dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11
share rss forum feed

GLIMMER

join:2004-01-17
Fisher, IL
reply to MediacomChad

Re: 250gb limit

said by MediacomChad:

We have a small subset of customers that are using a very large portion of the available bandwidth, which can have a negative impact on the other internet users in the surrounding area. By curbing this behavior, other customers can benefit with faster speeds.

Then add more bandwidth its not like it 10 years ago when BW was expensive. This is nothing more than mediacom realizing they are a ISP and not a cable company. on my street 2 houses out of 30 have mediacom cable the rest have satellite. Your products lack in most areas.

SWMOHawkeye

join:2010-09-30
Springfield, MO

1 recommendation

Yeah, I don't get all the Mediacom hype about faster speeds with Ultra 50 or Ultra Awesome 1000 or whatever name they call it, but then they turn around and whine they don't have the bandwidth to actually give you the benefit of the high speeds. How does that make any sense?

k9iua6

join:2004-05-23
Dubuque, IA
kudos:1
reply to GLIMMER
said by GLIMMER:

Then add more bandwidth its not like it 10 years ago when BW was expensive. This is nothing more than mediacom realizing they are a ISP and not a cable company. on my street 2 houses out of 30 have mediacom cable the rest have satellite. Your products lack in most areas.

Actually adding bandwidth could be very expensive, depending on where the bottleneck is for a Mediacom market area. If it is between the area head-end and the "internet," that indeed could probably be easily done. But if the bottleneck is within the community and requires laying more fiber and subdividing the community into smaller areas served by nodes, then that is a very expensive engineering task. I suspect Mediacom is still suffering from a combination of those two. By adding a second gateway to most market areas and by upgrading the routers and CMTS like they've done to permit Ultra, they've done the easier, cheaper part. The rest may not be cheaper.

GLIMMER

join:2004-01-17
Fisher, IL

1 recommendation

said by k9iua6:

said by GLIMMER:

Then add more bandwidth its not like it 10 years ago when BW was expensive. This is nothing more than mediacom realizing they are a ISP and not a cable company. on my street 2 houses out of 30 have mediacom cable the rest have satellite. Your products lack in most areas.

Actually adding bandwidth could be very expensive, depending on where the bottleneck is for a Mediacom market area. If it is between the area head-end and the "internet," that indeed could probably be easily done. But if the bottleneck is within the community and requires laying more fiber and subdividing the community into smaller areas served by nodes, then that is a very expensive engineering task. I suspect Mediacom is still suffering from a combination of those two. By adding a second gateway to most market areas and by upgrading the routers and CMTS like they've done to permit Ultra, they've done the easier, cheaper part. The rest may not be cheaper.

thats mediacoms fault for not keeping there infra up to date. I could careless if it cost mediacom to upgrade area's. I was talking about raw bandwidth costs to them. Its mediacoms fault for not investing back into the network in area's.