 1 edit | That's nice but.. It would be great if they would focus on upgrading those of us who are still only able to get 8/2. Just having "Blast" would be nice.
However, I have to say Comcast is definitely leading the field when it comes to deploying "fiber like" speeds over copper. It's hard to complain about Comcast's Internet offerings, especially in areas where FiOS is not available. I just wish they would hurry up and upgrade us remaining 10% who are still on 8/2.
-- Linux and BSD: operating systems the way they were meant to be -- secure, fast, free, and open. | |
|
 |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs kudos:1 | Re: That's nice but.. The problem I had with Comcast in my area was I NEVER saw the speeds promised.
And forget from 4PM to about 10:30 PM when the local teenagers were downloading kewl warez from Pirate Bay. I got dial up speeds.
I wonder what the Wookie thinks.....  -- Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: That's nice but.. said by N3OGH:The problem I had with Comcast in my area was I NEVER saw the speeds promised. And forget from 4PM to about 10:30 PM when the local teenagers were downloading kewl warez from Pirate Bay. I got dial up speeds. I wonder what the Wookie thinks..... Never had a problem here with slow speeds, even at peak times (nights, weekends, etc). In fact, my speed is always able to be maxed out, provided the server can accommodate. I suppose I am lucky in that regard, or live around a lot of elderly folks.
And, yes, I agree with Flibbetigibb, the pricing should be done on a scale relative to the fastest speed (i.e., if 100 Mbps costs $70, then 50 Mbps should not cost $60). However, even a bigger gripe than that is the fact that non-TV customers are forced to pay a premium. -- Linux and BSD: operating systems the way they were meant to be -- secure, fast, free, and open. | |
|
 |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: That's nice but.. I understand the rationale for discounts with TV service, but it is too great right now. It should be $10, not the $20ish that triple play customers get... | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: That's nice but.. said by iansltx:I understand the rationale for discounts with TV service, but it is too great right now. It should be $10, not the $20ish that triple play customers get... said by iansltx:I understand the rationale for discounts with TV service, but it is too great right now. It should be $10, not the $20ish that triple play customers get... yiss, marinlna washington | |
|
 |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | 6 or half a dozen.... the price for internet IS more expensive stand-alone. There is a "discount" for bundles.. You're looking at the cheapest price as if it were the retail price.
Honestly, the internet for cable, at least, has been priced where I personally feel is correct and sustainable for a business model. Look at what happened when the Bell systems priced DSL where they did... they over sold and sold out, and then they realized they couldn't support their customers at that price. To the customer, especially Verizon customers, try getting a tech visit when something happened. You had to do about 15 steps over the phone, including moving the modem to a new line and changing the phone cord even BEFORE they would even discuss sending out a tech. That is simply a sign of they didn't want to support it. One single tech visit and that customer becomes a loss... and trust me, it showed clearly. (This didn't start happening until they priced DSL at $12.95 a month.
Personally, I don't have a problem with discounting when you take more than one service from a provider.. the alternative is simple.. everyone pays a higher price all around. And seriously, if cable did that, phone would be right on their heels doing the same thing; raising prices and stopping any bundle discounts. This, however, is what competition gets you..., in some cases, higher prices. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  1 edit | Re: That's nice but.. said by fiberguy:6 or half a dozen.... the price for internet IS more expensive stand-alone. There is a "discount" for bundles.. You're looking at the cheapest price as if it were the retail price. Honestly, the internet for cable, at least, has been priced where I personally feel is correct and sustainable for a business model. Look at what happened when the Bell systems priced DSL where they did... they over sold and sold out, and then they realized they couldn't support their customers at that price. To the customer, especially Verizon customers, try getting a tech visit when something happened. You had to do about 15 steps over the phone, including moving the modem to a new line and changing the phone cord even BEFORE they would even discuss sending out a tech. That is simply a sign of they didn't want to support it. One single tech visit and that customer becomes a loss... and trust me, it showed clearly. (This didn't start happening until they priced DSL at $12.95 a month. Personally, I don't have a problem with discounting when you take more than one service from a provider.. the alternative is simple.. everyone pays a higher price all around. And seriously, if cable did that, phone would be right on their heels doing the same thing; raising prices and stopping any bundle discounts. This, however, is what competition gets you..., in some cases, higher prices. First, you have no citations to back up your claim that it all started when they lowered their pricing to 13 a month. Second, you are making the huge, huge assumption that Verizon skimped on customer support and maintenance due to a lack of revenue.
Free in France charges a ubiquitous $40/month triple play for everyone of their customers. The owner openly cites his 50% profit margins and the ability to continuously upgrade and build out fiber to more customers with his profits. You are simply being ignorant or disingenuous. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: That's nice but.. I certainly do have something to cite over that... how about myself and my own experiences... I have several locations that use VZ DSL and I've had to deal with them many times over regarding issues. I can tell you, in my own experience, that those accounts who were paying the higher rates got treated differently with tech support calls, over the cheaper cut rate prices, for one. And second, some accounts that were re-rated to the lower price saw the change in how they approached these accounts. And um, well, it happened back when they started cutting their rates to compete.
I don't need SOMEONE ELSE to say that it's happening to see the writing on the wall.. and I happen to be in an industry very close to this, so yea, I'm the citation.
In ANY business, it's a pure fact.. if you're cutting your rates, and they themselves knew they were doing it AND said it.. (it was something about 2 years ago when they stated that they were doing this to lock in customers to a cheaper price, compete with cable, keep those customers as theirs pending their new upgrade system build outs as it's easier to market existing customers than it is to market new ones - how's that?) They KNEW they were selling the product to lock in customers.. they KNEW it was dirt cheap.. and with that, yes, it comes with the fact that they DO loose money on one single call.. I personally know what it costs to roll a truck to service a customer. Factor in a under-cut price to the consumer on the service and yes, that customer becomes a loss.
I know how business works - VERY well.. I own a few. .And ignorant people don't do well in business. Not sure about you, but I've taken many business courses... don't sit in your chair and tell me I'm being ignorant or disingenuous just becuase I don't have SOMEONE ELSE saying what I am to back it up.. Um, the ONLY one being ignorant is you in this case - sorry, but it's true. Many people have "broke" information here on this site and it doesn't mean since they have nothing to cite that it's not true..
Think about it.. and becuase of the tone of your messages, I could care less to carry a conversation with you.. leave the name calling to your children. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  VanPremium join:2009-07-08 New Orleans, LA 1 edit | Re: That's nice but.. said by fiberguy:so yea, I'm the citation. You seem to do this in many of your arguments
You state something, have nothing to back it up, and then claim its because you just "know it" and thus it is a fact
I would believe you except you have done it on a variety of issues that not one person would have "inside knowledge" on all of them. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 1 edit | Re: That's nice but.. Do you just like to be ignorant? or no...?
Ummm... your argument holds the same water, then in your book, as people saying they're getting booted off cable service for 'using too much' prior to the announcement of caps.. I suppose since there was no inside knowledge that they were lying back then?
Get real.. I already told you.. I have several accounts with VZ and noticed the patterns..
You believe what you want to make you happy at night.. that's your choice.. what ever. I'm done with you!
And for the record, others have said the same to me.. I don't have to prove a damn thing to you.. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  VanPremium join:2009-07-08 New Orleans, LA | Re: That's nice but.. said by fiberguy:Do you just like to be ignorant? or no...? Ummm... your argument holds the same water, then in your book, as people saying they're getting booted off cable service for 'using too much' prior to the announcement of caps.. I suppose since there was no inside knowledge that they were lying back then? Get real.. I already told you.. I have several accounts with VZ and noticed the patterns.. You believe what you want to make you happy at night.. that's your choice.. what ever. I'm done with you! And for the record, others have said the same to me.. I don't have to prove a damn thing to you.. Yes, because people notice that trend with you. You can't really back up anything you say with anything of substance. You seem to think that saying something and then claiming you know just "because" gives you some authority on the subject.
The first few times I saw you post this I just assumed you actually worked for some computer company but it seems that you must have worked for every computer, chip, corporation, government, and whatever else is out there to be able to be in the "know" for everything you seem to say that about.
Just letting you know that your "I know because I know" argument doesn't really hold any water anymore.
Backing up future arguments with actual facts would be a nice change of pace. | |
|
 |  |  | | The speeds are never promised... they are always UP TO Xmps and never guranteed... guess thats what happens when your not an educated consumer purchasing cable products... Then again no one ever compliments the power boost either! | |
|
 |  |  |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs kudos:1 | Re: That's nice but.. I understand it's "up to".
Guess I expected more than 156K down from my "BMW" when paying so much.
That's OK, the provider I left for gave me consistent up and download speeds from both of their offerings, so I am happy. -- Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
|
 |  |  |  |  SLDPremium join:2002-04-17 San Francisco, CA 1 edit | Re: That's nice but.. Bravo! You sent a message by leaving AND you left more bandwidth for us  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs kudos:1 | Re: That's nice but.. It wasn't really that I was sending a message, as wanting usable service.
Which I have in spades, now.
My intention is not to Comcast bash. I'm the entire IT department for my PT job (Small concern, approx 40 users with 8 terminals and a server) and we have Comcast's business offering there. We can't get anything else, but I am extremely satisfied with their service thus far.
I would imagine they've made upgrades in my part of the woods. We were one of the first areas to have broadband in my neck of the woods back in 1999. No doubt by the time 2004 rolled around (when I left Comcast), the equipment was somewhat antiquated and/or maxed out. -- Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
|
 |  |  |  FreedomBuildWell done is better than well saidPremium join:2004-10-08 Rockford, IL Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | I distaste anonymous cowards that post this kinda stuff to justify Comcast's policy to screw people in select markets because of a monopolistic position and political bribes contributions...
I agree with whatsaid by N3OGH:The problem I had with Comcast in my area was I NEVER saw the speeds promised. And forget from 4PM to about 10:30 PM when the local teenagers were downloading kewl warez from Pirate Bay. I got dial up speeds. FYI Personally I don't give a rip about powerboost
As for the article: Fine...explore options for the future...but deal with what's at hand NOW! Talk is cheap -- »www.freedom-builders.biz »www.freedombuild.net ~Well done is better than well said~ | |
|
 |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | "up to" is an excuse. Plain and simple. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 1 edit | Re: That's nice but.. said by iansltx:"up to" is an excuse. Plain and simple. "up to" is a fact of life.. that can even happen on a LAN as well.. If business networks can slow down based on peak use and other factors and conditions, your residential service is no different.
If you need a more consistent speed on your residential use service, then consider a T1 or something of that nature where you will have much more "luck" getting those speeds.
Up to is not an excuse... it's them being realistic and honest based on the landscape we have today. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: That's nice but.. No, it's an excuse, because Comcast has proven that they *can* deliver my advertised speeds 99.99% of the time (good enough for me) as long as the server on the other end supports those speeds.
Also, for the price of a T1 I could buy 50/10 from Comcast on the business side. Last I checked, 50 Mbps NEVER gets down to 1.5/1.5 even on a bad day. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: That's nice but.. Not true.. my speeds have, at times, gone way down as low as 8mg when I'm on a 30 meg line and I do have business class along side a residential modem.
And no, it's not an excuse.. I'm sorry.. it's not. It's reality. Networks CAN and do slow down.. they would be COMPLETE IDIOTS to say that they can deliver speeds 99.9% of the time.., that YOU know of. They know better, and so does anyone with technical experience. While you're getting your speeds most of the time, which is great, as it should be, there are times they can't, as you know.. the other times as you say..
The fact remains.. no network can always deliver the speeds at maximum rates. You also are not at your computer 100% of the time either so you don't know if your modem is slowing down when you're not there, right? So, to say 99.9% of the time, in my book, is 99.9% of the time YOU'RE using the internet.. and even then, you really don't know that you're getting the speeds at max when you're using it.. it's not like you have a constant speed meter running either. So while you're surfing the web, and say your connection is a 16meg connection, while the pages are loading quickly, you could actually be getting 10 or even less and not notice it.  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: That's nice but.. Let me put it this way: when I need the speed, it's there, 99.99% of the time. When I'm at my computer, downloading/uploading files (which happens a lot...I use SFTP to do file transfers from my school to my apartment and the network path between the two is at 10-20% of capacirt) I get advertised speeds.
I'm not downloading 100% of the time; HFC can't do that. However when I need the speed it's there, and if it wasn't there and I isolated the cause to Comcast's network (which I can do and have done) then I would sure as heck complain. Sure, there's no SLA but, again, on a well-engineered network "up to" never comes into the equation on your side of the network, especially when your speed is capped at some fraction of the capacity of the network interface you're using (for example 12 Mbps out of 152 Mbps down and 2 Mbps out of 30 Mbps up).
I'm sorry you seem to be having problems with your Comcast connection, but I guess grinning and bearing it is a choice you've made  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: That's nice but.. My connection is just fine... It does have a time or two that I have issues.. every connection does and that's my point.
How do I say this... one can't say they always get advertised speeds if they don't know about the time it MAY NOT be getting them. However, say your connection did slow down and you're not at your computer. But, say the time it DID slow and you were there.. that's the weakest link.. and that's what they are talking about "up to"... there is always a chance that your speeds can dip..
I have the choice to have Century Link (barf) but chose, yes, not to take them.. It's more expensive than Comcast and the speeds are MUCH lower.. not to mention the games they play with those that want static IP addresses... having to take business class service, a business class phone line, and so many features in order to even get statics.. and THEN in order to get reverse DNS they require the higher DSL speeds (as if speed has anything to do with Reverse DNS, right?) So yea.. comcast is my choice - and I'm perfectly happy with them. Even the rare times I've noticed a dip in speeds, they've been perfectly fine.. so instead of downloading a file in a few minutes, it takes just a few more..
To this day, I've never had my speeds go anywhere below 6meg, if even for that long and I can live with that. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: That's nice but.. Lol.. I'll take that as condolences.. 
Before I bought this house, I lived in Qwest territory. To be honest, I was MORE than happy with that service. I only used it for my servers. It was a 1.5 / 896 line; ROCK solid! I was able to get stand alone service with statics for about $55 a month and was happier than a pig in slop. I also had the comcast connection, Residential service, for all the desktops. Talk about a nightmare. At first, it was great, but, I was one of the lucky people with an apartment complex on my node and it wasn't the best complex either, if you know what I mean. LOTS of theft going on there and lots of ingress into the system which took our modems down all the time. (Took the internet and phones down all the time) Finally, we got that fixed but then I moved.
I think Embarq/Century.. WHO EVER they are these days, sells things differently in each area. I can get a stand-alone residential service but no statics or any reverse DNS service. That's one thing I LOVED about Qwest.. they'd give you statics and reverse on any connection. Speeds sucked, for for an email server and general FTP/Web, it was great. Again, Century, up here, wants you to step through all their products.. so I just said screw it.. took Comcast business service for $69 a month. It's been great so far.. just have had a problem or two but nothing the lines techs couldn't take care of.. think it had to do with the Business Class expansion construction they were doing out here. Also, it doesn't hurt that many techs live in my area both home and line and that I have an employee living with me either. But, besides all that, the service has been stable with out any intervention from inside the house if you know what I mean. I also did all the internal wiring myself when the house was built so it was done correctly.
Oh yea.. I wasn't impressed with the Embarq/Century speeds for the price either... and I TOTALLY didn't want their phone service JUST to have business service. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | said by iansltx:Also, for the price of a T1 I could buy 50/10 from Comcast on the business side. Last I checked, 50 Mbps NEVER gets down to 1.5/1.5 even on a bad day. Doesn't that say something about the profit margin of DSL T1 lines? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  1 edit | As long as you have a collision-based networking topology (the current TCP/IP implementation), then "up to" is a fact of life.
The only way to guarantee rates are tokens or tunnels of some sort. Pretty much, that's it.
And there is NO WAY any networking topology using tokens would work in a residential setting and tunnels removes the strength of the internet as a cloud insofar as it allow multiple pathways for packets to reach its destination.
Yes, variable speed can suck if you're in an area with down speeds during peak hours due to umpteen factors.
The alternative is paying, and I kid you not, at LEAST 5 times more than you pay now for significantly less bandwidth and significantly less content as providing that content via singular, dedicated connections using tokens or tunnels (virtual or physical doesn't matter) would become prohibitively expensive.
Youtube is the perfect example of an entity that wouldn't survive.
It's not an excuse at all. Frustrating, yes. And often, the telcos oversell and try to put off their shortcomings on the real factors when they are truly at fault. That's true.
But the inherent nature of the internet makes "up to" necessary.
It's just too bad the telcos misuse and abuse that along with client trust and satisfaction. | |
|
 |  |  maartenaElmoPremium join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA kudos:1 | said by N3OGH:I got dial up speeds. If you REALLY got dial-up speeds, that 1.5 Mbps DSL alternative you probably could get.... would have been really interesting.  -- "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
|
 |  |  | | to my surprise n3, once I jumped to the 22mb downstream plan, all my problems have gone away.
No more filtering, no more packet drops, I'm sure I'm way over my 250GB a month (probably in the 500GB-1TB range), but they don't seem to care. If they ever send me a letter I will contact my AG and terminate before they even get a reply from me. However, all the issues I had at 6mb downstream are gone.
I still hate comcast, but they seem to have improved some, while failing elsewhere (default password on the cable modem? Really comcast?) | |
|
 |  NickDPremium join:2000-11-17 Princeton Junction, NJ Reviews:
·Comcast
| 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. | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  VanPremium join:2009-07-08 New Orleans, LA | Agreed. Would rather they work on upgrading more areas then boosting top speeds even higher | |
|
 |  |
 |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: That's nice but.. Quintessential case of YMMV. My Comcast service has never dropped below advertised speeds due to channel loading in my history with the company, which is now above 18 months. | |
|
 |  |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: That's nice but.. said by iansltx:Quintessential case of YMMV. My Comcast service has never dropped below advertised speeds due to channel loading in my history with the company, which is now above 18 months. And I have always gotten advertised speeds for the 8 years since I got Comcast internet. It just depends on where you live and what kind of users you share the local node with. If you share a neighborhood with many apartments filled with college students your performance at certain times will stink. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: That's nice but.. I share a neighborhood with college students...plenty of 'em...but my speeds don't sink Comcast seems to be doing a good job in my area on providing services as advertised. | |
|
 |  |  |  bsoft join:2004-03-28 Boulder, CO | When I had Comcast DOCSIS 3 22/5 here in Boulder, CO, I consistently saw my advertised speed and even frequently exceeded it.
The Comcast service had more (compared with Qwest which I have now) "hiccups" due to a DCC problem, which sucked because I play a lot of online games. But I never had throughput issues. | |
|
 |  maartenaElmoPremium join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA kudos:1 | said by KodiacZiller:It would be great if they would focus on upgrading those of us who are still only able to get 8/2. Probably not going to happen if the alternative in your town/area is 3 Mbps DSL with a 768 upload max.
What is the incentive? It is not like you are going to walk away from a 8/2 connection if the alternative is only 3/768? Now, if your local telco provider starts laying down the fiber (FIOS) or Uverse (ATT) or whatever other telco alternative that can get you up to 30 Mbps speeds or so, Comcast is going to be back in your town real quick. -- "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
|
 |  |  VanPremium join:2009-07-08 New Orleans, LA | Re: That's nice but.. Amazing what competition will do....no wonder they are always trying to stop anyone else from building in their areas (corporations that is) | |
|
 | | Obviously the pertinent questions are... "How much will it cost?" and "What download cap limitations will Comcast place on it?" Secondary question is, "If you're offering 250 Mbps for X dollars, why isn't 10 Mbps costing me X/25 dollars?"
Yeah, I know, it's a cable company. Rates never go down, they only go up. Silly me... | |
|
 |  | | Re: Obviously the pertinent questions are... Plus price is determined on the demand side (i.e. what people are willing to pay) not on cost of production. It's just a fact of life. Like gravity. | |
|
 |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Usage doesn't increase linearly with speed for one thing. For another thing, costs don't increase linearly with speed. So it doesn't cost Comcast much more to serve 22 Mbps than 12 Mbps, or 250 Mbps than 100 or 50 or 12 Mbps on the scale of things. | |
|
 PashuneCaps stifle innovationPremium join:2006-04-14 Gautier, MS | This is awesome... ...Whilst my cable company is STILL toying with the idea of adding a 12 mbps turbo package to the residential line up.
Embarrassing. I'm paying $50 per month for 5 mbps cable and 500 kbps upstream. -- ISP: CableOne 5 mbit/500 kbit | |
|
 |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | Re: This is awesome... Think of how many people want the nostalgia to have a circa 2002 cable modem service! | |
|
 1 edit | Come on now! Why don't these companys concentrate on increasing their userbase by expanding their networks rather than focusing on speeds that the majority of people currently can't fully utilize. I know people will start talking about ROI and how we should just move into the city to get service. Thankfully back when the telephone was just getting popular people didn't have that mentality or else I probably still wouldn't have one.
These companys are all fishing in the same ponds here. Sure they do a speed bump but then another company does one and they lose customers. They just shuffle them back and forth. Instead of fishing in the same pond why don't these companys move downstream and fish the smaller ponds? At least they get to keep the fish they catch. It wouldn't be as cost effective up front but at least they won't be trading customers back and forh then cry about how their losing their subscriber base. | |
|
 |  See 8 replies to this post |
|
 BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | How about upping caps? Still at 250 GB. If caps were supposedly to prevent congestion and Docsis 3.0 helps prevent congestion the reason for the caps no longer exist. Once Comcast is 100% Docsis 3.0 they should at least raise the caps to 500 GB monthly. | |
|
 |  See 8 replies to this post |
|
 | | Great but how about... Focusing more on upload speeds. Id rather see some better symmetrical tiers offered(at a good price) then some outrageous DL tier with a tiny UL. Give me something like 20/20 or 50/50 before 250/10 or something... | |
|
 | | hmm How about you work on your 250GB cap limit? | |
|
 |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: hmm I'm guessing Comcast hasn't fiddled with it because
a) 99% of their user base doesn't go above 250GB (I'm a power user and average 100-200GB) b) Business tiers are very affordable (they don't cost much more than residential) and don't have caps c) In most areas people will pick Comcast (speed with caps) over the competitor (slower without caps). Especially when the slower rival has subpar service. Meet Qwest in Golden for an example of that one. | |
|
 |  |  bsoft join:2004-03-28 Boulder, CO | Re: hmm said by iansltx:c) In most areas people will pick Comcast (speed with caps) over the competitor (slower without caps). Especially when the slower rival has subpar service. Meet Qwest in Golden for an example of that one. Qwest actually has caps - they just aren't explicit about how large they are. There are a few scattered reports of people getting booted over it. | |
|
 | | How are they doing upstream? Upstream is where most cable providers are constrained and since no one has perfected upstream channel bonding they won't be able to offer much upload speed.
It will be lulz if they're doing 250/5 or something like that. | |
|
 |  | | Re: How are they doing upstream? Upstream channel bonding is getting closer. Maybe first half of this year... | |
|
 |  |
 |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | Re: How are they doing upstream? They'd have to drive the signal so hot your STB will smoke to do QAM64 upload. | |
|
 |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: How are they doing upstream? Uh, my modem bonds four 256QAM channels and uploads on one 64QAM... | |
|
 |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ kudos:4 | said by fifty nine:Upstream is where most cable providers are constrained and since no one has perfected upstream channel bonding they won't be able to offer much upload speed. I don't buy that. cablevision giving 5mbps upload on D2. its more about just being plain cheap/stingy with upload. -- When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
 NETSHGo GatorsPremium join:2002-11-06 united state | Upgrade us 1st I also think they should focus on upgrading those of us still only able to get 8mb. | |
|
 |  Thade join:2009-12-16 Orlando, FL | Re: Upgrade us 1st Exactly. Instead of them "saying" they're going to have higher speeds, how about they upgrade everyone first. This is so stupid. | |
|
 |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: Upgrade us 1st said by Thade:Exactly. Instead of them "saying" they're going to have higher speeds, how about they upgrade everyone first. This is so stupid. Do you guys not read? ... are people being ignorant or what? sorry.. but this one really sticks with me.
If you read the article, they say by the end of the year, they will have 100% of the system upgraded. Comcast has been the ONLY major carrier to push our D3 across their entire footprint. Second in place is TWC and do I need to even talk about where they have D3 at all yet? They should be embarrassed.
So, becuase while they're still upgrading a national system, and you haven't seen it yet, they shouldn't even be talking about their future plans? ... are you for real?
I'm sorry if I personally can't buy into your gripes here, but I think you're being just a wee bit bitchy even for a Monday.
So as you say "how about they upgrade everyone first".. they already are "upgrading everyone".. at least that's what my I got from the article and my government mandated English courses in grade school. | |
|
 |  |  |  NETSHGo GatorsPremium join:2002-11-06 united state | Re: Upgrade us 1st Well when they have mentioned upgrades in my area for some time and yet i hear nothing I think i have every right to voice my opinion and that is just what it is..an opinion. Just as you are entitled to yours...I am to mine. -- "When it's out there, it's theirs - when it comes in here (pointing at his faceguard) it's MINE." Lawrence Taylor
| |
|
 |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: Upgrade us 1st You do have a right to your opinion.. I never said that.. nor did you say in another message that you were promised upgrades.. however, when they say they will have 100% of their footprint upgraded, that sounds pretty much to me like they are going to have upgrades done. So far, on the DS3 upgrades, they have been on track.
There is also a reason why they don't publicly announce upgrade plans far in advance, like many people hope they will, becuase they can't always meet those deadlines... it's usually why they will OFTEN say "coming soon"... and not "We'll have you upgraded by such and such date".. and yes, I know they do this every now and then... but what I'm getting at is many people DO want to know the WHEN something is coming.. this is just one of a few reasons why they don't.
And on a side note, it's the very reason why apple, for one, very rarely speaks in public until they're ready to release something.. they don't want their competition to know either. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  NETSHGo GatorsPremium join:2002-11-06 united state | Re: Upgrade us 1st Well I will be glad once it is availble. I have had a generally good experience with comcast over the years. | |
|
 |
 |  | | Re: recently switched from cable I wish COMCAST was in North Carolina instead of slow Timewarner and slow AT&T. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: recently switched from cable YES!!! I'm in SC and have TW and I'm stuck with 7Mb down and 384kb up!! How pathetic is that? And they have admitted they will NOT be going to DOCSIS 3.0 ever here. What a joke they are. Its because the highest AT&T offering here is just 6Mb/1Mb. | |
|
 |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: recently switched from cable Get your city to try for FTTH. TWC will spontaneously lower prices and push out 10/512 and 15/2 as their tiers. That's how it worked in Wilson  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: recently switched from cable ... what I find funny is just a few years ago, everyone was praising TWC for pushing speeds up to 8mb while comcast was just at 6mb and everyone was saying Comcast was "behind the time" even though Comcast had pushed out two consecutive years of speed increases to TWC's 1 upgrade in a few years.
But I agree.. of all providers, TWC, for being 2nd largest cable operator, is REALLY milking the competition thing.. then again, their whole corporation is having turmoil of it's own right now with their parent company, etc. So they're probably dragging their feet on spending a lot of money for that reason. | |
|
 |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ kudos:4 | said by jeffs471:Comcast should focus on more upload. you're speaking to a rock there buddy. nobody wants to really open the upstream pipe on cable. -- When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
 | | Cable, telco and wireless The details change over the years, but the reality simply is that the cable and telco industries drag each other, kicking and screaming, to higher bandwidths. They do so only in areas in which they both have significant interests. Indeed, it's one example of where the market actually works. The good news is that a third player, wireless (especially when 4G is more widely deployed), essentially is making the entire country competitive.
»www.uc-edge.com | |
|
 |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: Cable, telco and wireless I wish. WiMAX/LTE *is* as good as non-D3 cable on the lower end, but doesn't have a ton of bandwidth available overall. So it can't compete with 250 Mbps. | |
|
 jack bGone FishingPremium,MVM join:2000-09-08 Cape Cod kudos:1 | CAP? I read less than 10% of Comcast's HSI customers come anywhere near the 250GB cap. The usage meter being rolled out is intended to make the heavy users, the 90%tile, pay their "fair share" for their bandwidth. If they get there that much faster, then great. -- ~Help Find a Cure for Cancer~ ~Proud Member of Team Discovery ~ | |
|
 |  toddbs98 join:2000-07-08 North Little Rock, AR | Re: CAP? What a nonsensical post. They do pay their fair share for bandwidth the other 90% don't use what they pay for. -- Patriots always speak of dying for their country never killing for it. Bertrand Russell
| |
|
 |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: CAP? What a nonsensical post.
When you say the 90% of of users don't use what they pay for... umm.. that's like saying you buy 800 minutes on a cell phone and loose them if you don't use them.
Look, RESIDENTIAL USE has always been stated and has a very factual implied definition which people like to over look because it doesn't fit their own personal mentality of what THEY want.. the fact is, you buy it or you don't. People asked for caps to be defined and comcast stepped up and did that.. now people don't like it even though 250 is far more than any other provider has given AND most people don't reach it. Comcast considers 250 to be fair.
The fact is, if you're on a residential line, and 95% of people are using far less than 250, then 250 is reasonable. You've also heard many people that are "power users" say they are only using about 100 to 200 a month, and you ignore that too. If people are going way over 250 a month, at this day and age, then no, they are not using their fair share.. they're using far more than that.
You're post makes it sound like if they go over their cap that they do pay their fair share - the fact is, they aren't.. not according to the provider and the TOS the consumer agreed too. And, in the end, it's the provider that sets the rules... and 250 is FAR more than reasonable for now. | |
|
 | | Download so fast you hit the cap in a flash Download so fast you hit the cap in a flash
How about MORE HD at higher PQ???? Not even more compressed HD to fit this in. | |
|
 |  1 edit | Re: Download so fast you hit the cap in a flash I'm with you. I want a FAST dumb pipe with no usage cap on the internet side and true 1080p on the video side and I'm willing to pay a premium for it. All the rest of the "value added services" crap these cable ISP's are doing? Yeah, I couldn't care any less about that stuff.
edit: a la carte channel pricing as well please as long as I'm talking "pie in the sky" stuff. | |
|
 |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: Download so fast you hit the cap in a flash Get Bell.ca for TV and FiOS for internet and you've got what you want.
Well, not the 1080 part but that's the channels' faults. | |
|
 |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | said by axiomatic:I'm with you. I want a FAST dumb pipe with no usage cap on the internet side and true 1080p on the video side and I'm willing to pay a premium for it. Which is fine.. however, most people are not willing to pay a "premium".. and even then, history will show that when people say they're willing to pay a premium for it, that sentiment only last for a few months and then we're back to "this is just too much money to be spending"...
And, as far as 1080p on video.. who's pushing out 1080p now anyway? People are barely pushing out true 1080i content as it is.. much less anything in real HD that isn't up-converted.
I'm afraid to ask you what you consider a premium for what you're asking.. dumb pipes with no caps.. but I believe your answer would be as common as everyone else already answers which would equal out to about another $10 or so a month, right?
And, right now, you already have a dumb pipe.. last I checked, there are no filters on it is there? And if you mean by network management systems in place to ensure that everyone has a chance to use the internet as not being a dumb pipe, then.. you're never going to get a true dumb pipe.. EVERY network has some kind of network management or load balance system in place.
As for ala cart pricing... your argument is better directed towards hollywood, and not the consignment shops. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Download so fast you hit the cap in a flash I'm somewhere around 18 years in to "premium" pricing. Yeah the speeds of "premium" have changed over the years but I'm still there buying it.
With all cable channels, the 5/30 Mbps internet tier, and Comcast CDV (voip) my monthly bill averages about $230 /mo.
So yeah, I'm willing to pay and not cut back after the "sticker shock" sets in. | |
|
 |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | They aren't cramming more HD channels on a QAM. They're just killing non-broadcast-basic analog. | |
|
 Z80APremium join:2009-11-23 1 edit | Too expensive - just marketing Unless it's $50-$60, these uber-speeds aren't going to see wide adoption. Price is king and people buy the cheap tier included with their double/triple play bundles. But these top tiers are typically $90-$150 and the vast majority of people aren't going to pay $100/mo just for HSI, especially in this economy. | |
|
 |  See 9 replies to this post |
|
 WeSRT4 join:2000-11-20 Mobile, AL | Hey AT&T! Your VDSL isn't going to cut it. You are going to be killed by DOCSIS 3.0!
Comcast is showing that they are thinking about the future. | |
|
 |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: Hey AT&T! Qwest is likewise going to get murdered unless they line-bond their VDSL2. Even then their highest package is 40 Mbps down, and most places can't get 20 Mbps up. Looks like Qwest will have to start competing on price again until they roll out FTTH. | |
|
 |  Augustus IIIIf Only Rome Could See Us Now.... join:2001-01-25 Gainesville, GA | said by WeSRT4:Your VDSL isn't going to cut it. You are going to be killed by DOCSIS 3.0! Comcast is showing that they are thinking about the future. When i first got dsl in a small town in 1998, i was paying 250$ for 128/64
how easy we forget | |
|
 | | 250mbps powerboost anyone? It would be great if they would uncap powerboost again, I used to get bursts of 33 mbps on my 6/1 tier 3 years ago. Now I'm stuck at 20mbps powerboost on my 16/2 tier. How about giving us all the unused bandwidth for powerboost? 250mbps for 1 second then back down to my rated speed  | |
|
 |  See 9 replies to this post |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus.Premium join:2001-08-25 Kendall, FL kudos:3 | Kudos to Comcast Kudos to Comcast. Depsite their problems, and bad decisions in the past, it's good to see a large company actually upgrading their network and working to provide faster speeds. -- CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us | |
|
 |  See 6 replies to this post |
|
 |
 | | I am with RCN and I have to wait until I see their Docsis 3.0 tiers and the only best package I can get from them is still 20/2. | |
|
 | | At least Comcast will keep upping speeds, unlike Verizon Even if it's a minor marketing ploy, at least Comcast will do it.
I don't see why Verizon can't offer 100/100 for FIOS Internet only customers. Even if not that many people want it, the few that do will net them extra money and it won't clog their "pipe." Makes no sense at all. | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: At least Comcast will keep upping speeds, unlike Verizon said by pappy97:Even if it's a minor marketing ploy, at least Comcast will do it. I don't see why Verizon can't offer 100/100 for FIOS Internet only customers. Even if not that many people want it, the few that do will net them extra money and it won't clog their "pipe." Makes no sense at all. Big red doesn't want to hemorrage more money upgrading the BPONS to GPONS. Those optical network terminals can only supply up-to 75 megabits upload per subscriber, while the download can easily approach 100mbits. Second is the obvious problem.. MONEY, consumers won't pay $200+ for that kind of tier.
If Comcast wants to set a goal for 2011, make it 50/50 megabits symmetric on docsis 3 for the sweet price of $50 a month-- no usage caps (ya schmucks) standalone/unbundled & no contract. Its about time $1 per megabit hit the mass consumer market and I don't care which company does it first: at&t, verizon, comcast, time warner, cablevision, cox, etc... somebody's gotta be FIRST. | |
|
 |
|