So if they reinstate the cap I will have a hard time watching Netflix as we watch a lot of Netflix in my household.

Don't forget, Netflix will get one price, you'll get a lower price, but Netflix will be passing cost on to you...double whammy: The cable company AND Netflix will be charging you more.

We can hardly afford Comcast as it is.

We've had bandwidth caps up here for quite a while already.  Doesn't seem to bother most people I know and I personally don't have the time to even get close to using as much as the cap allows for.

This what happen when corporation get many power.

Comcast already throttles, especially if you use P2P even for legal purposes, or any video streaming service (Youtube, Hulu, Netflix, etc.)

I use Netflix a lot in my house. I have never seen Comcast throttle my speed.

Well get ready for a change in how things are delivered, then. We've have had capped internet since day dot and throttling is commonplace when ISP's think it is necessary to curb various/certain kinds of use, whatever.... particularly with the cheaper packages. I've not experienced it personally, but I've often read complaints of people who cannot watch internet video/TV properly because their speed has been downgraded and the pictures keep glitching, etc... but then I hardly watch internet video/TV on my computer, just the occasional YouTube clip now and then.

Also, when capping begins, be prepared to pay for both uploads and downloads in your monthly quota... and if you don't use the quota you've paid for in any given month, don't expect it to be tacked on to your next month's quota.  No, you lose that... sorry.

Well, if it affects uploads and downloads, I guess there won't be much business here at WC. Sad thing is, I cannot even switch to a different provider if needed, all we have is Comcast/xFinity here, no one else. 

I cut my bill in half by switching to CenturyLink/DirecTv. Comcast is expensive. I do miss my 119 MBPS speed though.

I am in no way trying to defend Comcast or any other cable company - the cost of using them has expanded enormously with little concurrent expansion of benefit - or to denigrate any other commenter.In fact, the Dr.'s ultimate point that we need to combat the consolidation of telecommunications capacity is completely on target.

But it bothers me when points are made which are contradictory. The argument that there should be no limits on usage because the resource in question - bandwidth - is not a "limited physical resource" is refuted in the original post.

That would be true if the resource involved were an un-renewable/limited physical resource. It isn’t. Like De Beers and diamonds, cable companies reap large benefits by limiting the resource. In the case of the ISP, not expanding the infrastructure is how that’s done. Google’s fiber cable projects prove my point.

I’m for truth in advertising. When cable companies create bottle necks (by not increasing the infrastructure) in order to charge more, despite the negative effects on the internet and commerce, someone has to call them on it.

The point being made seems to be that cable companies can resolve bandwidth bottlenecks (assuming they exist) by "expanding the infrastructure". On the face of it, that recognizes that the resource is limited, albeit a limitation that may be in the cable company's control. The issue is always the profit lost by exercising that control.

Cable companies may be unwilling to expand networks due to the time it would take to recover the expense. They may not think the expenditure can return sufficient profit (even at the current exorbitant price levels). It may even be that, under current overall usage levels, there is sufficient bandwidth to handle all customer traffic, either with  or without the need for caps and that there is no "need" to expand.There may be no threat to their business sufficient to cause them to desire to improve their business model.

If you want to make an argument for not capping usage, argue that there is no need to do so given the network's current capacity. Or argue that there should be some incentive for cable companies to expand their network. Or beat up your local government to demand that there be competition for cable business in your area so that companies are incented to expand the network, cut consumer costs, or provide better service on their existing networks. 

But to say that your desire for cable companies to provide unlimited bandwidth and to expand their networks to satisfy this should be sufficient for it to be so ignores the incentives that drive businesses to do what they do. We got from dial-up modems to gigabyte cable modem and 4G wireless because companies saw a way to make a buck. They will always be looking for a way to protect that buck. That's how we ended up with only one cable company in a town or a state with a government-sanctioned monopoly. We have to find ways to force a competitive environment so that the pressure is there to improve.

Shutting down the FCC might be a good start.

And, in related news.....

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/05/18/atandt-acquires-directv-in-49b-deal/20887824/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D477861 

Honestly, I'm not sure why this is a big deal. I used to work for Comcast.  Just believe me when I say this, I can't stand the company. I think they are fairly unethical in their sales practices but I'm ok with them re instituting their bandwidth caps. They lifted the caps because everything in the world now uses the internet and streaming video is the norm. They removed the cap because more and more people were hitting the bandwidth cap than just the Super Users, who more often then not was pirating content. 

They never planned on removing the bandwidth cap forever. They needed to retune it. While I can understand that people believe they should have the "unlimited internet" that they pay for. The unlimited is wording from the AOL days where you had to pay for minutes. You get unlimited usage instead of unlimited bandwidth. While most people will not be affected by bandwidth caps, I have been ever so lucky to be on the same tap as one of these users. 

Bandwidth is "limited" and no ISP can do anything to fix that without adding more bandwidth, but even so there is a limit that it can handle. The more bandwidth you provide the more bandwidth people will find a way to use. In the case of my neighbor, I was unable to use my service from 11:30 AM to 4:00 PM. Which was fine on my work days, but on my day off I was not able to connect at all. 

What solutions does this leave the cable provider. Cut the line, and loose a subscriber. 

Ignore it, and loose a subscriber. 

Raise the rate, and potentionally loose a subscriber.

And here we have a problem. The cable company is not using the bandwidth caps because they want more money. It's actually a deterrant from people going overboard and wrecking the experience for all of their subscribers. While I now hate Comcast, with every fiber of my being and I'm glad that they might be pulling out of Minnesota. I'm ok with them trying to slow people down a little bit. 

Sorry Mods

Google for "comcast throttling" and you'll see a lot of reports, some by adept researchers, showing they do, indeed, throttle, especially video streaming.  It irks me they sell "20 megabits" but when I watch video from a streaming site, my total throughput will drop below 200 -kilobits-.

There's no real contradiction. There's the creation of an artificial shortage (not just in this instance. Many companies/industries do it) to raise prices.

I don't have to make any argument. They're sitting on mountains of money. Pitiful consumers and stockholders don't demand reinvestment and development.

@Ilauna - The solution is to give Comcast a choice: Go after the pirates and roast them. Get rid of the caps, or we're pulling the plug on Cable.

In general? Putting competition in place and helping it work...the fact that SO many areas have only one company stinks to high heaven of deliberate non-competition. The government could make a pretty penny off that.