site Search:


 
   
story category
Ads For Comcast 100 Mbps Tier Surface
105/10 Mbps for $200 plus $250 installtion fee?
by Karl Bode Tuesday 27-Jul-2010 tags: business · bandwidth · cable · Comcast
For months tipsters have told us that a 100 Mbps Comcast residential tier is getting very close to launch, with those insiders telling us Comcast would like to hit 20% of their markets with the ultra-fast tier by the end of this year. The looming super tier has been confirmed by some bill insert notifications that began circulating back in June. Light Reading points out that there's flyers making the rounds in Denver that get significantly more specific, the ads promoting an as-yet-unlaunched 105/10 Mbps tier for $199.95 per month (plus a $250 installation fee). Still no word on launch markets or whether that 250 GB cap will apply, and Comcast still won't officially confirm any details to us other than the fact the tier is "coming soon."

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

Sock Puppet
Premium
join:2000-10-09
Parker, CO

2 edits

Hooray for caps

Cool... For the bargain price of $200 a month you can now hit the monthly cap in a few minutes. Assuming you can find a web site that can deliver content even half that fast of course.

KeepOnRockin
Music Lover Forever
Premium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR

Re: Hooray for caps

said by Sock Puppet:

Cool... For the bargain price of $200 a month you can now hit the monthly cap in a few minutes. Assuming you can find a web site that can deliver content even half that fast of course.
I knew it. Someone would mention the caps.

Every time there is any Comcast article regarding the speed of the service, the cap gets brought up.

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

Re: Hooray for caps

said by KeepOnRockin:

Every time there is any Comcast article regarding the speed of the service, the cap gets brought up.
As it should.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:30
Why wouldn't users want the cap brought up? They'd like to know the specifics of a tier they're paying for, yeah?

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23

Re: Hooray for caps

Not if they are fans of Comcast.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2

Re: Hooray for caps

Or are tired of it getting brought up again. And again. And again.

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23

Re: Hooray for caps

Comcast could drop the caps and then there wouldn't be any questions about it.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

Re: Hooray for caps

Comcast isn't run by a bunch of idiots. They know they'd get a press firestorm if they dropped caps, so they won't. not only that, but their (slower) DSL competitors would rush to point out the shrinking caps, and Comcast would start seeing customers defect. They don't want that, so they won't lower caps.

Stop obsessing over something that hasn't happened, and probably will never happen...

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23

Re: Hooray for caps

Stop obsessing about people daring to mention the caps, particularly when it comes to how it may apply to top end tiers.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

Re: Hooray for caps

At this point it's beating a dead horse. If they have the same crap cap on 105/10 as with everywhere else then don't freaking buy the higher tier, or go to biz class service and get yourself some uncapped internet. It's not like Canada where every single internet connection has a cap on it.

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

1 edit

Re: Hooray for caps

said by iansltx:

If they...
...which is why people ask about the cap. People can't make the decision as you suggest if they don't have the answer.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2

Re: Hooray for caps

Wouldn't you think that Karl would place a confirmed/raised/lowered/eliminated cap front and center in his article if he had that kind of information available? Asking about it won't magically make that info appear...

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23

Re: Hooray for caps

Sure it could. There could be Comcast employees reading or others more familiar with the tier that could post the answer.

Relax.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2

Re: Hooray for caps

...and, ten posts later, we're beating the dead horse some more...

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23

Re: Hooray for caps

Only because people apparently get offended when anyone dare question Comcast greatness.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2

Re: Hooray for caps

Who are you using as an ISP? Who's the other option?

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

3 edits

Re: Hooray for caps

Cox, AT&T and Covad. Other options include a slew of DSL resellers, not that it has anything to do with other users daring mentioning the subject of caps on these tiers while Comcast fans cringe. If Cox enforced their caps (which I haven't seen done yet) on a $200/mo 100Mb tier and threatened to ban users for a year who violate the cap twice (as Comcast clearly does in their FAQ), there would be no shortage of people including me saying, "what is the point in a capped 100Mb service?" and they would be justified in asking the question.

We are all entitled not to be impressed with a capped and overpriced tier, particularly one that could cost you $200 for just 6 hours of use.

--
"Our goal (was to make) a billion phones Flash-enabled by 2010...We're actually going to get 1 billion Flash-enabled phones by 2009." -Adobe Chief Technology Officer Kevin Lynch in Nov 2008.

canesfan2001

join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL

Re: Hooray for caps

Congrats for you...

My options are:

Comcast

Here is my problem with the corporatist zealots that troll here... you scream and scream about letting the free market work and regulation on companies is bad, yet you try and silence any open discussion about pros and cons of one business model vs another. What you are really looking for is for all businesses to be regulation free AND for consumers to be completely unable to educate themselves to make choices. It's completely hypocritical.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2

Re: Hooray for caps

If there's an unregulated market, there's no one to lobby to push the playing feild askew in your favor. Just syain'.

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23
Huh? I said no such thing.
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
said by Z80A:

Only because people apparently get offended when anyone dare question Comcast greatness.
I believe many are not offended, just paid to appear so.
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
said by iansltx:

...and, ten posts later, we're beating the dead horse some more...
It is not a dead horse. Just by "beating" it were the magical "non existent" caps confirmed and Sandvive canned. I recall people complaining about that discussion, too.

Care to ask funchords ?
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

Re: Hooray for caps

I agree that at that time bringing up caps/RST/Sandvine was beneficial. However at this point the caps are common knowledge and, after a year and some of ranting by the same three dozen people on here, Comcast has done nothing because they don't want 500+ GB users on their system anyway...not at residential prices at least.
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

Re: Hooray for caps

said by iansltx:

I agree that at that time bringing up caps/RST/Sandvine was beneficial. However at this point the caps are common knowledge and, after a year and some of ranting by the same three dozen people on here, Comcast has done nothing because they don't want 500+ GB users on their system anyway...not at residential prices at least.
The caps are not common knowledge in the general CC user base.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

Re: Hooray for caps

They are on BBR. If you went on the street and told people that Comcast has caps then that would be useful. You're preaching to the choir here. Trust me, I wrote an aricle decrying Comcast's caps right when they came out...and people read that one...and they weren't on DSLReports

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable

Re: Hooray for caps

I hope DSLR users keep bringing up caps every time we have a Comcast article. Any cap remotely resembling 250 -500 GB on a 100 Mbit/s line is criminal. Comcast is a monopoly ISP for many people and this is their way of eliminating any video competition.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2

Re: Hooray for caps

So you'd rather have a 250GB cap on a 10 Mbps connection instead?

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable

Re: Hooray for caps

said by iansltx:

So you'd rather have a 250GB cap on a 10 Mbps connection instead?
No I'd rather have honesty and integrity instead of the dishonest representation of bandwidth as some type of Fossil Fuel.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2

Re: Hooray for caps

Well then, build your own ISP.
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

Re: Hooray for caps

said by iansltx:

Well then, build your own ISP.
said by iansltx:

Well then, build your own ISP.
Will you just please stop harassing people that are displeased w/ the CC cap policy ?

Thanks.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2

Re: Hooray for caps

I'm actually dead serious. Buy a CC biz connection, get a bunch of static IPs, and share with friends.

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
said by iansltx:

Well then, build your own ISP.
Why hound anyone who dares question Comcast policy? Why are you so vested in defending Comcast's reputation here?
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

Re: Hooray for caps

I'm not. I'm just tired of people complaining about something they can do something about. Comcast will offer their 100/15 business class service anywhere whre 105/10 is sold. It's about double the price, but includes more upload sped. Wireless and routing equipment is available to distribute that biz class connection to whoever wants it, given line of sight between the two parties, and you can get a resellable Comcast biz class connection with no problem...uncapped.

You don't have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on equipment and permitting to become your own ISP this way...just share the connection with your neighborhood and call it good.

Oh wait, you want to have something to complain about, especially since you AREN'T EVEN IN A COMCAST AREA. Sorry 'bout that!

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

Re: Hooray for caps

Who cares if you are tired of it? Don't like it, don't read the thread. The caps are a legitimate concern for users and they can comment on them all they want.

If Comcast doesn't like the criticism, let them change their behavior.
--
"Our goal (was to make) a billion phones Flash-enabled by 2010...We're actually going to get 1 billion Flash-enabled phones by 2009." -Adobe Chief Technology Officer Kevin Lynch in Nov 2008.

Van
Premium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA
said by iansltx:

Well then, build your own ISP.
Impossible when Comcast and others dictate the rules to play by

See 7 replies to this post

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
said by iansltx:

So you'd rather have a 250GB cap on a 10 Mbps connection instead?
I'd rather see this 100Mb tier more useful than just a PR stunt.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2

Re: Hooray for caps

Then don't count on a publicly held company to do that for you.

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23

Re: Hooray for caps

I don't see VZ capping their 50Mb FiOS plans and last time I checked, VZ was a publicly held company.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2

Re: Hooray for caps

You also don't see them deploying FiOS anymore...

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23

Re: Hooray for caps

What does VZ deployment have to do with Comcast's caps?

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

1 edit
said by iansltx:

Comcast isn't run by a bunch of idiots.
This comment reeks of fanboidom

See 6 replies to this post

Clusterphook

@sbcglobal.net
You misunderstood, by dropping the caps he meant getting rid of the caps altogether, not lowering the cap.

skuv

@rr.com
said by iansltx:

Comcast isn't run by a bunch of idiots. They know they'd get a press firestorm if they dropped caps, so they won't. not only that, but their (slower) DSL competitors would rush to point out the shrinking caps, and Comcast would start seeing customers defect. They don't want that, so they won't lower caps.

Stop obsessing over something that hasn't happened, and probably will never happen...
I think you're confused. By "dropping caps" he means Comcast no longer having caps. Thus, "dropping" them.

Not lowering the caps.
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
said by iansltx:

Comcast isn't run by a bunch of idiots. They know they'd get a press firestorm if they dropped caps, so they won't. not only that, but their (slower) DSL competitors would rush to point out the shrinking caps, and Comcast would start seeing customers defect. They don't want that, so they won't lower caps.

Stop obsessing over something that hasn't happened, and probably will never happen...
No, but what I consider extremely greedy people that do not tell the truth (FCC) and practice less than honest business practices (bait and switch, "unlimited" and so on).

See 7 replies to this post
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
said by iansltx:

Or are tired of it getting brought up again. And again. And again.
As long as there is that shitty limitation, why not mention it ? It is a very relevant limitation, ESPECIALLY as available speeds increase and it is easier to run into.
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
said by Z80A:

Not if they are fans of Comcast.
Or employees/contractors posing as "regular users".
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2
btw it's 105/10 in the subheading, not 105/20. Had me hopeful there for a second

See 6 replies to this post

KeepOnRockin
Music Lover Forever
Premium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR
said by Karl Bode:

Why wouldn't users want the cap brought up? They'd like to know the specifics of a tier they're paying for, yeah?
Indeed they would. I have no issues with that.

My point being: I don't mind the mention of the cap in an informational way (which Comcast up to this point has the same cap on all residential tiers, iirc).

However, comments made by members reminding people how fast someone could burn through the monthly cap at 105mbps sustained are not too useful. That's just my opinion though.

See 7 replies to this post
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
said by Karl Bode:

Why wouldn't users want the cap brought up? They'd like to know the specifics of a tier they're paying for, yeah?
That's your job... but when a user does it, to be honest, it's just old... its more like "yea, we get it"... you post speed, they post caps... why bother posting any story about anything if the very first post is always cap.. it's almost like it's some kind of competition and metal of honor to be the first post in a comcast story and post "cap"...
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

Re: Hooray for caps

said by fiberguy:

said by Karl Bode:

Why wouldn't users want the cap brought up? They'd like to know the specifics of a tier they're paying for, yeah?
That's your job... but when a user does it, to be honest, it's just old... its more like "yea, we get it"... you post speed, they post caps... why bother posting any story about anything if the very first post is always cap.. it's almost like it's some kind of competition and metal of honor to be the first post in a comcast story and post "cap"...
There are "old" limitations that suck and are as important today as ever. So, yes, bring it up. Everytime the speed is touted, its limitations should be disclosed.

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable

1 edit
said by fiberguy:

said by Karl Bode:

Why wouldn't users want the cap brought up? They'd like to know the specifics of a tier they're paying for, yeah?
That's your job... but when a user does it, to be honest, it's just old... its more like "yea, we get it"... you post speed, they post caps... why bother posting any story about anything if the very first post is always cap.. it's almost like it's some kind of competition and metal of honor to be the first post in a comcast story and post "cap"...
Almost as old as your unending corporate apologies for underhanded and sleazy corporate behavior.

Bandwidth is not a fossil fuel.

Van
Premium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA
said by fiberguy:

said by Karl Bode:

Why wouldn't users want the cap brought up? They'd like to know the specifics of a tier they're paying for, yeah?
That's your job... but when a user does it, to be honest, it's just old... its more like "yea, we get it"... you post speed, they post caps... why bother posting any story about anything if the very first post is always cap.. it's almost like it's some kind of competition and metal of honor to be the first post in a comcast story and post "cap"...
Which person are you today?

You have told people here so many different things that I think we all get a bit confused which person you are claiming to be today
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
said by KeepOnRockin:

said by Sock Puppet:

Cool... For the bargain price of $200 a month you can now hit the monthly cap in a few minutes. Assuming you can find a web site that can deliver content even half that fast of course.
I knew it. Someone would mention the caps.

Every time there is any Comcast article regarding the speed of the service, the cap gets brought up.
Because it is important and it sucks.

Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Comcast
Why are they still doing 105/10mbps? No love for upstream?

I guess they don't want people to host stuff on their connections which defeats the purpose.

And not being clear about the caps?

Bad marketing comcast.
--
I found the key to success but somebody changed the lock.

Ikyuao

join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS

Re: Hooray for caps

Well, Comcast choose their own strategy on residential tier in their way to keep upstream at limited a speed throughput.
--
the aggregate link are carrying higher quality of connection to boost productivity.

skuv

@rr.com
In a DOCSIS system, the upstream frequencies are handled differently than the downstream, and don't have the same amount of bandwidth available.

Also, upstream timeslots are used for signaling VoIP services, and so must be available.

So if you take a DOCSIS 3.0 bundled service, with 4 downstreams, each downstream being 42mbit, that is 168mbit of downstream shared for all DOCSIS 3.0 customers on that node.

The upstream in DOCSIS is 10mbit per channel. So that is 40mbit for DOCSIS 3.0 bundled.

They're not going to give 1 customer the ability to lock out upstream timeslots.

That is unfortunately the reality of DOCSIS. It's a solid technology and has grown a lot, but it has those limitations.

And obviously, these ISP's are not looking to sell connections where people want to host servers. They know people host servers, and they don't do much about it right now because they choose to limit the upstream bandwidth.

RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

Re: Hooray for caps

said by skuv :

In a DOCSIS system, the upstream frequencies are handled differently than the downstream, and don't have the same amount of bandwidth available.

Also, upstream timeslots are used for signaling VoIP services, and so must be available.

So if you take a DOCSIS 3.0 bundled service, with 4 downstreams, each downstream being 42mbit, that is 168mbit of downstream shared for all DOCSIS 3.0 customers on that node.

The upstream in DOCSIS is 10mbit per channel. So that is 40mbit for DOCSIS 3.0 bundled.

Upstream bandwidth is 28mbit not 10mbit so you have 128mbit max if bundled with the 4 channels that are required to be supported by the modem (although the cable company only needs to provision 1 channel to the user). See »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Speed_tables for details.

nerdburg
Premium
join:2009-08-20
Schuylkill Haven, PA
kudos:1
said by Alcohol:

Why are they still doing 105/10mbps? No love for upstream?

I guess they don't want people to host stuff on their connections which defeats the purpose.
No hosting on residential accounts.
--
-meh

commiecast

@comcast.net
Comcast is very clear about their caps, its on their website, and you are right comcast doesnt want you hosting stuff, thats why its DHCP and not static, read your EULA. If you want to host stuff you have to go business class, just like every other ISP

heat84
Bit Torrent Apologist

join:2004-03-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL
said by Sock Puppet:

Cool... For the bargain price of $200 a month you can now hit the monthly cap in a few minutes. Assuming you can find a web site that can deliver content even half that fast of course.
I guess you've never heard of Bit Torrent. Usenet would do it too.
PerfectCode

join:2009-06-12
Portland, OR
Yay! $200/m, what a bargain! With caps? Hurray!

RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
said by Sock Puppet:

Cool... For the bargain price of $200 a month you can now hit the monthly cap in a few minutes.
If you lived in Cablevision/OptOnline's footprint (like I do) instead of Comcast's, you would get 101/15 for only $100 not $200 a month (but would pay $300 not $250 for the one-time flip-the-switch-at-the-headend fee).
mlcarson

join:2001-09-20
Las Cruces, NM

Get all markets to 50 before going to 100

How about getting all of their markets up to 50 or even 15 Mbps first?

See 7 replies to this post
davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..

All in good time.

My prediction, based on pure speculation, with no evidence to support it, is that Comcast will increase the cap to 1TB when and only when their entire service area is DOCSIS 3.0, ALL the bugs are worked out of the DOCSIS 3.0 modems, ALL customers are digital cable customers, and ALL analog channels have been converted to digital uses. Since the cap now is 250GB at about a maximum download speed of 25 Mbps, I speculate they will quadruple the cap to match the quadruple download speed.

hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
kudos:1

Pointless

subject says it all
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

wong objective..

STOP harping on the CAPS issue and START harping on the makin the UPLOAD SYMMETRICAL.. MORONS! There is absoluetly no reason that (by the end of THIS YEAR) the cable morons(industry) can't fix the last mile & their docsis 3 plant & modems to allow for SYMMETRICAL upstream starting at 50 megabits and getting upto 100 megabits on DOWNLOAD AS WELL AS UPLOAD.

I have FIOS 25/25 and it's some great stuff! How is comcast ever going to push telcos such as AT&T and Verizon if they don't get their REAL ACT TOGETHER instead, you people harp on the caps. Caps are DEAD & MOOT if you'd focus on something more constructive instead. Stop becoming cheerleaders for the share holders.. your customers for [insert 3 or 4 letter word] sake!
majortom1029

join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
kudos:1

Re: wong objective..

Its verizon that cant compete. They cant even wire every area that they have franchise agreements . All of long island should have fios but fios decided to cherry pick long island.

Also do not lump att with verizon considering there is no way att can match fios att i think cant even hit 50 /50 speeds with the fttn/dsl tech

skuv

@rr.com
Yes, there is absolutely a HUGE REASON that they cannot go completely symmetrical.

DOCSIS technology itself is not symmetrical. And it most likely never will be.

A single DOCSIS 2.0/3.0 downstream is 42mbit. A single DOCSIS 2.0/3.0 upstream is 10mbit.

That gives you 168mbit down and 40mbit up for 4 channel bonded DOCSIS 3.0.

I suppose they could make a 10mbit/10mbit tier or 20mbit/20mbit tier, and they probably do or will for business class customers.

But the DOCSIS technology is not symmetrical. And that is the biggest reason they don't provide symmetrical speeds. They can clean up the coax in the field all they want, and they will never do better than 42mbit down/10mbit up per channel.

Video QAMs are limited to the same 42mbit down. So that is also the reason they compress HD channels. So they can fit 3 of them in a single QAM.

When they go to MPEG4 video delivery, the quality will get better since MPEG4 can fit more information within better compression.
bsoft

join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO

1 edit

Re: wong objective..

said by skuv :

A single DOCSIS 2.0/3.0 downstream is 42mbit. A single DOCSIS 2.0/3.0 upstream is 10mbit.
With QAM64 and 5.12MSym/sec on the upstream, DOCSIS 2.0/3.0 can do 30.7 Mbps (minus overhead) per channel. In a 4x bonding situation, that's 92.2 Mbps.

said by skuv :

They can clean up the coax in the field all they want, and they will never do better than 42mbit down/10mbit up per channel.
That's only true for DOCSIS as it exists today. Higher-order QAM is certainly possible (see »www.multichannel.com/article/758···_QAM.php), although probably not without significant hardware and plant investment. Whether or not we will see higher-order QAM, more aggressive node splits, deeper fiber, something else, or a combination of multiple techniques is unclear. But there is certainly no physical reason why 1024 QAM is impossible, given that it has already been demonstrated in laboratory settings (»portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1···.1259964).
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

Re: wong objective..

said by bsoft:

said by skuv :

A single DOCSIS 2.0/3.0 downstream is 42mbit. A single DOCSIS 2.0/3.0 upstream is 10mbit.
With QAM64 and 5.12MSym/sec on the upstream, DOCSIS 2.0/3.0 can do 30.7 Mbps (minus overhead) per channel. In a 4x bonding situation, that's 92.2 Mbps.

said by skuv :

They can clean up the coax in the field all they want, and they will never do better than 42mbit down/10mbit up per channel.
That's only true for DOCSIS as it exists today. Higher-order QAM is certainly possible (see »www.multichannel.com/article/758···_QAM.php), although probably not without significant hardware and plant investment. Whether or not we will see higher-order QAM, more aggressive node splits, deeper fiber, something else, or a combination of multiple techniques is unclear. But there is certainly no physical reason why 1024 QAM is impossible, given that it has already been demonstrated in laboratory settings (»portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1···.1259964).
The original estimates were for about 160-200mbit down and 120mbit up (40-50megabit channels down X 4, 30 megabit channels up X 4).. however something appoaching 100/100 megabits WAS and should be (again) the next goal. Even under gigabit connections, the 100mbit tier would see some overhead loss & that's to be expected.

We should note that the cable industry HYPED the docsis 3.0 technology as something they could upgrade in the head-ends ONLY and "KILL" the competition with-- whether the industry was overpromised similar to DSL isn't the point.. These companies have doubled down on docsis 3.0 & now they have to make it work the way they said it should.
bbscript

join:2004-11-09
Fairfield, PA

ok so this is how it should be

now comcast now look at dedicated server providers that provide 100mbit download speeds and look at the caps
105/10 should be capped at 3TB per month based on 100mbit dedi providers.
chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01
Schaumburg, IL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Mediacom
·T-Mobile US
·Clearwire
·AT&T Wireless Br..
·Comcast
·AT&T DSL Service
·RCN CABLE

I have comcast

and I am satisfied with it. I actually wanted to upgrade my ATT DSL to U-Verse, but ATT would not waive the installation fee for U-Verse Internet without TV, even though I chose the highest speed tier and have the wireless service with them. So I switched. 250GB cap is no big deal to me and now I am actually saving money for half year thanks to their promotional deal.

45612019

join:2004-02-05
New York, NY

Comcap

Have fun hitting your monthly bandwidth cap in just six hours, 100 Mbps Comcast users!

See 11 replies to this post

Vix

join:2001-12-30
Denver, CO

3 edits

No thanks...

$200 a month seems a bit steep.

I think I'll pass up on this one and stay with my 22/5 business connection with 5 statics, no caps and no server restrictions. (for less than 1/2 the cost)


PerfectCode

join:2009-06-12
Portland, OR

1 edit

Re: No thanks...

Aha! I am jealous!

Edit: What modem are you using for your service?

joebarnhart
Paxio evangelist

join:2005-12-15
Santa Clara, CA
The problem with publishing speed tests is that there's always a better one out there. I'll see your 100M download and raise your upload capacity, for $94.50/mo. and no install fee or mandatory contract...


Vix

join:2001-12-30
Denver, CO

Re: No thanks...

said by PerfectCode:

Aha! I am jealous!

Edit: What modem are you using for your service?
SMC D3G

said by joebarnhart:

The problem with publishing speed tests is that there's always a better one out there. I'll see your 100M download and raise your upload capacity, for $94.50/mo. and no install fee or mandatory contract...


My point was that I didn't find the aforementioned price to be very cost effective once alternate choices (and results) are considered.

My post wasn't meant to spark a e-peen competition, but apparently that was EXACTLY the point of your resultant post. It must be another one of those guy things I guess...

I realize that there are many people that have better connections than I do, but if one is limited to the offerings of a Comcast dominant service area with mediocre/non-existent competition, all you can do is share ideas on maximizing you price vs. performance ratio.

inudesu

@verizon.net

Whats the point?

All of you complaining about questioning the cap. What if i want to use this service to its full potential? Whats wrong with using ADVERTISED speeds!? Sure it says no servers but that doesn't mean you should not use your whole pipe!

See 7 replies to this post

KodiacZiller
Premium
join:2008-09-04
73368
kudos:2

Ridiculous..

It's ridiculous that 20% of the country will have 100 Mbps tiers before my area gets upgraded to 16/2 (which most of the country has had for several years now).
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: Ridiculous..

Yeah, I hear ya. I'm on the Branford, CT system, and it's bad only having 6/1.

Why are people always so polarized on the cap issue?

The fact of the matter is that DOCSIS is shared bandwidth, and there has to be some bandwidth management, so that some idiot doesn't run NNTP through the thing 24/7.

What I'd like to see, however, is a system that doesn't involve capping, but rather prioritization. So, there would be 250GB of data you'd get equal with everyone else, and after that, you are at the bottom priority on your node during large file transfers, BUT you can suck as much bandwidth as you want. In reality, the vast majority of nodes wouldn't have a bandwidth issue that vast majority of the time, but during peak usage others would be able to get on as well.

The people who are ruining it for everyone else are the ones who are sitting there downloading NNTP or bittorrent 24/7 all month long. That's just a ridiculous waste of bandwidth.

OTOH, the cap has got to go up. Although no sane person needs even 200GB today, a family of 5 who are all tech-saavy could easily blow through it when they start streaming and downloading movies and games, and leaving streaming music on a lot. And these uses are expanding day by day. The next generation of consoles may very well have new games being purchased over the internet, and maybe even a rental service where you pay a flat fee for all the games you want. At 10GB+ each.

The question then arises, what about broadband affordability? This brings a different solution: drop the price of cable internet, and put a cap on it, say 40GB/mo, and price it at $30/mo to make it more affordable, but if you want to pay $60/mo you get more speed and a really high cap (say 1TB). That way, the bandwidth consumers pay, over time, for the capex required to upgrade the network. The problem with that is that system could be rigged or abused to go against net neutrality or be anti-competitive since Comcast is also in the video business.

The last point that I will make is that there should be some regulation over Comcast, because they are a monopoly. If there were 5 providers, I'd say "who cares?, let Comcast do what they want", but the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of places that there is no competition for Comcast, and even more, like where I live, where there is no good competition. Where I live, our other option is 1.5mbit AT&T DSL, which would defeat a lot of the transfer-consuming uses of Comcast by not having enough bandwidth to make them practical.

Augustus III
If Only Rome Could See Us Now....

join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA

lol

ive 0 use for that.

im still on the cheap what is it.. i dont even remember what im paying them 50$ for. i think its the 10/2 or whatever.

im making it a point to blow past their cap diligently so that i feel im getting 50$ worth of sporadically lagging service.

if i have to utilize 200$ worth.. well let me just say that western digital's stock will go up.

thanks comcast but no thanks.

Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1

For this price....

Comcast should eliminate caps....JMO....

Jimop

@honeywell.com

Its a power play, comcast got squished a little by FIOS

So now they want to up the anti.

Cable companies have a pretty big lead in the internet domination sonce the MA bells are just hardly scratching the surface of the fiber market at this point.

But in the big cities where the big money sits just by pure numbers they started to loose the battle. The 50/10 and now the 100/20 from the cable co is to try to get the speed junkies they lost back. The issue is that.. Fios is easly capable of 1 GB up and down and cable ... well they have limits due to traffic on their fiber rings and they are 10gb per ring... Not sure what ma bells cap is .. so ... watch the battle as it continues.

I expect to see much higher speed and mush lower prices in the next year or so..
dv8silencer8

join:2005-01-18
Princeton, WV

People complaining about people complaining/talking CAPS

The Cap question is absolutely important and valid. The question is not who really needs to use 100 mbps 24/7/30-31 day but rather the following: Why should a person pay for 100 mbps if there is a cap? Will the type of person who actually wants/will make use of 100 mbps be turned away from subscribing because of the Cap? The answer is ... OBVIOUSLY. I subscribe to 50 mbps and the cap is not even congruent with my desires. This is why I'm going to business class with a lower bandwidth with no cap that costs less. This shows that for me the cap matters.

People say the cap shouldn't matter because 250 GB is "a lot". But who uses 100 mbps? People who obviously want to download more than 250 GB. Therefore, for this deal/plan that Comcast offers.. the Cap matters to anyone who is remotely thinking of signing up.

To me, paying 2x for 100 mbps vs. the 50 mbps is the same as paying twice as much for pretty much the SAME product 99.7%+ of the month.

suddenlink1

@suddenlink.net

.

Suddenlink still has ya beat!

Chuck Carlso

@teksavvy.com

FROG Throttle boxes

I liked it better when Comcast had the FROG Throttle boxes. It's a shame they parted ways with Sandvine Corporation.

Monday, 04-Jun 15:47:31 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.