Comcast Using FTTH For New 305 Mbps Tier
With Several Install Caveats
Comcast has confirmed
that their new 305 Mbps down, 65 Mbps up tier will be deployed using fiber to the home, not DOCSIS 3.0. The $300 tier, exclusively first revealed by Broadband Reports
, is being targeted at FiOS areas to help combat new FiOS Quantum speeds. Comcast didn't release any technical specifics when they announced the new tier, but anonymous insiders in our forums
offered up a little insight into the exact technology Comcast will be using for these deployments:
For those that were wondering how many DOCSIS channels this will use it will be....0. It will be a residential service similar to their Metro Ethernet service. It will be a fiber line ran to the house (must be within a 1/3 mile of the node), and must be serviced with a Metro Ethernet headend. It will use a Ciena 3931 Service delivery switch and come with a Netgear R6300. Should be priced around $300 a month with a $500 installation/activation fee, and a hefty ETF.
Meanwhile Comcast offered this statement to Light Reading
about the move:
"We've demonstrated our Docsis 3.0 infrastructure, which we currently deliver to more than 50 million homes, is capable of delivering 1 Gbps or more. While demand for faster speeds continues to grow, demand for ultrafast speed tiers (of more than 200 Mbps) is still emerging. In the near-term, until there is clear demand to modify the capacity of our existing Docsis infrastructure, we can provide our new residential Extreme 305 service by leveraging the fiber already in our network and our Metro-E product."
Another tech in our forums offers this list of restrictions
for installations. Potential customers must live in single-dwelling units, 1/3 of a mile from a fiber node, with aerial fiber runs only. The company's 305 Mbps tier is being targeted only at certain areas (read: FiOS markets) of Boston, Hartford, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Wilmington, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Richmond, and New Jersey.
92 comments .. click to read
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind awayPremium,MVMReviews:
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
|reply to MovieLover76 |
said by MovieLover76:I checked the cost of upgrading to gig LAN. I will upgrade as I retire 10/100 hardware and replace it with 1000 hardware, and not one ms sooner.
I think most of us (myself included) have upgraded to gigabit by now.
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
|reply to battleup |
He runs an ISP...and adds a dose of reality to some of these topics. Like the fact that most folks don't care about more than a few megabits per second, as long as those few megabits are reasonably low-latency and jitter-free...and are usable 24x7 to most of the Internet.
Also, there are still routers made in the past six months that are only 10/100. They're also less than $30 apiece. Cheap computers...same thing. Granted, if you're paying $300 per month for an internet connection your stuff is probably all gigabit, but I'll let you in on a secret: there's a very, VERY small percentage of the Internet that can run at 300M down. This is from experience...I've used Mac Pros running Windows 7, tied to a campus network (good peering and transit) at a gigabit, with 10G to the peering point and 10G pipes to places where they were needed...and gotten less than 300 Mbps on every speed test I came across. This is with high-end Cisco gear on every hop, no throttling and no congestion (the entire campus averages 300-400 Mbps at this point, and that's with a supercomputer or two).
As much as I think gigabit symmetric on GFiber is cool, you'll find that even 300M is next to impossible to max, and will be for the next two or three years. 100M is about the fastest residential connection where you aren't running headlong into diminishing returns.
|reply to ArrayList |
Cable is already fibre to the node. It's only the "last mile" where it gets converted to coax that it is in question.
Comcast by waiting has made a much better decision to go w/ ethernet over fibre versus the PON model which costs way more and is less flexible (FiOS). I said this a few days back.
Now there are always restrictions w/ new service especially when they are moving to fibre because lets face it they will need stick time before they get this right.
This is also targeted toward power users or business users and this will be extremely profitable.
All in all people should be cheering that this is happening because once they break the seal (as it were) they are going to have a hard time justifying old skool cable in 10 years out in the boonies. In any case cable is way better positioned that DSL just because the technology is easy to upgrade and 15 mbps will stream multiple HD streams today.
I think this is great. The more fibre that gets run the better. My only issue is that this is WAY less efficient than what happens in the other utilities in the house (you only get one gas, elec, hydro). Until someone opens their eyes and treats this like a utility, the US will remain 3rd world in internet speed and penetration. This is easily solved by providing a fibre drop, and then a utility node where this can be strung to said competitors POP. Imagine the possibilities with open competition fibre to the house.
Missing The Story
Many of you are missing the real story, here.
1. Somebody's actually deploying new fiber.
2. This is a direct result of something that's missing in a large part of the U.S.: Competition.
If this turns out to be real, and it turns out it makes money for Comcast, and it turns out it makes VZW sweat, perhaps VZW will up their game. Then Comcast will have to up their game, in response. Perhaps you can see where this is going?
And maybe, just maybe, Comcast will find "Hey, that wasn't so hard. Plus customers really like it and we can make money at it," and choose to deploy it elsewhere... such as in God-forsaken "AT&T" land--against that company's lame DSL-on-steroids. (Tho there's little need, being as Comcast already trounces "AT&T" with their cable product.)
We can hope.
Funny, it would be, if a cable company ended-up being the premier end-user data provider in the U.S., would it not?
|reply to ArrayList |
It's Comcast remaining competitive. I thought that's what consumers wanted.