  NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI | Are customers asking for 100 meg? No. Are Broadbandreports users asking for 100 meg? No. They want gigabit.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net | |
|
 |  winsyrstrifeRiver City BouncePremium
join:2002-04-30
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Are customers asking for 100 meg? No. TWC will be more than happy to provide them with those kinds of download speeds.  | |
|
| |  bigunkGort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
USA | Re: Are customers asking for 100 meg? No. You better believe it. and in just a few hours, you'll be at your limit, paying overcharges.
Oh, and for those of you doing the math, I didn't, so refrain from comments about accuracy and accept the joke for what it is. | |
|
|  RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by Nightfall:Are Broadbandreports users asking for 100 meg? No. They want gigabit. Gimme 50/50 and you won't hear a peep out of me for at least 5 years. | |
|
| | | | Re: Are customers asking for 100 meg? No. The playing feild is now huge
Were talking 56k to 101mbps services avalible now.
Really a 25/25 connection would make me jump for joy.
At&t's 18/1.5 will have to do for now.
Cans wait for comcast to get the docsis3 in my area. | |
|
| | |  TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN
 ·Comcast
| Re: Are customers asking for 100 meg? No. Orlando seems like it might be on the last stop of the DOCSIS 3 train for Comcast, especially since they're a minor player here (Brighthouse serves almost this whole area). Comcast 8mbps or Embarq 5mbps... hmm...  You're lucky to get that 18mbps. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| said by doublea:The playing feild is now huge Were talking 56k to 101mbps services avalible now. Really a 25/25 connection would make me jump for joy. At&t's 18/1.5 will have to do for now. Cans wait for comcast to get the docsis3 in my area. well i have 10mbps so the difference is only 1/10 woohoo! big deal beside 99.99 is still pretty pricey for most of us. well i'm paying 53.99 for this so it can be a good bargain for those who love speed or just want to brag about it | |
|
| |  JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5
·Optimum Online
| said by Rob:said by Nightfall:Are Broadbandreports users asking for 100 meg? No. They want gigabit. Gimme 50/50 and you won't hear a peep out of me for at least 5 years. While those speeds would be GREAT, and I too would be VERY quiet for a period, I would just prefer if CV actually delivered the speeds they claim to give "upto" in their ads. 
I have 16/2 service from them and if I saw 12/1.8 it would be a lot. 
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! | |
|
|  AlcoholPremium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:3 | said by Nightfall:Are Broadbandreports users asking for 100 meg? No. They want gigabit. QFT. | |
|
|  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by Nightfall:Are Broadbandreports users asking for 100 meg? No. They want gigabit. Ha ha, how true!
In all seriousness, $99 101Mbps/15Mbps is only $30/month more than I pay for 15Mbps/2Mbps! I'd snap that up in a heartbeat. | |
|
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Are customers asking for 100 meg? No. $35 more than 8/2 here. Personally, I'd go for 50/20 $90 FiOS though. Splitting 101/15 up with multiple users on a 160/30 node could get very dicey very quickly. | |
|
|  DaMaGeINCThe Lan ManPremium
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC
kudos:2 | said by Nightfall:Are Broadbandreports users asking for 100 meg? No. They want gigabit. +1gig | |
|
|  DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | said by Nightfall:Are Broadbandreports users asking for 100 meg? No. They want gigabit. Gig what, I want 40Gig (OC768 is what I want now if income would flow in enough for it) | |
|
| |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: Are customers asking for 100 meg? No. said by DarkLogix:Gig what, I want 40Gig (OC768 is what I want now if income would flow in enough for it) As a point of reference, a minimal router to terminate OC768 would be something like a Cisco CRS-1 4 slot chassis, which requires 8,000W (4 x 2000W supplies) of power and cranks out about 14,000 BTUs. The fan tray design was contracted out to Boeing to achieve the required airflow. (100% serious on that one)
I expect the wife approval factor to be "no worries about having more kids" low. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Are customers asking for 100 meg? No. Holy crap! I install AT&T-SE's core network in Central FLorida. The largest mux we use here is a DMX OC192 -- which is dummied down to a OC48 in MOST cases.
"All the rage" in the business world right now are O3D3's... instead of installing a 7' rack full of crap customers are receiving little small 1U Pulsecom units that turn a single pair of fibers to a DS3. You can have three of these modules in a 19 or 23" mount.
45/45? Any day of the week! | |
|
|  KompressorPremium
join:2002-02-12
Huntington Beach, CA | I'll be happy with a 100/100 connection. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| Re: Are customers asking for 100 meg? No. said by Kompressor:I'll be happy with a 100/100 connection. 50/50 cost 191.99 from surewest
verizon 50/20 is 139.95
both tier in my opinion is a ripoff
way to expensive
I like to have it but i'm not paying that much for it
I could live without it
its only meant for high definition video and most of us don't even have that on tv yet
why pay 200.00-300 for a bluray dvd player when regular dvd player cost only a fraction of that? | |
|
| | | And they want it for $29.95/mo | |
|
|  NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working?Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ | Funny thing is, you're gonna need gigabit to take advantage of that lone 1 megabit over 100 megabits.
That's the real irony here. | |
|
| | TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN | Re: Are customers asking for 100 meg? No. I sure hope the DOCSIS 3 modems they're using have gigabit ports Seems silly if not. | |
|
 ShamayimI already have a Messiah.Premium
join:2002-09-23 | Weak " . . . so Cablevision is offering very high speed service to a very limited number of customers."
Very limited? Cablevision is offering it to their entire footprint!
Come on Verizon, you can do better than that -- can't you?
--
Who is Jesus? and Why it matters (to YOU).
| |
|
| | | Re: Weak Me to Gimme 20/20 you won't hear a peep out of me for at least 5-8 years | |
|
| |  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Re: Weak You say that now...until IPTv rules the world in 3 years | |
|
| | |
1 edit | Re: Weak And every application, game, and their offspring naturally embeds high definition video communications or immediate high-bandwidth content transfer.... | |
|
| | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by baineschile:You say that now...until IPTv rules the world in 3 years The costs for IPTV delivery are up-side down.
If a company like DirecTV or Dish launches a satellite that provides service to the continental US, they have a fixed purchase and operating cost. For each person that signs up their efficiency increases, because they are dividing a fixed operating cost across more people.
For IPTV (as it's delivered today), the amount of infrastructure required has a linear relationship to the number of viewers because it's unique streams per viewer. If it takes {x} amount of bandwidth for 1 viewer, then 10 million viewers requires 10,000,000{x} bandwidth. If 1 server will support 1500 concurrent viewers, then for 10 million viewers you need 6667 servers.
As a broadcast TV replacement, the scale of IPTV goes negative in a big hurry. | |
|
| | | |  kontosxyzzy
join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY | Re: Weak said by espaeth:The costs for IPTV delivery are up-side down. If 1 server will support 1500 concurrent viewers, then for 10 million viewers you need 6667 servers. But IPTV could support a market that would support 10,000,000 simultaneous viewers with 6667 independent content providers each streaming to a maximum of 1500 users with a single server (or some other combination).
Not very similar to our the current video delivery market, but it could be an interesting one. | |
|
| | | |  IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | said by espaeth:said by baineschile:You say that now...until IPTv rules the world in 3 years The costs for IPTV delivery are up-side down. If a company like DirecTV or Dish launches a satellite that provides service to the continental US, they have a fixed purchase and operating cost. For each person that signs up their efficiency increases, because they are dividing a fixed operating cost across more people. For IPTV (as it's delivered today), the amount of infrastructure required has a linear relationship to the number of viewers because it's unique streams per viewer. If it takes {x} amount of bandwidth for 1 viewer, then 10 million viewers requires 10,000,000{x} bandwidth. If 1 server will support 1500 concurrent viewers, then for 10 million viewers you need 6667 servers. As a broadcast TV replacement, the scale of IPTV goes negative in a big hurry. Multicast? It'll become mainstream in the US as IPTV kicks in, not to mention that IPTV tends to be internal to operators and they run multicast within their own networks.
We've an operator who has run IPTV over DSL for years, they have run IGMP enabled MSANs and a fully multicast network ensuring that there's just a single stream to each MSAN. Verizon for example would be easily doing the same sending the full range of channels to each CO which would consume less than a gigabit then distributing the channels via IGMP to ensure minimal bandwidth consumption on the access network.
IPTV isn't going to involve a stream for every customer, rest assured. Just not viable and it's not delivered that way today believe me, that would be ridiculous.
Streaming over the Internet might be delivered that way, but not IPTV from a single operator, one stream onto each network segment then multicast from there. | |
|
| | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Weak said by Ignite:Multicast? It'll become mainstream in the US as IPTV kicks in, not to mention that IPTV tends to be internal to operators and they run multicast within their own networks. The Multicast argument is simply one of using a bigger hammer to drive a square peg into a round hole. Once you implement a multicast solution, you're left with the same real-time streaming solution you have with existing QAM / QPSK / 8PSK delivery options, only with the added bonus of IP overhead and more expensive intermediate delivery hardware.
If you don't have something in place already it's a different argument. A few years back when I worked for a large US retailer there was a push to upgrade the in-store video source to supply a high def feed to coincide with the entrance of HDTVs into the chain. We investigated a vast many solutions and actually ended up working with a private satellite company to get IP-enabled sat gear installed at all but 25 stores (out of about 1500) and we used a multicast feed to get the content delivered to the media streaming devices we deployed. Parity files were delivered over the regular store WAN to correct any errors in the delivered bitstream, and we upgraded the WAN for the 25 sites where satellite delivery wasn't an option.
Still, multicast made sense in that environment because we had no other distribution option for getting video to the stores, short of pressing physical media and deploy pre-standard HD-DVD players out to the stores.
When people talk about IPTV today they like to reference things like Hulu. If you look at the top viewed content it is programs that have been aired on network TV, which is ridiculous from an efficiency standpoint. So you take a program that has already been digitally delivered to your house OTA by public broadcast TV stations, probably over a cable line into your house on clear QAM, and from at least a half dozen different satellites that you could pick up with the appropriate hardware. Rather than investing in a more clever / cost effective way to capture one of those existing delivered feeds, we're focusing on network-based delivery? This is pure absurdity.
said by Ignite:Streaming over the Internet might be delivered that way, but not IPTV from a single operator, one stream onto each network segment then multicast from there. You still have the issue of maximum feeds for bandwidth. I have tuners to capture 3 x 19.2mbps ATSC feeds from local broadcast stations today, so I can capture shows with overlapping broadcast times without issue. To get the same quality and simultaneous feed capabilities on IP-based infrastructure today still remains expensive compared to the existing solution. | |
|
| | | said by Shamayim:" . . . so Cablevision is offering very high speed service to a very limited number of customers." Very limited? Cablevision is offering it to their entire footprint! Come on Verizon, you can do better than that -- can't you? YOu misread that. He is not saying it is for a small footprint but rather, a limited number of customers will have a want or need for that speed. And, face it, outside of this site, how many people can tell you what speed they have? | |
|
| | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | Re: Weak how many people can tell you what speed they have? The majority of people who sign up for their advertised speed and get something relatively close to it? I don't buy the suggestion (and I hear it often) that the majority of broadband consumers are idiots....They may not have a concrete understanding of a gigabyte, but they understand that 15 is higher than 3. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Weak said by Karl Bode:how many people can tell you what speed they have? The majority of people who sign up for their advertised speed and get something relatively close to it? I don't buy the suggestion (and I hear it often) that the majority of broadband consumers are idiots....They may not have a concrete understanding of a gigabyte, but they understand that 15 is higher than 3. They may know at the time of sign up but it is not a deciding factor nor is it a deal breaker as the contract winds down. People are about ease of use and savings. If you polled 20 people on the street, the majority would go with the cheaper option, not the speed. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Weak Your initial point was that people didn't know what speed they have, and I disagreed. Your new point seems to be that people shop for less expensive service, which I don't disagree with. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Weak said by Karl Bode:Your initial point was that people didn't know what speed they have, and I disagreed. Your new point seems to be that people shop for less expensive service, which I don't disagree with. One ties into the other actually. Again, poll 20 people at random on the street, see how many know what speed that have. THey can tell you what they pay, I'm sure, but what they have speed wise? Nope. | |
|
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by Shamayim:" . . . so Cablevision is offering very high speed service to a very limited number of customers." Very limited? Cablevision is offering it to their entire footprint! Come on Verizon, you can do better than that -- can't you? Only their "entire footprint" is NY, NJ and CT
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
 BitPremium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | Scoreboard Parlor trick?
Meanwhile Cablevision offers it and Verizon doesn't.
CV 1
VZ 0 | |
|
| | whats the difference its all shared at the node. Nodes can only do so much, as the tech gets better so will speeds. | |
|
|
See 28 replies to this post |
|
 FiOS LIVESo fast, it's LIVE
join:2008-11-25
Collegeville, PA | "A Parlor Trick?" Give me a break! It isn't a trick. I would have expected something more from Verizon rather than calling it a cheap trick, but I'm not surprised either.
Sure, anyone can go list all the reasons why a 100 mbps residential line isn't necessary and all the points that Verizon has made are valid too. I too question how Cablevision's network can handle a handful of 100 mbps subscribers on the same overcrowded node while not impacting everyone else on that node. Obviously, their throlling (aka: network management) practices are probably going to be heavily enforced if that situation should arrise.
However, it gives no reason to criticize Cablevision for breaking the barrier and actually offering 100 mbps @ $100 which has been unthinkable from any ISP up until now.
Verizon also said in their blog that higher speed services have the potential to spur the industry to grow.
How is downplaying what Cablevision is doing going to spur the industry to move towards faster speeds if you don't do the same and compete?
This is what disappoints me coming from the so-called "lone provider of ultra-high-speed broadband services." I would have expected better.
--
AT&T + Comcast
Your world. Destroyed.
Throttle and put a cap on it. It's Comcastic! | |
|
| |
|
1 edit | Agreed that anything that encourages competition to real broadband levels is a good thing. Unfortunately, the reality is that this is little more than a gimmick.
It is important to understand the difference in actual capabilities between a fiber-to-the-premises network and a cable (HFC) network. While a GPON network, like FiOS, can deliver a constant rate of no less than 75 Mbps downstream to each customer (actual Internet backbone capacity not withstanding), a cable network shares 150-250 Mbps (assuming DOCSIS 3.0) among no fewer than 100 customers per node in most cases. So, while cable might enable bursting to 101 Mbps, or even more, this cannot be delivered for sustained time frames of more than a few seconds - that is, until cable operators stop screwing around with cable and bring fiber directly to their customers. | |
|
|  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by FiOS LIVE:I too question how Cablevision's network can handle a handful of 100 mbps subscribers on the same overcrowded node while not impacting everyone else on that node. For a number of reasons:
1) Boost Ultra users will have their own Dedicated Frequency on the node just like currently is done with Boost and Standard users (Boost gets 609000000 Hz while Standard gets 603000000 Hz). Ultra will get 615000000 Hz (which was temporally tested with some D2 modems a month or 2 ago). What this Dedicated Frequency means is that you only compete with other Boost Ultra users on your node.
2) There are a number of channels that can be assigned to a modem (you will get either 4 or 8). I do not know how many there are but it is simple to allocate a different combination to each user on the node so that no user shares more than [lets say] 2 with any other user. Thus if you have two users who are currently using their provisioned 100Mbs and happen to share two channels, each have to others not in common for the other 40 or so Mbs [assuming 30 out of the max 38Mbs per channel]). Also since the max of 4 bonded channels is 152Mbs, even if you share all 4 with others who are maxing out, there is an extra 52Mbs that can be spread around (it is VERY improbable that all of your 4 will be maxed at the same time as well as you will be using only 25Mbs per channel unless the modem uses the more un-congested channels in your set).
3) Each node has its own bandwidth and version of the Frequencies, thus no node impacts any other. Since each node is split between Standard, Boost, and Boost Ultra users, there will be no impact with any other user on your node who does not share your tier.
IOW: If you are on Boost Ultra the node is not crowded no matter how many non-Ultra users are on the node. | |
|
bnceo
join:2007-10-11
Bel Air, MD | Missing the Point I honestly think many of you guys are missing the main idea here. Sure Cablevision can provide you with a higher limit of 100mbps. The question is: are you getting that each and every single time? Also, what good does it do without an upload to match it?
FiOS has been more than great to me because it keeps the speed the same throughout the day. Who knows what CV's speed will be when all the kiddies come up and hit up FaceBook. The point is that until you see how a whole neighborhood on 100mbps connection performs, this is essentially a parlor trick. And if they have such speed, why not use it to beef up the signal of their TV package? Hmmmm? | |
|
|  MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Missing the Point said by bnceo:I honestly think many of you guys are missing the main idea here. Sure Cablevision can provide you with a higher limit of 100mbps. The question is: are you getting that each and every single time? Also, what good does it do without an upload to match it? not everybody needs "upload to match".
for SOHO this is a perfect connection.
--
Check out my awesome city of MxxTopia »mxxtopia.myminicity.com/ind or »mxxtopia.myminicity.com (the more people visit, the bigger it is) | |
|
| | 100mbps routers I would venture to say that the majority of computers and/or routers are not gigabit capable. That one last megabit is useless for those of us still using our 100mbps WAN side routers.
Might anyone know of a good gigabit router that supports Tomato/DD-WRT (if one exists)? | |
|
|
See 15 replies to this post |
|
| | Waiting to see I'll hold out till see CV actually be able to pull this off. I dont this type of connection for about 1 hr of the day because overloaded node. Also if they split the nodes forgot giving me 101Mbps I want HD and tv features instead of being able to have 101Mbps at this time. | |
|
tdoranPremium
join:2003-09-27
Ridge, NY | OC-3c for $ 99.95/Mo Why not a full-rate OC-3c for $ 99.95/Mo with a /29 static IP assignment and no restriction whatsoever!
Tim | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | I still don't think verizon will be far behind. 1-2 months after they will offer 100m too. Just show they can go toe to toe with them, and even if most people don't get it they(verizon) will still be able to say they offer it. | |
|
 dbmavenThere's no shortagePremium,Mod
join:1999-10-26
Sty in Sky
kudos:2
 ·VOIPo
·Optimum Online
Host:
Filesharing Software
No, I Will Not Fix..
Road Runner
Bright House Netwo..
Computer Hardware ..
| Marketing Speak "parlor tricks" It's a parlor trick - until Verizon decides to meet or beat it. Then they'll have a new 'corporate speak' catch-phrase.
Hmmmm....maybe it'll be "...responding to the demands of our most sophisticated and demanding customers....".
Or how about "....reacting to the competitive landscape...."
I have plenty more, but I'll stop there....
On a different note - there's something I'm confused about.
Lots of people are running around worrying about their router's WAN port - and how "they need a GigE router WAN..."
You're going to trash a perfectly good working router for 1Mbps??? Which you probably won't get anyway - like any other consumer grade service it will be "up to 101Mbps". How many sites are there that can serve up over 50Mbps??
Hey - if you've got 2 dozen connected devices in constant use - go for it - you'll certainly want the GigE on the LAN side. But, at least in this incarnation, trashing a working router with a 10/100 WAN port is.....well, it's overkill.
Pssstt.. hey buddy....wanna buy a WRT54GS with DD-WRT? Cheap!!?
--
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
| |
|
|  Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:21
·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon Online DSL
3 edits | Re: Marketing Speak "parlor tricks" Even if a router does have a 10/100Mbps port on it, there's no guarantees the router even has the WAN to LAN/LAN to WAN throughput capability to handle that high of a speed, not to mention the processor speed to handle it. A Linksys WRT54Gv1 chokes at 23mbps despite the 10/100Mbps WAN port. Really the only routers I've seen that are residential grade that can handle speeds as high as 100Mbps from WAN to LAN or LAN to WAN are Gigabit Switches, Wireless N routers and home built routers. My Linksys WRT54GX, though having a 10Mbps/100Mbps port on it, can only do 86Mbps tops.
And I'm saying this on the fact that rarely would a 10/100Mbps card at full duplex ever pull the full 100Mbps down. Peak speeds I've ever seen on such a setup was 72Mbps up and down to a local server (which was running Gigabit). Might I also mention, the highest speed I've seen on regular Wireless G was 32Mbps on the download side with 54Mbps to the access point of total connectivity.
--
It's all fun and games in a Team Fortress 2 battle until your sentry gun is sapped by the Spycrab! | |
|
| |  Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
·Time Warner VOIP
| Re: Marketing Speak "parlor tricks" said by Smith6612:Even if a router does have a 10/100Mbps port on it, there's no guarantees the router even has the WAN to LAN/LAN to WAN throughput capability to handle that high of a speed, not to mention the processor speed to handle it. A Linksys WRT54Gv1 chokes at 23mbps despite the 10/100Mbps WAN port. Really the only routers I've seen that are residential grade that can handle speeds as high as 100Mbps from WAN to LAN or LAN to WAN are Gigabit Switches, Wireless N routers and home built routers. My Linksys WRT54GX, though having a 10Mbps/100Mbps port on it, can only do 86Mbps tops. And I'm saying this on the fact that rarely would a 10/100Mbps card at full duplex ever pull the full 100Mbps down. Peak speeds I've ever seen on such a setup was 72Mbps up and down to a local server (which was running Gigabit). Might I also mention, the highest speed I've seen on regular Wireless G was 32Mbps on the download side with 54Mbps to the access point of total connectivity. WRT-54G v4 with 32mb/8mb-flash can do about 56mbps with linksys firmware or tomato | |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Just like 20/20 From cablevision's perspective 20/20 tier was a 'parlor trick' as well... there wasn't this perfect storm of demand for 20/20 bandwidth either. Especially not at a higher pricetag (now $69.99 standalone). $29.95 dual & triple play plans were still bringing home the bacon. Lean as it is.
There is a price point of value in the consumer's mind, if Verizon want's to gamble that the 101/15 for $99 won't cost them some customers.. by all means, DO NOTHING and see what happens. We only have to wait a few weeks... If I were cablevision I'd add some lead to the 'dropkick' & increase the upload speed to at least 30mbits. Why let the high assymetrical ratio be a point of criticism that DSL got branded with for over 2 decades. This is the first REAL provider who's gonna do docsis 3 anywhere near the 100mbit range for a somewhat reasonable price tag (based on current market conditions). No doubt there is enough b/w free from killing analog freq to allow upstream channel bonding. Verizon execs would do less laughing & finger pointing and actually do something if the upload was higher, IMO. Symmetrical isn't needed.. just common sense ratios.
Verizon's prices are as follows (stand alone)
10/2 $49.99
20/5 $59.99
20/20 $69.99
50/20 $94.95
Optimum (stand alone)
15/2 $49.95
30/5 $64.90 (+$14.95 as boost, doubling optimum speeds)
** If you want to see bundled pricing, see their respective websites.
101/15 $99.99 (something about keeping the asymmetric nature is worrysome, but it's still 1st of it's kind) | |
|
|  Logan 5Enjoying the CataclysmPremium,MVM
join:2001-05-25
Austin, TX
kudos:7
·Comcast
| Re: Just like 20/20 said by tmc8080:101/15 $99.99 (something about keeping the asymmetric nature is worrysome What worries you about it? | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Just like 20/20 said by Logan 5:said by tmc8080:101/15 $99.99 (something about keeping the asymmetric nature is worrysome What worries you about it? If I were to speculate, it would probably be that there are too FEW nodes and/or return path(s) serving too many customers (15/2) to ensure higher upload speeds. In the past two years, all that cablevision really did was rearrange the deck plates in moving fiber nodes into areas of higher 30/5 demand (I suspect). The docsis 3 downstream utilizes higher capacity injection on separate freq's (they say) so that the inital deployment can be done on the cheap (albeit some of that profit gets eaten away if the customer actually U$E$ that bandwidth up). Asymmetric tiers are not worth as much as symmetric or closer symmetric tiers. Surcharging for the transmitting of data is a market development that ideally shouldn't have occurred.. if you remember back to the promises of the telcom & cable industries ~1996 of 100/100mbit connection speeds and universal access. A pipe dream we're only seeing photons of light on 5/11.
I agree with threads below that the lower speed tier prices should come down.. that is where market share will be won and lost in the mass broadband market (aka a $50--or less 50/50 uncapped tier). Here's my counter proposal: Infact, why not sell 20/20+ voice for $39.95? (50/50+voice for $59.95) | |
|
| | | | | Re: Just like 20/20 and my counter proposal to you; build your own network and offer that. | |
|
 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | Parlor trick or not... which I don't think it is...this is going to cause Verizon major headaches and what their PR people are trying to do is to blunt the impact of it as best as they can.
The BIG problem with Verizons fios rollout has always been
a) the cost of it to them
b) the time to roll it out and
c) the cable co's response to it..namely docsis 3.0
In one swift move..cablevision has taken the speed game totally away from fios. And they've done it quickly..and at a low cost as a company compared to what fios costs verizon if and when they can even get it to a customers home to begin with.
This takes a lot of the luster away from fios and potentially adds even MORE costs to fios trying to now keep up. Furthermore, what will some people think of fios when it finally gets to them...in 2014? It will be a sort of a has been compared to the very rapid deployment possible with docsis 3.0. Verizon is fighting a real uphill battle.
Trying to convince people to drop a cable company in favor of a telco for their tv service is bad enough. Trying to then compete in some cases years later when d3 is rolling out now just might be the end of the telco as we know it today. They need to convince a LOT of people to switch in order to make the cost of their fios rollout pay off. And that's in a climate where people are also dropping their landlines and dsl connections as well.
Verizon has some real problems with this I think, some which haven't yet become very apparent. And while Cablevision is relatively small as a company..what happens when a company like Comcast completes their D3 rollout?
If they're smart..they'll come down into this 99 dollar price point as well, and up the ante bigtime on the speeds as well.
It very well could be game over for Fios then if they do.
It should be interesting to watch how this all plays out.
~Rick
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|
|
See 15 replies to this post |
|
Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 | yes yes i want 100/100 | |
|
 ztmikeMark for moderationPremium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN
2 edits | Hm. I doubt any user could max out the 100mbps downstream, unless they always download 20+ files at once. I don't know of any internet server that can dish that out all at once, (To a single internet user) Unless you use Usenet or Torrents.
I'd honestly rather see 50/50 first. At a price point of $50 and uncapped. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
1 edit | Can anyone say he lied? ...a single 101 Mbps customer would use some 60% of the capacity in a neighborhood. Other users? Outta luck...
Can anyone here say in all honesty that this is a lie?
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm all for an increase in available bandwidth. The more the merrier  | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
ski93
join:2005-02-14
Northwood, NH Reviews:
·Metrocast Commun..
| Cablevision vs Verizon Most cable providers of high speed internet Dox2.0 build the coverage areas with enough nodes (fed with fiber) to cover enough real estate and have enough nodes to cover sub counts so the old talking points of node sharing are out the window..Now with Dox3.0 cable providers uses multi channel bonding and greater digital compression to deploy the high speed services...So once again Verizon is talking out of their asses..But instead of actually competeing by launching the similar services they bitch and moan..Actions speek louder than words..I heard Verizon over the years prop up the old school DSL services as if it was the best thing since sliced bread..And now that FIOs is here and now, all they do it run their mouths..Somethings never change..My hats off to Cablevision for the new services that they launched, and to offer it at 100 bucks p/month... | |
|
| | | Re: Cablevision vs Verizon
Agree verizon should match that speed but only in CV territory, why would they give 100mbps outside of CV territory it would not make seance, unless other cable provider decide to go 100mbps also which i doubt lol. soo people on TWC and Comcast territory are out of luck, VZ should bring 100mbps to the metro area NY,NJ, and Connecticut. where CV presence is big. | |
|
| | let's wait and see OFFERING 101/15 is not the same as PROVIDING it.
As of today, isn't it still vapor, as in not yet available outside of beta?
Finally, given all the performance issues that are congestion-related at peak usage times of the day with only 15/2 and 30/5 customers, how do you think it's going to look if/when they roll out Ultra? | |
|
| | rediculous This is for the users above posting that we want gigabit connections, those cost thousands of dollars for just one hookup, so I really doubt that will happen anytime soon. | |
|
|  aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: rediculous I'll take a 75/25 connection. My 50/20 connection seems slow now. I regularly max out my connection with downloads from different sites and uploads to my Domain. Any speed increase(especially without an extra cost on top of my current $89.95 a month) would be welcome. | |
|
| | VZ Speed test JOKE! VZ's Speed Test site is a joke! When ever i do a speedtes ton any site ran by a Telco or one of their vendors it always says i get under 5megs down, but always my full upload. Go anywhere else full speed.
WTF! They just check IPs. | |
|
|
|
