how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
bsoft
join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO | reply to sortofageek
Re: Let's keep all DOCSIS 3.0 Discussion in this thread, please I've pretty much given up on Comcast in Colorado.
Comcast's competition here is Qwest, which doesn't offer TV service. Qwest offers ADSL2+ in a very, very few areas - otherwise, it's 7Mbps with 32ms of interleave-induced latency, and that's if your lucky. And don't even think about signing up without home phone service, because you'll pay through the nose.
So, with zero TV competition and very little Internet competition, Comcast doesn't have a whole lot of incentive to upgrade their network. We still have 65+ analog cable channels, we still have around 15 HD channels, and we still have crappy oversubscribed DOCSIS 1.1 Internet.
We have a perfectly good 850MHz cable system here. There's room for 150 full-bandwidth MPEG2 HD channels (even without SDV), plus 250 SD channels, plus 300Mbps of DOCSIS 3.0 goodness. The technology exists, right here, right now. Hell, most of it was developed right down the street at CableLabs (it's around 5 miles away).
But, you know what? I think that Comcast is a company that hates investing in infrastructure and technology. We still have the same crappy Moto cable boxes with the same crappy i-guide DVR. We still have tons of analog channels wasting bandwidth. And we still have crappy slow Internet. Comcast talks about deploying new technologies. Sometimes they do demonstrations. Sometimes they even deploy in a few markets.
But, at the end of the day, I've still got my TiVo HD with two S-cards (because they don't have M-cards in this area). I still have my crappy Thompson DCM425 cable modem that periodically loses sync because of line problems that Comcast won't fix. I still have crappy latency because my node is oversubscribed.
And, yet, I put up with all this crap because the alternative is 3Mbps DSL for $56/mo with Qwest. I guess that's the point. Here, there's no alternative. Here, it's Comcast or nothing. | |
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | bsoft,
If you could make the decision for your area, and swap Comcast's cable monopoly for one operated by another existing company that does things better, who would you choose and what are they doing better?
(In short -- Is it Comcast or is it the monopoly factor?)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| | |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Similar situation here. Comcast around here isn't too horribly oversubscribed, so PowerBoost actually means something, but the highest internet tier is 8/2 Mbps for pretty darned expensive, especially considering the 250GB cap that's gonna turn on the day after tomorrow.
Problem: there's little to no competition. Qwest's fastest DSL package is 5/896 nominal, 4.25/700 actual, and that's on a perfect day. Usually speeds are a good bit under that...the DSLAM isn't fiber-fed so we're stuck with capacity issues at peak times. First-hop latency is 45-50ms if you're not doing anything with the connection, much more if you are.
If TW wasn't going to cap their service I'd say I'd rather be with them in a heartbeat. For about what I'm paying now, back home I could get a 15/2 connection. Verizon, Embarq or even Windstream DSL would also be nice; I'm not even talking about FiOS here and we're looking at faster speeds than Qwest offers...with reference to Verizon I'm talking about their new 7 Mbps DSL tier.
DSLExtreme anyone? AT&T DSL (not even talking about UVerse)?
Cable-wise, I dunno. Armstrong Zoom? Grande Communications? Insight? WOW? I want sustained speed, not PowerBust.
There is a WiSP around here but I think a 5 Mbit connection is $60 per month, though that's better than $47/mo for Qwest for a connection that isn't even that fast. Not sure why "cheap" DSL starts at $40/month for dry-line service...and that only pays for 1.5 Mbps down!
So yes, competition would be good. But there are also much better companies to have as your monopoly\duopoly. Heck, it'd be awesome to have the old WOW DSDN back. Ah well... | |
 BSD24Tier 4Premium
join:2008-04-30
Middleboro, MA | reply to funchords
said by funchords:bsoft, If you could make the decision for your area, and swap Comcast's cable monopoly for one operated by another existing company that does things better, who would you choose and what are they doing better? (In short -- Is it Comcast or is it the monopoly factor?) Unlike Fios - Comcast has to upgrade networks, get rid of analog, and do some other changes to get closer to what Fios can offer. These changes take time and plenty of money. Can't wait to see how things go as things continue to change. | |
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | In all fairness, Verizon also had to do a fair amount of upgrades in the areas where they offer FiOS - some expensive ones I hear... | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Are you talking about NY? | |
BSD24Tier 4Premium
join:2008-04-30
Middleboro, MA | reply to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:In all fairness, Verizon also had to do a fair amount of upgrades in the areas where they offer FiOS - some expensive ones I hear... It's a new system, they wanted to offer TV service, so they ran FTTH. If you want to think of it as a upgrade, its a upgrade to their network, and phone service, but not an upgrade for tv, since it is new to TV, and FIOS internet is technically brand new. | |
BSD24Tier 4Premium
join:2008-04-30
Middleboro, MA
1 edit | reply to AVonGauss
Thats also why they are an all-digital tv provider, you have to have a box for every tv, no cable direct. Comcast didn't abandon their network, instead they are upgrading. So its going to take time and money to do this, to basically catch up to what Fios is able to offer. Comcast still has plenty of Cable-Direct customers still feeding off of analog service. | |
|
