 NickDPremium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ
 ·Comcast
| reply to KodiacZiller
Re: That's nice but.. The difference between 10mbps and 250 mbps is much less for 99% of users than the difference between 2mbps and 10mbps.
Maybe 10 years from now when website *ads* are full 1080i HD videos, 250 mbps would be the standard. My router can't even handle 100mbps wired, and I don't even get the full 16mbps I pay for when I use wireless unless I'm in the same room as the router. |
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·DIRECTV
·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| You can't really fault comcast for your wireless not handling 16mbps, they are only responsible for the speed up to the ethernet cable coming out of the cable modem, upgrade to wireless-N and you should be able to obtain 16mbps easy.
I only get 12-14mbps on my wireless-G router but that's not cablevision's fault I get fairly close to 30/5 the majority of the time. |
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to NickD
I can do 35 Mbps wirelessly with my router with ease...50-60 Mbps with tuning, even more when close to my AP. Wired, I can do north of 100 Mbps. That said, if I got 250Mbps service I would likely upgrade my router, or start renting one from Comcast that could handle that speed. You do know that their $5 modem rental fee includes a wireless router, right?
That said, I'd rather have 35/35 than 250/20. I would also rather have 35/35 for $85 than 250/35 for $150. I'd be willing to eat equipment upgrade costs but 35 Mbps down and up means that most servers I visit will be able to deliver content at that speed and I'll be able to upload stuff quickly as well.
That said, I'm not going to bash the existence of a 250 Mbps tier; more speed available on residential/SMB tiers is never a bad thing. |
