content.

    Today's modern videogames are FAR larger than Big Sur.

    Marvels Avengers is 133GB. And that isn't even the record holder. One of the Call of Duty games clocks in well over 200GB. For PC games, 50GB sizes are pretty routine these days.

    I think Microsoft Flight Simulator is about 80GB but requires a high-speed broadband connection because most of the database is stored in the cloud. Apparently all of the data comprises petabytes and keeps growing.

    American residential broadband is slow and overpriced compared to what Southeast Asia and Europe gets. US broadband is downright ghetto.
    Fidonet127ronnphilboogieDogperson
  • Reply 15 of 32
    JWSC said:
    JWSC said:
    Everyone here is bitching about market economics that are ultimately self correcting.  One bitches about Comcast being a monopoly but, in SF Sonic is beating them on cost.  Another bitches about Comcast and then moves to AT&T.  What do you guys want - the Government to regulate everything and stifle infrastructure development?  Come on!

    You must acknowledge that a small percentage of households are extreme bandwidth users compared to the rest.  It’s not necessarily fair to the rest that this small percentage take advantage of everyone else’s bandwidth.

    We don’t necessarily have to like any of these companies.  But they do spend billions on infrastructure.  Do you want that to continue?  All I’m saying is, be careful what you wish for.  You may get it.
    Not everybody has the same options that you do in SF. I only have to go about 30 miles south or west of DC for there to be only one provider -- Comcast.
    That sucks.  But alternatives, some with OK service and some extremely bad service such as HughsNet are available now.  And Starlink is coming.  The market is not stagnant.
    I admire your tenacious commitment to libertarian market principles, but in this case they don't apply.  HughesNet and satellite services like it suck.  So in effect, in many markets across the country, there is really only one true high speed provider in the area.  You either get 100 Mbps to gigabit service from a Comcast that bends you over on price and data caps, or you get crappy HughesNet where you *might* 1/5 that if you're lucky.  And they also do the data cap thing, but instead they slow you down to about 1.5 Mbps the rest of the month unless you pay extra.  I've lived in both situations - monopoly cable/internet provider when I lived in Nashville, and now a city with multiple providers where I live now.  It's amazing what a difference some competition makes.
    ronnlordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 16 of 32
    I’ll keep my AT&T Fiber 1Gbps. It’s reliable and no data cap. And it’s  cheaper than Comcast.
  • Reply 17 of 32
    I have fios, and I hope they do not follow the same path! Comcast knows what’s it’s going they KNOW people are moving towards streaming over cable tv and eating more data. Especially because of Covid it’s cooperate greed like someone said earlier if 95% of the people don’t go over then why charge. Remember in pre school terms one of the reason the merger didn’t go through with Time Warner because Comcast and Time Warner would make one giant shitty company literally. Some folks don’t have options for other providers and are 100% being fleeced. This has got to the change.
    ronn
  • Reply 18 of 32
    Have had Comcast briefly, Hughesnet for awhile, Directv for a few yrs but returned to DSL permanently. $45/ unlimited GB usage. Add Netflix, Hulu and a new actual TV antenna so not looking foreward to retire in poverty. There are NO other options. Boggles my mind that the local gov’t monopolizes the cable cos.
    I know someone with a landline DSL only package(no phone), fyi.
    edited November 2020 ronn
  • Reply 19 of 32
    JWSC said:
    JWSC said:
    Everyone here is bitching about market economics that are ultimately self correcting.  One bitches about Comcast being a monopoly but, in SF Sonic is beating them on cost.  Another bitches about Comcast and then moves to AT&T.  What do you guys want - the Government to regulate everything and stifle infrastructure development?  Come on!

    You must acknowledge that a small percentage of households are extreme bandwidth users compared to the rest.  It’s not necessarily fair to the rest that this small percentage take advantage of everyone else’s bandwidth.

    We don’t necessarily have to like any of these companies.  But they do spend billions on infrastructure.  Do you want that to continue?  All I’m saying is, be careful what you wish for.  You may get it.
    Not everybody has the same options that you do in SF. I only have to go about 30 miles south or west of DC for there to be only one provider -- Comcast.
    That sucks.  But alternatives, some with OK service and some extremely bad service such as HughsNet are available now.  And Starlink is coming.  The market is not stagnant.
    I admire your tenacious commitment to libertarian market principles, but in this case they don't apply.  HughesNet and satellite services like it suck.  So in effect, in many markets across the country, there is really only one true high speed provider in the area.  You either get 100 Mbps to gigabit service from a Comcast that bends you over on price and data caps, or you get crappy HughesNet where you *might* 1/5 that if you're lucky.  And they also do the data cap thing, but instead they slow you down to about 1.5 Mbps the rest of the month unless you pay extra.  I've lived in both situations - monopoly cable/internet provider when I lived in Nashville, and now a city with multiple providers where I live now.  It's amazing what a difference some competition makes.
    The point isn’t ultimately what services are available, the point is that we all need to be wary of inviting government regulation. There is often a very unclear line between regulation and stifling investment. Like it or not, a free market, with all its negatives, produces a better end result overall. History has proven this over and over again.

    So if we’re wanting companies like Comcast to stop extorting their customers, the first thing we should do is invite and pursue real competition. We could also reach out and educate the population about what they’re doing. Etc. The last thing we should do is ask for government intervention, and if we have to the intervention should be aimed toward encouraging competition.

    That’s not a libertarian approach, that’s an approach based on common sense and history. 
    edited November 2020 JWSC
  • Reply 20 of 32
    Limited provider choices in any geographic area are primarily due to the high cost of installing infrastructure, especially problematic in low population density areas. Comcast and it’s ilk are successful because of the investment made installing coax cable into homes to support cable tv services over the past forty years. Their ability to leverage that infrastructure to provide internet service gave them an amazing financial advantage. New regulations won’t change the financial challenges faced installing new infrastructure. If there’s money to be made, providers will make the investment to build new services such as seen with fios and many new local fiber providers. Comcast deliberately sets their data caps at the 95th percentile because they know if they impact too many customers it will invite regulation. If you are a consumer in the 95th+ percentile you really have no basis to complain about being charged more. 1.2 trillion bytes is a huge amount of data. It doesn’t really matter that your games are 300 gigs.
    JWSC
Sign In or Register to comment.