[rconti]

It doesn't, though.

As a thought experiment, what if the caps went away tomorrow? Is it possible that the network would become saturated? If so, that is to say the caps might be reasonable. If not, how do you know that's the case?

I'm not any happier with Comcast than anyone else; I recently moved from 1Gbps service to 250Mbps service with them, and I was always bumping up against the 'cap' on my 1Gbps service. I want a better provider. But nothing in the article proves that the caps are useless nor a money grab.

[pwinnski]

Stating that a headline doesn't match an article is a different claims from stating that an article fails to be convincing.

One can disagree with the case they're making. But the headline was (now changed here): "Comcast disabled throttling system, proving data cap is just a money grab." The article covers both the fact that Comcast has disabled their throttling system, and why the writer thinks the remaining data cap is a money-grab.

Whether you agree that the data caps are money-grabs or not is completely irrelevant to whether the headline is (was) appropriate. Your argument seems to be with the article, not the headline.

The headline is like the label on box, and your argument seems to be with the contents of the box.

[ra1n85]

>Is it possible that the network would become saturated?

That's on Comcast to handle as a part of building and operating a network. It should not be the concern of the customer.

[0x0]

Cost of network construction and maintenance is always passed on the customers, though. Without considering Comcast specifically, generally it'd be somewhat unfair and unreasonable if most users have to pay more to subsidize the "elite 0.1%"'s data usage. So I think it's not as black-and-white as you make it out to be.