Re: The numbers in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r16581775 en Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:39:42 EDT Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:39:42 EDT Re: The numbers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16587467 insomniac84 : The shared factor only matters if your area is oversold. If your area is not oversold, cable by far destroys dsl. I currently have 6mbit comcast cable internet and 1.5mbit AT&T dsl. The dsl is always sluggish when doing anything and I am not referring to the slower download speed. If you max out your upload bandwidth on dsl your downloads suffer a lot and ping times shoot through the roof. With comcast I can max out the upload and download and still surf pretty decently. Not to mention normal web surfing is really fast now that they have speed boost.
Although because of price I only have comcast for the summer because they offer it for 20 bucks a month for the first 4 months.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16587467 Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:31:52 EDT Re: The numbers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16584165 bogey780 : It's shared back to the node. Makes a difference if there's heavy node saturation.

I'm not familiar enough with PON architecture to make a statement about it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16584165 Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:28:28 EDT Re: The numbers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16583679 dvd536 :
said by docchat See Profile :

My company's lowest tier is 10/2...Verizon Fios....and this is dedicated bandwidth (all mine), not shared like yours is...so stay on the point of this topic, point being that this is a total BS report by the FCC. And who cares if DSL has more penetration than cable or vice versa. Broadband should be more readily available and more widespread than it is now. If they are going to take the USF from us, they should make some better use of it.
BS!
any type of connection is shared at some point along the way
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16583679 Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:25:50 EDT Re: The numbers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16583148 bchris02 : Cox is 256/256 in my area for their $30 tier. In ares with Verizon its 768 down instead of 256.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16583148 Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:15:40 EDT Re: The numbers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16582855 docchat : My company's lowest tier is 10/2...Verizon Fios....and this is dedicated bandwidth (all mine), not shared like yours is...so stay on the point of this topic, point being that this is a total BS report by the FCC. And who cares if DSL has more penetration than cable or vice versa. Broadband should be more readily available and more widespread than it is now. If they are going to take the USF from us, they should make some better use of it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16582855 Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:35:15 EDT Re: The numbers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16582839 pabster : Yeah, 128kbps service might be fine for occasional web surfing and e-mail. But why would I pay only $10 less than their "regular" tier for it? I'd be far better off (price wise) with either a cheap dial-up account (which can oft be had for less than $10 a month) or an entry-level DSL offering, both considerably cheaper.

Perhaps the other carriers don't operate the same way, I have no idea. I was surprised they weren't offering 128kbps for like $20 or $25 a month. I certainly wouldn't pay any more than that.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16582839 Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:33:13 EDT Re: The numbers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16582402 jtorre69 : my cableco has a low tier, they call it 6meg, you get 3meg at best!!!!!!!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16582402 Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:34:09 EDT Re: The numbers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16582397 travelguy :
said by pabster See Profile :

Yeah, mine has a "low tier", 128k / 128k. Problem is, it is only $10 cheaper than the "regular" tier. Now wonder they don't advertise it!
OTOH, if all you want is 24/7 email and access to the occasional web page to check weather or book an airline ticket, its just the ticket.

Cable and telcos don't advertise such packages for two reasons - they are afraid they will cannibalize their higher cost packages and they dilute their Average Revenue per Unit (ARPU) numbers that Wall Street is so fond of.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16582397 Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:33:15 EDT Re: The numbers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16581967 pabster : Yeah, mine has a "low tier", 128k / 128k. Problem is, it is only $10 cheaper than the "regular" tier. Now wonder they don't advertise it!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16581967 Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:32:12 EDT Re: The numbers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16581775 tiger72 :
said by Jovi See Profile :

By looking at the numbers(depending on accurate data), the cable companies probably could benefit from having a lower priced/lower speed tier. I'd take a million customers at $30 or less than not have them at all. :p
Many cable companies do have a lower tier, but they don't advertise it and only offer it if people are cancelling due to price, it seems.

I believe that cable fears if they advertise their cheaper lines, then they'll lose more customers off of their $40/mo plan than they would gain by advertising their $30/mo plan, regardless of the massive speed cut between the services.
--
|- »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -| |- Cato Daily Podcast »www.cato.org/rss/daily_podcast.xml -|]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16581775 Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:05:49 EDT The numbers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16581724 Jovi : By looking at the numbers(depending on accurate data), the cable companies probably could benefit from having a lower priced/lower speed tier. I'd take a million customers at $30 or less than not have them at all. :p
--
OutKast Clan]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16581724 Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:56:21 EDT