dslreports logo
 story category
Comcast DOCSIS 3.0 Demo FUD?
Bloggers react to Brian Roberts
Om Malik calls Comcast's demonstration of their DOCSIS 3.0 150Mbps channel bonding technology "FUD," noting that the show for the press was spawned out of a fear of FiOS, no matter what Comcast executives might say. We're not so sure Comcast was spreading fear, uncertainty or doubt with their presentation at the NCTA show this week, but the article does highlight some of the limitations of getting DOCSIS 3.0 deployed -- and is in line with our own skepticism about consumers seeing 150Mbps any time soon. Tom Evslin (who launched AT&T WorldNet back in the day) meanwhile wants to know where the upstream speeds are hiding.
view:
topics flat nest 

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Om Malik selling FUD and not Roberts

Roberts presents at a technical industry conference and gives a peek in to where Comcast sees the cable industry going over the next several years. And all Om Malik gets out of it is that Comcast is running scared and selling FUD. But it seems to me that the one selling FUD is Malik with his take on the presentation. Of course, that is how he drives people to his blog.
ashworth7
join:2001-10-06
Pittsburgh, PA

ashworth7

Member

Re: Om Malik selling FUD and not Roberts

Are you scared of FiOS too ??

phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL

phattieg

Member

Re: Om Malik selling FUD and not Roberts

said by ashworth7:

Are you scared of FiOS too ??
What would one be scared for? FiOS is still very limited in it's coverage. I wouldn't doubt it will take at least another 5 to 10 years before FiOS has enough coverage to really become a "threat". And by then, infrastructure will have changed so much that it may not even matter. I can say this, the majority of the users on this site love speed, and bandwidth, but the majority of internet users in general could care less, as long as the price is right. FiOS does nothing but guarantee that Verizon will have to collect a certain amount of monthly income just to pay off this huge investment they've made. Other companies are trying to "think outside the box" by deploying alternative methods to meet the demands, while not draining their pockets. I really don't see a threat from FiOS myself.
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus

Member

FUD?

FUD means Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. I didn't read about the Comcast presentation but it sounds like he was giving a real proof of concept demo, not spreading FUD. Ed Whitacre and SCO are good examples of FUD spreading.

MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Katy, TX

MysticGogeta

Premium Member

Re: FUD?

I agree if they shown the demo how is it spreading FUD. But then again it is a blog you can't expect much out of them.
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

1 edit

majortom1029

Member

OM malik disgusts me

He states that the cable industry is scared of fios.

How can he says that based on one cable provider.

Look at cablevision. They have 30/5 and 15/2 packages and testing higher speed packages.

All this without docsis 3.0

They are slowly adding new hd channels also.

Why must everybody generalise the whole cable industry based on just what comcast is doing.

also om malik has fios himself so he is very biased.

ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium Member
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

ColorBASIC

Premium Member

Re: OM malik disgusts me

Ask yourself WHY CV deployed those speeds.

Comcast would never mention Verizon if they were scared S-less of them. They would be stupid not to be.
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

majortom1029

Member

Re: OM malik disgusts me

Well its not like cv considerably boosted thier speeds . Rememebr till fios came along cv was one of the fastest around.

But unlike comcast cablevision is doing a good job of competing with verizon fios.

The problem I have is that the press keeps lumping all the cablecompanies together wich they shouldnt be.

ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium Member
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

2 edits

ColorBASIC

Premium Member

Re: OM malik disgusts me

Yeah, at 10Mb. Then magically they offer 3-5X the speed they offered for years.

It's obviously them reacting to FiOS, just as Comcast, Cox and Time Warner are. Hell, my TWC service area just got bumped to 15/2, the same speeds offered by FiOS. Also not surprising is that it started in Huntington Beach, CA (a large FiOS deployment area) and spread from there.

They're all scared of Verizon and they should be. Verizon represents the first wireline threat to their video services and the first offering to up the ante on cable HSI speeds whereas DSL had to compete solely on price.

Verizon should be equally crapping over cable VoIP but instead of being smart like Comcast, Verizon's answer is to pile on more junk fees. Comcast being scared in resulting in action. Verizon not giving a crap results in them bleeding POTS customers by the hundreds of thousands.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: OM malik disgusts me

said by ColorBASIC:

Verizon's answer is to pile on more junk fees.
The junk fees are taxes Verizon has to pay as The Phone Company that VoIP and such don't have to pay.

Show me a provider that will provide service at the advertised price.

ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium Member
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

2 edits

ColorBASIC

Premium Member

Re: OM malik disgusts me

said by batterup:

The junk fees are taxes Verizon has to pay as The Phone Company that VoIP and such don't have to pay.
Bull. The $1.50 "how dare you not want to be in the phonebook fee" has to be collected by Verizon? Or the "you aren't using enough long distance fee" »New Verizon Fee For Not Using Long Distance I don't think so. I'm not talking about Federally mandated E911 and USF, I'm talking about bull crap junk fees like "Regulatory Recovery Fee", "Number Portability Fee", $1.50 "Or you'll be the telemarker book with your name and address fee".
said by batterup:

Show me a provider that will provide service at the advertised price.
Time Warner Cable.

My TWC 15/2 HSI bill is exactly as advertised. No junk fees. Period. Unlike Verizon DSL and their bullcrap 10% junk fee I used to pay when they lost the excuse to call it FUSF. The FCC rules that FUSF didn't apply to DSL. Didn't matter, Verizon still wanted the money so they changed the name of it and kept the $$$.

BTW, here's my latest statement from TWC.

Statement Details

Service & Use This bill is for services from 05/03/07 To 06/02/07.

Payments Amount
04/09 Credit Card Payment -54.95

Monthly Charges Amount
05/03 - 06/02 Road Runner HSO Extreme 54.95
05/03 - 06/02 Road Runner 5 Emails .00
05/03 - 06/02 Road Runner IP .00

Balance Due $54.95

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: OM malik disgusts me

said by ColorBASIC:

My TWC 15/2 HSI bill is exactly as advertised.

Balance Due $54.95
Very nice but where is the add that says $54.95? All I can find is $29.95.

»www.timewarneradvantage. ··· er_cable

ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium Member
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

4 edits

ColorBASIC

Premium Member

Re: OM malik disgusts me


Price you see is the price you pay
'Cause you aren't looking at pricing for the 'extreme' tier that I have. Extreme tier pricing is clearly stated on their HSI product pricing pages (which are available to those in TWC service areas) and there are NO JUNK FEES...zero, none, zilch. No contract either.

The $29.95 price you're looking at doesn't have junk fees either.

If you signed up for that you would be billed $29.95 for whatever the promo term is exactly as clearly stated in the ad. And the order page clearly states what the ongoing price is. Still no junk fees.

I didn't get a "promo" because I don't have digital cable. My order page said that my Extreme plan would be $54.95 and sure enough that is exactly what my bill is every month. No surprise junk fees, not even a modem rental fee. With Verizon DSL, they said the rate was $29.95 but tacked on some $2.60 something in 'recovery fees'. This is in addition to similar recovery fees for POTS.

As you can see from my screenshot prices are clearly stated. The "plus equipment charges" they mention are for CATV equipment as the final price depends on how many boxes you want to rent (prices for those are also clearly explained) and do not apply to HSI. The price shown includes use of their modem (no separate modem fee).

The only thing inaccurate on their order page is the quoted speeds. They claim the Extreme tier in my area is either 6 or 8Mb but it's really 10 or 15Mb. In my particular case it's 15000/2000kbps as they are dealing with FiOS competition.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: OM malik disgusts me

said by ColorBASIC:

'Cause you aren't looking at pricing for the 'extreme' tier that I have.
You are lucky that you don't have ANY tax in your state.

ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium Member
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

ColorBASIC

Premium Member

Re: OM malik disgusts me

HSI itself isn't taxed in California. I have a state tax on my satellite bill though. I guess California has laid claim to Outer Space.

Subaru
1-3-2-4
Premium Member
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT

Subaru to majortom1029

Premium Member

to majortom1029
said by majortom1029:

Well its not like cv considerably boosted thier speeds . Rememebr till fios came along cv was one of the fastest around.

But unlike comcast cablevision is doing a good job of competing with verizon fios.

The problem I have is that the press keeps lumping all the cablecompanies together wich they shouldnt be.
CV did not up the stock speeds until Fios came into town.. Now I know CV said it had nothing to do with Fios as they had planned on doing before.. But come on you have to be nuts to think Fios did not cause them to move faster then if Fios was not out at all.

WhyRoberts
@shawcable.net

WhyRoberts

Anon

Why Roberts?

Why was it Brian Roberts doing this demonstration? Comcast does not even offer cable services in the state of Nevada, besides this the entire Comcast network is only currently a docsis 1.1 network. Ironic that the ISP who is currently at docsis 1.1, not 2.0 is the group showing the 'newest and greatest' technology in the cable industry. Just my 2 cents.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Why Roberts?

said by WhyRoberts :

Why was it Brian Roberts doing this demonstration? Comcast does not even offer cable services in the state of Nevada, besides this the entire Comcast network is only currently a docsis 1.1 network. Ironic that the ISP who is currently at docsis 1.1, not 2.0 is the group showing the 'newest and greatest' technology in the cable industry. Just my 2 cents.
1st - it is a national industry show. So whether Comcast is in Nevada or not is completely irrelevant.

2nd - Comcast is skipping docsis 2.0 and going direct to 3. That avoids an unnecessary step that would have provided no benefits.

opus74
Deep Thought
Premium Member
join:2002-03-04
Coello, IL

opus74

Premium Member

Coud be ......

Frustration Unhappiness and Despair !!

Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer

Member

Re: Coud be ......

Frustration Unhappiness and Despair for consumers who don't live in FTTH areas. It could be a long time till other areas see DOCSIS 3.0 deployed.
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

majortom1029

Member

Re: Coud be ......

No anybody not in the verizon fios area or the cablevision area.

Sum Guy
@shawcable.net

Sum Guy

Anon

Relax guys...

FUD doesn't mean fear uncertainty AND doubt. In this case it just means uncertainty. Simply put, if 3.0 150Mbps is misrepresented as being just around the corner and the best/most viable solution when it isn't, it casts uncertainty on alternatives. And investors hate uncertainty.
Time4aNAP
Premium Member
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL

Time4aNAP

Premium Member

Re: Relax guys...

said by Sum Guy :

FUD doesn't mean fear uncertainty AND doubt. In this case it just means uncertainty.
I beg to differ, but that is what it means. That's why it's called "FUD", not "F" or "U" or "D".
Simply put, if 3.0 150Mbps is misrepresented as being just around the corner and the best/most viable solution when it isn't, it casts uncertainty on alternatives. And investors hate uncertainty.
What you describe is vaporware. Why not call it what it is?

Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
Premium Member
join:2003-09-16
Columbus, OH

1 edit

Vchat20

Premium Member

DOCSIS 3.0 complete 'FUD'

Call me the devils advocate here on this and feel free to debate with me on this subject if you want, just keep the responses civil and don't go attacking my character for no valid reason...

But I personally believe the whole of the DOCSIS 3.0 standard is FUD to begin with. When it comes down the the consumer at the end of it all, DOCSIS 3.0 provides absolutely 0 advantage overtop 2.0 in most scenarios:

-Channel bonding for up to 150mbit /nearly symmetrical/ speeds: Granted, yes, this covers the node and not each individual customer. If you run into the offchance your local cableco has oversold your node or you have many leechers nearby that they don't want to bother to deal with, the increase in overall speed to just the node would help out. But I have yet to see any cases in recent months where a degradation in service quality wasn't directly a result of node saturation. Current systems can handle this if set up right. Even if you take the idea of consolidating multiple split nodes into a single node with the bigger pipe, it's not really doing much in the way of changing the amount of available bandwidth over the coax infrastructure. You're just combining multiple 6mhz channels into one larger 'virtual' channel as seen by the node. Channel bonding only really adds a minor advantage to the cableco in which they could, IF they desired, reduce the number of deployed nodes. As it is, in MANY cases, cablecos are gonna continue to sit on their asses and keep standard HSI packages in the single digits and fall behind competitors offerings (even then, the competitors will probably be in the same boat with them just endlessly competing for nothing more than profit and market share. About the only real provider out there who's doing anything in the alternative is Verizon with the areas where FiOS is available.)

-IPv6: Really...At this exact moment in time, what advntage is there in deploying IPv6? Until more of the country/world starts deploying IPv6 compatible devices, this is really a major misnomer. Though I will admit outright that HAVING the capability for future use is definitely a positive. So I won't discount DOCSIS 3.0 completely on this point.

Overall it seems like nothing more than massive hype at this point. It's a worthwhile upgrade in it's own right, I don't discount that. But everyone is hyping this as the next generation of technology that's gonna bring cablecos heads above water.

EDIT: On a side note, I see no reason why all these providers are really skimping on the upload speed. You want REAL worthwhile technology? Build a revision of DOCSIS where you can utilize the upstream of all the digital QAM television channels that currently goes unused? you have SOOO much unused bandwidth there.
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

majortom1029

Member

Re: DOCSIS 3.0 complete 'FUD'

Channel bonding will help grately. IT will increase the bandwidth on the coax side . How does that not help greatly.

Also any unsed channel upstream can be used by being bonded to make a faster upstream.

Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
Premium Member
join:2003-09-16
Columbus, OH

1 edit

Vchat20

Premium Member

Re: DOCSIS 3.0 complete 'FUD'

said by majortom1029:

Channel bonding will help grately. IT will increase the bandwidth on the coax side . How does that not help greatly.
WRONG. It does NOT increase bandwidth on the coax side. All it does is allow cable operators to combine up to 4 or so docsis 2.0 grade 6mhz channels at 38/27 into one usable channel by the node. It's still the same bandwidth usage as docsis 2.0. To put in something that can be understood better: What's more efficient bandwidth wise? 1 channel at 160mbit/120mbit or 4 channels at 40mbit/30mbit a piece? Both use the same space. Difference being the 1 channel is still TECHNICALLY the original 4 channels at a rate of 40/30 per. Just it's all combined into one large piece of bandwidth at the node. Look it up for yourself. All it does is just combine the same exact amount of space into one virtual pipe as seen by the node/customer.

On the upstream note, I should make it perfectly clear here that docsis 2.0 was already capable of fairly close to symmetrical speeds...Well, closer than the whacked out ratios they have now like 5/384. Specifically, it's 38mbit down/27mbit up at the node. No reason cable companies can't give you at least 1mbit up at this point as-is. Docsis 3.0 isn't gonna change that any. They /COULD/ use the unusde upstream channels and they COULD bond them together for larger upstream speeds, but if they aren't using the bandwidth that's available NOW, why would they?
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: DOCSIS 3.0 complete 'FUD'

You should withhold from being quick to jump off with the WRONG messages... especially when you, yourself, are wrong.

And, for the record, if ANY OF YOU think that the 150 speeds to the home is going to be for internet, you're dead wrong.

DOCSIS 3.0 is going to, at first, be mostly used for video delivery vs. internet.

Not sure where you get your information, but it's amazingly incorrect and a bad guess.

Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
Premium Member
join:2003-09-16
Columbus, OH

1 edit

Vchat20

Premium Member

Re: DOCSIS 3.0 complete 'FUD'

Tell you what. You tell me ONE service that will, on it's own, require more than 38mbit on the downstream or 27mbit on the upstream and I will retract all my comments. Up to this point though I have yet to see any services come about that will require that much bandwidth on their own, NOT multiple services like HSI, digital catv, VOD, and VoIP piled together.

Once again I return to the comment that there is no real difference between 4 38mbit channels and one bonded 160mbit channel, only thing being IF you find a service that outranks that 38mbit limit, THEN having a bonded 160mbit channel would be worthwhile and required. But as of right now, you can have say a 20mbit HSI package, IPTV worth 10mbit of bandwidth per HD channel and say 5mbit MAX per SD channel. Well, right there on the second SD channel you hit your limit. Fine. Move any one of those over to a new channel. OR, with docsis 3.0 you can keep them all combined in one 'virtual' channel as seen by your modem/settop/whathaveyou. But it's still technically using the same amount of space as it would be in the current docsis 2.0 situation.

I just want to make it perfectly clear that I'm NOT discounting docsis 3.0 completely as bad technology. I'm just wading through the major marketing hype that is touting it as technology that's gonna directly benefit the customer and going to totally redefine the current cable HFC system when it's not. If anything, it's merely there for future-proofing and I /WILL/ give my praises for that. Go, say, 10 years down the road, and thinking in a rhetorical sense: Each home is provided with a full 100/100 symmetrical pipe. From inside the house it splits off to a 25/x HSI connection, a few HD and SD television channels provided purely via IPTV, and 2 VoIP phone lines at full PCM bandwidth. The rest of the available 100/100 connection merely remains as extra bandwidth for future uses. OR it could be used for more tv outlets in the house with an iptv box on each outlet.

EDIT: Regarding your comment about the 150+ speeds not being used for HSI connections alone, I agree with you 100% and that's part of the argument I've been trying to make all along. It's not like someone like Time Warner is gonna immediately bump standard HSI speeds from 7mbit right up to 30-35mbit in one fell swoop. Fuck that. The only other real use for that speed is, like you said, for video services and anything else not directly related to HSI service like provider sanctioned VoIP. Once again though I'd like to point to the rest of my post above on the 'does it NEED more than what's currently available?' point.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: DOCSIS 3.0 complete 'FUD'

I'll answer your question as soon as you stick on one path with your thought.

First it was "there is no difference and it can't be done" to your "there is no need," Mr Gates.

Marketing Hype? nope... it's a technology being discussed. I suppose Fios and Surewest and all there other fiber projects out there are just marketing too?

And, you did conveniently leave out what my point was... MOST of the bandwidth will be used for proprietary services anyway. Just because it's "bandwidth" doesn't mean it will be to the internet. They are looking for this bandwidth for the ability to free themselves from the limitations of fixed frequency. Throw out IP TV and you now have virtually an unlimited amount of channel capacity.

It's usually people here that "assume" that it's all for the net.

So, there is your "application" that will use the 100+ delivery.
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

1 edit

majortom1029 to Vchat20

Member

to Vchat20
+`where are you getting your arguments from.

Then this multiple core thing thats going on in cpus is fud also right? Also the bonding that I am doing on my network at work doesnt help either right?

Stop with your misinformation.

This is in realtion to vchat20

Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
Premium Member
join:2003-09-16
Columbus, OH

Vchat20

Premium Member

Re: DOCSIS 3.0 complete 'FUD'

God I hate apples to oranges analogies. First of all there are MANY technical differences between dual core cpu's and the current HFC cable systems out there so I'm not even gonna bother trying to compare them merely for the sake of argument.

In regards to your work network, that depends. Do you HAVE anything on your network that requires more capacity than what can be provided by ONE line of your currently bonded setup? If not, then there's really no advantage to bonding two or more connections rather than just load balancing them. Both would provide pretty much identical performance in the latter case. And THIS is what I have been trying to point out. If you don't have any services that require more bandwidth than a single channel can provide you, there's really no reason to bond two or more of them together when you can just keep them separate and load balance your bandwidth usage across all the channels.

The rest of my argument is clearly detailed in the previous post...
Time4aNAP
Premium Member
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL

Time4aNAP to Vchat20

Premium Member

to Vchat20
said by Vchat20:

IPv6: Really...At this exact moment in time, what advntage is there in deploying IPv6? Until more of the country/world starts deploying IPv6 compatible devices, this is really a major misnomer.
Misnomer? That's like saying that everybody's given name is a misnomer until they've traveled far and wide. WTF?

What is the advantage? Well, for one, it's "deploying IPv6 compatible devices"...
Overall it seems like nothing more than massive hype at this point.
Come and see the United States of America some time. Aside from munitions, hype is the only thing this country still manufactures.

truedalife
join:2003-01-10
Brooklyn, MD

truedalife

Member

Player Haters!

You all are player haters! DOCSIS 3.0 cost way less to implement and rocks. I won't have to upgrade my wiring and add new holes to my home. Why pay for 4 hour installation of CAT-5e cable, and more equipment than a mini head-end in your home. BG&E is expensive in Baltimore. A rate hike is expected in July and it will be 70%. So I don't want a FIOS ONT in my basement, and a Router, and a Optical converter, and then boxes and etc... Way to must for my pocket. Most modems work off an AC adapter and use very little power.

Very soon, in a Comcast system near you, at least 100Mbps. I'll be happy with that. But DOCSIS 3.0 can do more than 100Mbps. Read the spec's on DOCSIS 3.0. You can bond as many channels as you want. Most cable system will be reclaiming at least 40 analog channels. Leaving about 20-30 local channels for there limited service tier. Comcast will add a 3.0 channel one at at time, maybe offering 15 Meg service. As they rebuild the CMTS to a all 3.0 channel system, you may start to see 50 Meg's or more. Just swap out the old modem and a way we go. Simple and that's why Comcast will be around a long time.

We need to relax people. The Infrastructure of the Net is not ready for everyone to go 100 Mbps symmetrical. We need more connecting links at 1Gbps or better(an OC link). Like a SuperJaring OC-48 link (2.5 Gbps). Full adaption of IPv6 world wide. Without these changes, the current pipes will get over congested. Making the 100 Mbps service feel like a 50 Meg or less. Also there's the price. Everyone wants cheap, but it cost money, and can be expensive for any ISP to move data outside there network. Every ISP will impose caps. Especially the small companies like Charter and Bright House. What will be the means used to set these caps?

The NET has changed. I did not know who long most World of Warcraft players play. I had a customer repair order for the Internet service being out. While working on the service the customer said he can play 24 hours straight. He does this on his days off. His kids also play allot too. They had a router and most customers will need a route in the near future with any service. Then there's AppleTV, slingshot, Joost and gadgets like that. And everyone is working on moving DVR content to and from other devices.

Then there's the XBOX LIVE, PlayStation Home, and the WII. So what will be the caps. Because the future internet will be about caps, since prices will be the same. The heavy users will be suspended, even banned. Because the price to move data off network is costly. And companies like Verizon, AT&T, Bell South, Level 3, and many more (providers of OC-type backbone connections) want more money for the traffic passing. They want a regulated NET, so they can impose high fee's.

100 Mbps to everyone is not ready for prime time yet. Let's get through the 6 to 20 Meg stages first. Or maybe we can get symmetrical speeds first. I'm always in a "need for speed", but at what PRICE$$$$$$$$$

•••••

ThirdShifter
Premium Member
join:2002-03-16
Wethersfield, CT

ThirdShifter

Premium Member

At the end of the day.. it's just a utility

Who cares how fast fios might be in 5 years or what cable operators need to to survive.. whats important to us is that we have what will get the job done.

There is no reason why anyone in this world at home for personal use would need 150Mpbs at this point and time.

The internet as it is today, as a awhole per se, needs catching up and to minimize data sizes and transfer, adopt better compressions and protocols.

tektron
w'zup duck?
Premium Member
join:2005-01-30
O Fallon, MO

tektron

Premium Member

What about the bandwidth caps?

Maybe I missed it in another thread, but... how much more quickly will this new Comcast technology get shut off for hitting Comcast bandwidth caps?

Seems silly to me for Comcast to up the download speeds if Comcast's invisible download caps don't change...otherwise you're merely getting shut off by Comcast that much quicker in the month.

DreamWraith
Premium Member
join:2004-04-07
Mount Vernon, WA

DreamWraith

Premium Member

Re: What about the bandwidth caps?

sure, if you are the type who maxes out your connection 24/7. in which case, good riddance even faster!

ARGONAUT
Have a nice day.
Premium Member
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN

1 edit

ARGONAUT

Premium Member

It's not FUD it's fraud?

This sounds like a good way to bring up Comcast stock here
alanisrox69
join:2005-03-29

alanisrox69

Member

...

Who cares what kinds of speeds Comcast can offer....they cap if you download too much. No thanks. And the kicker is, they won't even tell you how much is too much.

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

1 edit

insomniac84

Member

Why not just state what we know?

We know AT&T isn't even trying to claim they have future plans for high speed connections.
campinfool
join:2006-02-24
Austin, TX

campinfool

Member

What you thought you knew...

Even though most on here claim AT&T is behind the curve, it has not stopped Time Warner from being very nervous about their services. It is not a knock on cable or a brag on telco. It is something that has been verified by a few sources personally.
bbscript
join:2004-11-09
Gettysburg, PA

bbscript

Member

rediculous caps

let comcast cap like dedicated servers do when they rollout new high kickass speeds.

10/1 or 15/2 or 20/5 or 30/10

10/1 at 1TB per month at 42.95
15/2 at 1.5TB per month at 52.95
30/10 at 2TB per month at 72.95
short09
join:2006-07-21

short09

Member

........

itll be 25 yrs before the usa sees 50mbps as the standard everywhere

TheWeasel
@comcast.net

TheWeasel

Anon

DOCSIS 3.0 in Minneapolis

I can tell you that the Minneapolis area of Comcast will be DOCSIS 3.0 within the next 3 months. We don't have competition from fiber in the area either. How lucky for us.