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

reply to hottboiinnc

Re: I was recently...

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.

Look at who owns a great deal of all the actual fiber in this country- The Telcos. ATT isn't back together for a reason. VZ didnt buy UUNet/MCI for no reason. Its all the backbone bandwidth they have.

But Telcos have the same problem. They just don't show it. They over sell just as much as a cable company. Look at VZ they over sell so much at times they actually have to stop taking orders because their either out of bandwidth or they over sold their DSLAMs so much they have to order new ones. They also don't have enough capacity to serve customers. if they did VZ a few years ago wouldn't have been dropping people's speeds saying that they moved farther from the CO. Also Telco's wouldnt prequal you for one thing and then give you another speed saying all of a sudden that "you're lines do not support this" They run out of bandwidth at some point to. Its just not going to appear as they add customers. Each customer does not get their own T1 or greater to the Internet.

So in other words you'd rather have a customer paying you $50 per month for Internet and your bill be in the thousands just because you don't think that it would be right to disconnect them. I think its fair to disconnect them. It's bad for business to keep them. Why should Comcast have to pay the price?

Yes, telcos are faced with the same situation, but they choose to deal with it by managing the network, not by terminating/throttling customers.

It's terribly hard to find the cableco claims credible when out of one side of their mouth they say "we have ample bandwidth", while out of the other side of their mouth they say "we'll terminate/throttle you if you consume lots of bandwidth". Either they have ample bandwidth or they don't - it can't be both.

And since we know cableco's terminate/throttle, it's easy to conclude that they're just blowing a lot of hot air when they say they've got ample bandwith. The conclusion is the same, no matter how many different ways you try to say it. But feel free to try to keep trying.

They do have ample bandwidth in the actual network between the computer and the headend. They never said where they have the ample bandwidth at.

reply to hottboiinnc
Slow?! slow putting it out huh. backup your claim sir. I dont have the link but the recent numbers i read (on this site iirc) were steadily increasing presence in states already rolled out as well as introducing more and more states. They are the only ones also because they are one of the few that can afford such a massive rollout. Slow. you guys are funny.

reply to hottboiinnc
Comcast has been kicking off people left and right and this is NOT an isolated incident. I happen to been one of those subscribers like Frank and many others out there that was booted off of their network for a fuzzy policy that was cleverly written to give Comcast the upper hand and to lie and not be honest that their service is limited and cannot handle the increased amount of traffic and users on their network.

Instead of a letter, I (like so many others) was threatened to being terminated by a phone call and was never once offered a chance to either upgrade to higher grade commercial account or more bandwidth service. Frank, James, I and many others are speaking out on this issue.

reply to hottboiinnc
Seems a bit disingenuous. If bandwidth is plentiful within Comcast's system, but not available to serve customers when they need it, what's the point?

Bandwidth is NOT plentiful in Comcast's service. It's a lie and they know it.