 | |
What is the catchSomewhere their has to be a catch. usage caps? Bandwidth costs money and having this kind of connection " 110M" has somewhere a catch.
In our world $3 dollars a meg is the real cost for a true connection. | |
|
 | borka
join:2003-04-01
Ponte Vedra, FL |
borka
Member
2014-Feb-4 10:41 am
Re: What is the catchThis is a residential connection, $3/meg does not apply. those are more like business pricing.
by your logic googles 1Gbit connection should cost $3000 instead of $70 ? | |
|
| |
|  TAZ
join:2014-01-03
Tucson, AZ
1 recommendation |
to Yucca Servic
These aren't dedicated circuits. Neither is GFiber. | |
|
| | | |
GFiber user
Anon
2014-Feb-4 1:42 pm
Re: What is the catchsaid by TAZ: Neither is GFiber. Citation please? We have been told in KC it is dedicated single mode from the hut to the house. From the hut to the backbone it is multiplexed 32 way on one fiber. Each user has a dedicated virtual circuit on the 32 way split. If you have some other info please post | |
|
| | | TAZ
join:2014-01-03
Tucson, AZ
1 recommendation |
TAZ
Member
2014-Feb-4 2:26 pm
Re: What is the catchsaid by GFiber user :Citation please? We have been told in KC it is dedicated single mode from the hut to the house. From the hut to the backbone it is multiplexed 32 way on one fiber. Each user has a dedicated virtual circuit on the 32 way split. The last mile may be dedicated, but beyond there, it is not. I've seen various claims about the last mile technology used. Some claim it's WDM-PON, others claim it's straight-up GigE to each user over a dedicated strand. Since WDM-PON isn't really mature at this point, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter. Within their network, they do not have 1 Gbps of capacity for every user. It's aggregated and they don't need that amount of capacity. If they actually had it, the price would be more like $2000-$3000/mo. at best, and that's assuming the savings of high commits would be passed on. (Well, technically, the commits wouldn't be very high if that was the offering. :P) | |
|
| | | |
3 edits |
Re: What is the catchsaid by TAZ:The last mile may be dedicated Its aggregated at the backbone edge router, which is the best kind of dedicated you can get for general access. You seem to think a dedicated connection means to every computer on the internet. | |
|
| | | | | TAZ
join:2014-01-03
Tucson, AZ |
TAZ
Member
2014-Feb-4 4:37 pm
Re: What is the catchsaid by DataRiker:You seem to think a dedicated connection means to every computer on the internet. No. Does Google have 1 Gbps * number of customers to Level 3, who I understand is their upstream for GFiber? (Hint: no) | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: What is the catchsaid by TAZ:said by DataRiker:You seem to think a dedicated connection means to every computer on the internet. No. Does Google have 1 Gbps * number of customers to Level 3, who I understand is their upstream for GFiber? (Hint: no) As long as we understand users are getting a dedicated connection I don't care how you spin it. Upgrading edge routers is easy. Upgrading the last mile is not. If and when Google needs capacity it can easily be upgraded. That difference is spectacularly significant, and your attempt to minimize it is both obvious and sad. | |
|
| | | | | | | TAZ
join:2014-01-03
Tucson, AZ
2 edits |
TAZ
Member
2014-Feb-5 3:30 am
Re: What is the catchsaid by DataRiker:Upgrading edge routers is easy. Upgrading the last mile is not. If and when Google needs capacity it can easily be upgraded. Sure. Just like DSL in fact. said by DataRiker:That difference is spectacularly significant, and your attempt to minimize it is both obvious and sad. What are you talking about? BTW, I'm pro-GFiber; you seem to think this is some attack on it. It's not. There's nothing wrong with any of this. This is simply how residential connections are (and that's good because otherwise the cost would be significantly higher). I'm responding to this: said by Yucca Servic:In our world $3 dollars a meg is the real cost for a true connection. He's referring to dedicated circuits where capacity is actually reserved within the ISP's network. Indeed, those could be in the $3/Mbps (95th-percentile) range. (Of course, it all varies depending on who the ISP is, as well as commits. Premium carriers would be within that area while bulk/lower-end carriers are more in the $1 area.) GFiber is a residential service. The last mile capacity is dedicated, just as DSL is (does anyone want to make that comparison?), but within their network it's not. In fact I'm willing to bet the access layer itself is oversubscribed. And that's why GFiber has AUP restrictions on things like servers (with the "home server" exception), while this $3/Mbps dedicated circuit we're speaking of does not. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: What is the catchsaid by TAZ:Sure. Just like DSL in fact. Almost. I used to work on DSL. On our newest VDSL you are aggregated before the edge router with all of our xDSL at the co-location, and then sent via fiber to another co-location with backbone. ( really depends on your area ) xDSL customers had it worse. Almost all of our line cards were failing and ancient, which means we cram them full. Definitely way oversold before the edge. That combined with the fact that the vast majority of our xDSL customers received less than 3.0 mbit/s would make for a bad comparison. This myth really came about because xDSL was never really oversold to the extent of cable simply because it under delivered by a wide margin. You definitely see wild shifts in speeds on xDSL these days with our setup. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | TAZ
join:2014-01-03
Tucson, AZ |
TAZ
Member
2014-Feb-5 9:20 am
Re: What is the catchsaid by DataRiker:Almost. I used to work on DSL. On our newest VDSL you are aggregated before the edge router with all of our xDSL at the co-location, and then sent via fiber to another co-location with backbone. ( really depends on your area ) But I'm not referring to that. I'm referring specifically to the customer circuit. DSL is dedicated in that aspect, and so is GFiber with dedicated GigE runs to each user. (In other words, point-to-point networks.) It's of course possible for the access layer uplinks to be congested (happens all the time, in fact), but that is the same whether we're talking about DSL or GFiber. I suspect GFiber has ample capacity going to their access switches, so this isn't likely to be an issue, but the same can apply for properly-managed DSL. said by DataRiker:xDSL customers had it worse. Almost all of our line cards were failing and ancient, which means we cram them full. Definitely way oversold before the edge. I assume by "line card" you're referring to a DSLAM chassis as a whole. DSLAM uplinks being congested happens, but that's an issue with poor network management. said by DataRiker:This myth really came about because xDSL was never really oversold to the extent of cable simply because it under delivered by a wide margin. It's not really a myth, it's just creative advertising. Telcos like to use it in their DSL vs. cable attack ads. It's technically true in that (as we've established) the DSL circuit is dedicated (a point-to-point connection) while a cable network is point-to-multipoint and hence shared between everyone on the node. They just conveniently forget to mention the access layer (i.e. the DSLAM) is still oversubscribed. said by DataRiker:You definitely see wild shifts in speeds on xDSL these days with our setup. Not all DSL setups are like this. CenturyLink out here has the same "two tier" setup. Their GigE-fed ADSL2+/VDSL2 DSLAMs are never congested (they're oversubscribed, but reasonably), but customers still on T1 or DS3-fed DSLAMs aren't as lucky and there's tons of complaints in the CL forum. | |
|
| | |
to Yucca Servic
There's got to be a catch.
I mean, a cable operator, with a 10:1 ratio across the board. Decent range of speeds and prices. | |
|
| | | |
Re: What is the catchThey are very small and I believe they are privately owned. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: What is the catchThey're also a cable overbuilder. That means that they have to compete with an incumbent cable provider -- not just slow DSL -- across their entire territory. | |
|
|  SrsBsns
join:2001-08-30
Oklahoma City, OK |
to Yucca Servic
said by Yucca Servic:Somewhere their has to be a catch. usage caps? Bandwidth costs money and having this kind of connection " 110M" has somewhere a catch.
In our world $3 dollars a meg is the real cost for a true connection. This is the result of competition, no catch. Ever lived in Austin? You can take your pick between 4 electric companies. | |
|
| | |
to Yucca Servic
said by Yucca Servic:Somewhere their has to be a catch. usage caps? Bandwidth costs money and having this kind of connection " 110M" has somewhere a catch.
In our world $3 dollars a meg is the real cost for a true connection. Maybe the catch is the 11M upload? | |
|
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ |
to Yucca Servic
not 110M[thats 880mbps] | |
|
| | |
to Yucca Servic
The catch - Live in an area serviced by Grande... in San Antonio... that isn't a whole lot of places... | |
|
| | |
to Yucca Servic
Grande is great in my son's neighborhood in Austin, but has had authorization to overbuild in Pflugerville for well over a decade. Still hasn't done it because, I have been told, build out is far more expensive here (maybe because the city honchos are not interested in challenging the big players: AT&T and Suddenlink).
That's perhaps not the catch you are looking for, but it does mean that they can't build out the way I would like them to. I guess I just need to leave this crooked burg. | |
|
borka
join:2003-04-01
Ponte Vedra, FL |
borka
Member
2014-Feb-4 10:38 am
great pricesThose are some really good internet only prices!
I would be very happy with a 50meg connection for $45! but here in Comcast land a 50meg internet only is $75 | |
|
|  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
1 recommendation |
n2jtx
Member
2014-Feb-4 11:10 am
Re: great pricessaid by borka:Those are some really good internet only prices!
I would be very happy with a 50meg connection for $45! but here in Comcast land a 50meg internet only is $75 Indeed! I pay $60/month to Cablevision for 18/5 service. There was a time when Cablevision was leading edge. Not any more... | |
|
| | Netgear R6300 v2
ARRIS SB6180
|
Re: great pricessaid by n2jtx:Indeed! I pay $60/month to Cablevision for 18/5 service. mediacom "launch" 3M/256K = $30/mo + $5 modem rental. vs grande's 15M / 1.5M - $34.99 makes me a sad dragon  proof to me that we need competition (and no, i dont count sat or cell as "competition" ) | |
|
| | | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2014-Feb-4 3:32 pm
Re: great pricesMediacom has competition in some markets. It doesn't make a difference. You can buy 100/100 in Oskaloosa Iowa for ~$38. Mediacom's prices are more or less the same as everywhere else, save for some possible promotions. | |
|
| | | | ghosti
join:2014-02-01
united state
1 recommendation |
ghosti
Member
2014-Feb-5 11:54 am
Re: great pricesMediacom 50/5 standard is $80, 105/10 is $100 (in the few markets offered).I pay $40/month for 15/1 (on promotion, reg is $50). There is zero competition in my market, no dsl or anything fiber/hybrid. 50/5 was just launched in the past few months here, used to be 30/2 was the top tier. | |
|
|  cork1958Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26 |
to borka
I'd be happy to have those choices of tiers also, let alone the prices, but unfortunately I live in the land of a 2 tier only, take it or leave attitude that is Charter! Their 50/5 plan is $5 cheaper and 1M up faster than Charters even!! | |
|
| Crusty
join:2008-11-11
Sanger, TX |
to borka
said by borka:Those are some really good internet only prices!
I would be very happy with a 50meg connection for $45! but here in Comcast land a 50meg internet only is $75 I'd gladly pay $75 for that speed. CenturyLink (aka - CenturySuck) says I pay for 10Mbps/.768k all for the low low price of $67 after all those fees/taxes. Now, if I could only get above the 3Mpbs threshold during the times I want to use my connection..that be great. | |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
1 recommendation |
morbo
Member
2014-Feb-4 11:27 am
Amazing speed and price pointsI can tell I'm not in a competitive market since these kinds of speed+price options for internet are not available to me. | |
|
Netgear CM500
TP-Link Archer C7
Obihai OBi200
|
What difference does this make for anyone?????1. Grande DOES NOT compete directly with TWC in any market that im aware of!!!
2. Grande is as limited in footprint as is UVerse and GFiber
3. Grande's availability is mostly available in apartment/condo communities where NO other provider is allowed ie: UVerse, GFiber, TWC.
so again what difference does it make? | |
|
|
-1 recommendation |
Ryan in Waco
Anon
2014-Feb-4 12:28 pm
Re: What difference does this make for anyone?????Not true. Grande competes directly against TWC in Corpus Christi, Austin, Waco and Dallas. I'm not sure about their footprint in SA, but maybe there too. Grande has a substantial footprint in many of those markets. It is not just a few high-end developments like Gigapower. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to alexintexas
Like Ryan said, Grande competes head-on with AT&T and TWC in places like Austin. Yes, in some cases Grande has apartment complexes locked up, and they've probably got a smaller footprint than U-Verse VDSL in the cities they serve. But it's not nearly as vanishingly small as GFiber or GigaPower. | |
|
|  bobjohnson
Premium Member
join:2007-02-03
Spartanburg, SC |
to alexintexas
said by alexintexas:1. Grande DOES NOT compete directly with TWC in any market that im aware of!!!
2. Grande is as limited in footprint as is UVerse and GFiber
3. Grande's availability is mostly available in apartment/condo communities where NO other provider is allowed ie: UVerse, GFiber, TWC.
so again what difference does it make? 1. Where did you get that idea? 2. TWC is overbuilt in Austin and most of Travis county by Grande and for that matter, a good portion of Texas. 3. Grande is available where TWC isn't exclusive just the same as TWC is where Grande isn't. Both compete with Uverse in a majority of the area. | |
|
| | |
to alexintexas
Here in Corpus they are in more homes than apartments, basically they are our best alternative to TWC. I am typing this in my house on Grande's 50 mbps tier. | |
|
| |
Ryan in Waco
Anon
2014-Feb-4 12:27 pm
Grande is GreatI've been meaning to write a review for Grande. They really are great. I've had them for years for home internet and recently switched my TV service over too (from Dish). The prices are very competitive. No caps that I am aware of. Netflix and YouTube always work great, even during primetime hours. Their support is fast and competent. And for DVR services they use TiVo Premiere. They really have to be one of the better MSOs in the entire country. If you are in their footprint and are still using TWC, you really need to reevaluate your choice. | |
|
| | |
Re: Grande is GreatI wish I could get Grande, but I'm too far north. Technically there are apartment complexes north of me that have Grande (likely as the exclusive provider; I was at one for the 'bowl on Sunday) but there are relatively few of those.
It's really agitating when I have to SSH tunnel to get my high-end TWC connection...which Grande now sells for $44.99...to stream YouTube without stuttering. From what I've seen, Grande doesn't have this issue. | |
|
| |
Ryan in Waco
Anon
2014-Feb-4 12:28 pm
I've been meaning to write a review for Grande. They really are great. I've had them for years for home internet and recently switched my TV service over too (from Dish). The prices are very competitive. No caps that I am aware of. Netflix and YouTube always work great, even during primetime hours. Their support is fast and competent. And for DVR services they use TiVo Premiere. They really have to be one of the better MSOs in the entire country. If you are in their footprint and are still using TWC, you really need to reevaluate your choice. | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2014-Feb-4 3:43 pm
Those packages are all cheaper then Cox offers here. | |
|
54761437 (banned)
join:2013-01-18
Durham, NC |
54761437 (banned)
Member
2014-Feb-4 5:45 pm
...Time Warner can't even roll out their 100Mbit upgrades on time. | |
|
| |
63475675 (banned)
Member
2014-Feb-4 7:02 pm
I love how so many of the big cable and telcos HATE the idea of competition, yet they also claim they love capitalism. LOL. Hypocrites.
Those are very good values!
Just goes to show you when there is competition the consumer wins. | |
|
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT  ·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68
|
BiggA
Premium Member
2014-Feb-4 11:43 pm
Looks like excellent pricing. Something has to be done about the internet bundling, as it's not only hurt cord cutters, of which there are relatively few, but it's extremely anti-competitive against DirecTV and DISH, as in most markets, you have pay a ton extra to get fast internet and satellite TV. | |
|
|
••••• |
| |
Shocked it includes HD, DVR, etc . at that price. That would be all I need, some basic tv and a fast net connection for a decent price. | |
|
| |
I was told that my 30/3 would be upgraded to 50/5 on May 14, but it wasn't.
I called tech support and they told me that it is for new customers only.
As a long time customer I feel used and abused.
They used to be a good company but they grew too fast and got too greedy. | |
|
|
|
·