'Cable Will Win the Bandwidth Wars' > I was recently...

reply to SteveCon

Re: I was recently...

Actually prove that they have terminated customers. Customers receiving notices is one thing. Them actually doing it is another. Just because Comcast sends these letters out do not really mean anything but to scare the customer. But AT&T does the same thing with Cingular they'll terminate you for roaming too much or what ever their reason maybe because you don't make them "enough" on your contract.

and Cable doesn't do it because like all Bells- They don't have to.

If you want "proof" that cable companies actually terminate people, perhaps you should contact Frank. I think he's collecting names:
»comcastissue.blogspot.com/

Another Blog. Just because someone types it a News channel airs it especially Fox; its true. Just because you blog does not make it real.

I want solid proof. A threat letter and actually doing it is two different things.

And this from the CBS article:
The family says they have been listening to Portuguese radio, down loading movies, and playing games on line, so, maybe they used the internet more than most people.

How do you know he wasn't downloading so much that it actually affected others on the node. Movies take up a lot of gigs to download.

Last Add:

This is not true! Comcast offered frank a business account, which frank declined: why? Because Frank says it would cost $10,000 to install, then up to $2,000 per month.

Has anyone actually seen the prices for Comcast Business Internet? It doesn't cost $10,000 to install and $2,000 per month.

But hell TWC Mid-Ohio RR has bandwidth usages for their RR Biz class customers. Its posted in their TOS and AUP but doesn't state what they are.

The letters don't mean anything. A threat is only a threat.

And for a letter posted I can create a letter and say its from Time Warner and post it and call news stations up and report everything anyone will be willing to listen. And we all know how much the media likes to make a bigger issue out of something than it is.

but for Frank if he doesnt like it he should get a T-1 and share it with his neighbors just like anyone else that doesn't like their ISP's policies.

But why don't Telco's do anything about their networks for dsl; they don't have to. Until now they weren't worried about anything until the Cable Co's started taking their customers away because of prices on Digital Phone.

Sure, you can create a letter. But can you create quotes from a Comcast spokesperson?

Comcast admittedly terminates their customers. It seems the only way cable can win the "bandwidth wars" is to prevent their customers from consuming too much.

btw - Frank's "business" use consisted of a few dozen emails per month. The bulk of his usage was for "entertainment" purposes. But his "entertainment" usage proved to be too much for a cable system to handle.

He is what most business call a "not profit customer" He costs them more money than what he's worth.

The cable system can handle more bandwidth then you think. Remember its all fiber up to the node. Bandwidth is pretty much already there it just depends on if they want you to use it.

The thing is with CC terminating customers there is not an actual way to prove they have terminated anyone but Frank. If they actually did. Most people would receive that letter and change ISPs right away.

Comcast admits it publicly. Why do you need any further proof?

Cable system are capable of handling the needs of a community when they stop terminating customers. Not a minute before.

Because like i said what they say and what they do are 2 different things. There is not any actual document from Comcast that says they have disconnected somewhere. They basically reserve the right as well as any other ISP does. Don't you know all major companies lie?

Cable systems are capable of handling by far more than what a neighborhood/community needs. Remember its built with Fiber. Not a 100+year old copper telephone line.

An HFC (hybrid fiber coax) is only partly built of fiber. If it were all fiber, Comcast wouldn't need to terminate customers, and other cable providers wouldn't need to set consumption limits or throttle customers.

So until Comcast publicly recinds this policy, they're network can't reasonably be considered capable of meeting the needs of a community.

The fiber means there is fiber all the way to the neighborhood. Didn't you know that? thats what the Fiber part means. Also thats is why cable companies put their little cable boxes on corners of streets that have the power meter. So they can convert the fiber optic to coax.

Don't confuse amps with nodes.

HFC plants are fiber to the node. Nodes can have many amp cascades on them (generally depends on the limits set by the franchise - our system has a limit of 8 amps per cascade). Anyone who's beyond the node, which is the vast majority of customers, is not connected directly to fiber.

An HFC plant is obviously inferior to an FTTP plant, but it's inferior to the aging copper plant too - Telco's don't need to enforce heavy-handed policies to limit consumption.

The only one that sends the letters or says they limit usage that is known is Comcast you can't say that everyone does it.

You don't know if a telco doesn't do it. Just because its not posted or hits the media doesn't mean its not done.

HFC is a state-of-the-art system it has years left on it. Telco's are the only ones worrying about if their networks can handle everything. You don't see a cable company going around bullying cities and towns to offer services or see the cable company in DC buying what ever in the hell they want. And the Node is in the same box. Everything in that neighborhood connects to that box.

FTTP can't be that big of a deal for telco's since VZ is the only one putting it out on a large scale and hell even they are starting to slow down on putting it out. Cable companies will always have the upper hand. They have been in the video business a lot longer, they can shove through more data on their network and fiber is already a few hundred feet from each customer. it wouldn't take much to for TWC or Comcast to deploy a FTTP network.

I never said everyone sends "the letters". As far as I know only Comcast does. I don't follow other cable companies too closely since only one cable company serves me, but I am aware that other cable companies limit consumption in various ways - Cox states their limits up front, and I think they charge for overages, Optimum throttles your connection if they feel you've consumed too much.

We could argue whether HFC is "state-of-the-art" or not, or whether FTTP is a "big deal" or not, but either way, HFC can't as robust as DSL or FTTP since cable companies are the only ones imposing consumption limits. If it wouldn't take much, perhaps TWC or Comcast should consider FTTP.

Why should Comcast, TWC and Cox or any other cable company consider FTTP? Why spend money on something you don't need to? There is very little competition in 99.9% of all cable markets combined. The need to upgrade something they just did a few years ago is crazy. Fiber maybe the way of the future but is not right now. Their network can be upgraded as needed. DOCSIS was built that way and thats the reason fiber is so far out in the field. They have the upper hand no matter what.

I wouldn't say they have the upper hand, particularly with a network where they have to terminate customers. But they're in business to make money, and they're doing very well as is. Though their network can be upgraded as needed, they don't upgrade based on consumer needs, they upgrade based on what will impact their revenue.

Right now, they can terminate customers with impunity, thereby eliminating the need to upgrade.

Not all of them terminate. You can't say "they" and refer to Comcast. "they" all cable companies. But if you were in the same boat as them with someone taking gigs or terabytes from you each month and costing you more in data transport to the Internet wouldn't you want them off your network as well? They have a bill to pay to someone else weather it be to a C/LEC or in co-location or a peering partner someone is paying someone. I personally would get rid of that customer as well.

But Comcast has only admitted they will get rid of the customer. And like i said before there is no real proof that someone has been disconnected just a bunch of letters going around the internet and a few news stories and a spokesperson from Comcast admitted they do reserve the right to do it. Many WISPs reserve to do the same thing but you don't hear anyone talking negative about them. Just Comcast.

Comcast has publicly admitted to terminating people, not just that they have the right to. I don't think I'd ever treat people in such a heavy-handed way. Cox and others have imposed limits without taking such draconian measures.

But the bottom line is: Telcos, even on their ancient rickety copper networks, have enough capacity to serve all their user's needs, even heavy users. Cable companies throttle or terminate, which makes their claim of having enough capacity pretty specious.