dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Comcast's 305 Mbps Tier Has No Cap -- For Now
Tier is 'Being Offered as Unlimited' for the Time Being
by Karl Bode 01:21PM Thursday Sep 20 2012
Comcast says there's going to be no cap on their recently launched 305 Mbps tier, at least for now. The company tells Light Reading the $300 tier is "being offered as unlimited," and Comcast has "[n]o further plans to announce at this time." It's unclear if it will stay that way; Comcast recently suspended their old caps while they trialed new caps, so most Comcast users are uncapped at the moment. Caps and overages are already hard to justify given the dropping cost of bandwidth and hardware, and at $300 a month those justifications become even more tenuous. We recently exclusively reported that Comcast intends to offer different cap sizes for different speed tiers, something the company is already doing in a trial in Tucson, where customers see 300, 350, 450 or 600 GB caps depending on their speed tier.

view:
topics flat nest 
KoRnGtL15
Premium
join:2007-01-04
Grants Pass, OR
kudos:1

Oh how sweet of you Comcast....

No caps for only $300 a month. Such a fantastic deal. Morons.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Re: Oh how sweet of you Comcast....

Then don't buy it.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2

1 recommendation

It's Metro Ethernet to your residence. Probably the cheapest MetroE circuit available in the US right now. Deal with it.
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

1 recommendation

Re: Oh how sweet of you Comcast....

Is it actually MAE, or is it delivered via DOCSIS on the HFC plant? Haven't seen a definitive answer one way or the other on this. If it's the former then it's an incredible deal. I would not personally be willing to pay for it, but you'd still be hard pressed to top it for value.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2

Re: Oh how sweet of you Comcast....

From the thread in the Comcast forum, it's MAE.
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

1 recommendation

Re: Oh how sweet of you Comcast....

Are they charging for build out costs? If they aren't it's an even sweeter dealer...
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2

Re: Oh how sweet of you Comcast....

500 bucks
tanzam75

join:2012-07-19
said by iansltx:

From the thread in the Comcast forum, it's MAE.

Indeed. $300 for something that normally would cost $2000 and up would be quite the deal.

But this isn't quite the same thing as that $2000 Metro Ethernet. The $2000 service would come with a dedicated level of service, with uptime and bandwidth guarantees, and rebates for not meeting SLAs.

It's not that different from FiOS, except that they'll use Metro Ethernet rather than GPON to deliver it. Remove the contention on the coax channels, but still have contention higher up.

Not that this is such a bad thing. It's not like Verizon will allow you to pay $500 to string fiber to your home. If they've given up on FiOS deployment in your area, then you're just out of luck unless you want to pay thousands for a true Metro Ethernet connection.

Verizon tried "build it and they will come," and then discovered that not enough customers came. Comcast is now trying "Pay us and we'll come build it, but otherwise we won't waste the money."
majortom1029

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

2 recommendations

Considering thats the price of a t-1 that has 1.5Mbps thats not a bad price.
funny0

join:2010-12-22
said by KoRnGtL15:

No caps for only $300 a month. Such a fantastic deal. Morons.

300 megabits a /sec you then route to 6 people 50 megabit unlimited for 75$ and make a 150 $ and shut up....

90 TB download not enough for you?

cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

Re: Oh how sweet of you Comcast....

And in the process technically violate your TOS for reselling your service.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
cdru is right. I haven't seen anything offered by cable that can be resold. I don't even think their business plans allow you to resell the service.
tmc8080

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

1 recommendation

it's a start.. to the end of all caps

Comcast competes in part of the same geographies as FIOS, so not only are they $100 more, but the cap would've made it even more of a non-starter.. or at least put the icing on the cake of a racketeering / price collusion case against Comcast and Verizon.
tanzam75

join:2012-07-19

Re: it's a start.. to the end of all caps

said by tmc8080:

Comcast competes in part of the same geographies as FIOS, so not only are they $100 more, but the cap would've made it even more of a non-starter.. or at least put the icing on the cake of a racketeering / price collusion case against Comcast and Verizon.

There is no legal requirement to compete aggressively across-the-board. It is perfectly legal to decline to compete.

It is not price collusion to sell products at a higher price than your competitor. It is also not price collusion if your competitor raise prices and then you match those higher prices -- so long as this was done independently, on the basis of public information or competitive intelligence.

Collusion requires some sort of agreement. For example, you are not allowed to get together and agree to set prices in a certain way. You're also not allowed to tell your competitor of price increases through a non-public channel, because this implies that you're expecting them to do something about it.
Os

join:2011-01-26
US

But if the Network was so congested.....

.....wouldn't we need to keep these 300 Mbps people from downloading so much?

Either the network is congested or it's not. If it's not, then there's not really any justification for the caps other than making money.
talz13

join:2006-03-15
Avon, OH

Re: But if the Network was so congested.....

But those customers on the 305Mbps tier download SO FAST that they're only using the line 1% of the time!
Os

join:2011-01-26
US
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: But if the Network was so congested.....

But the number of GB is what matters to what travels over the network, not the speed. Sure, they're getting it faster.

But 250GB is 250GB, to use the old number. While it may move faster on a 305Mbps connection, it doesn't degrade the network any more.

Because of all the channels implemented to have this, the Comcast network is pretty strong now. It's stronger than any other cable ISP. There's little reason to cap now other than you can make money off it.

I really don't think they're going to enforce bandwidth overages at all in the Northeast. It's just too easy for anyone they start overcharging to leave for FiOS. This is what the AT&T and CenturyLink areas are going to suffer through.
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Re: But if the Network was so congested.....

said by Os:

But the number of GB is what matters to what travels over the network, not the speed. Sure, they're getting it faster.

But 250GB is 250GB, to use the old number. While it may move faster on a 305Mbps connection, it doesn't degrade the network any more.

Umm, you've got this completely backwards. The number of bits does not really matter, but the bit-rate does matter. All things being equal, a customer with a higher peak bit-rate requires greater infrastructure investment than a customer with a lower peak bit-rate, even if they both move the same amount of bits in a billing cycle. The low bit-rate customer is less likely to interfere with his neighbors, hence less likely to compel the ISP to upgrade their infrastructure in order to deliver an acceptable level of service.
jagged

join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL

Re: But if the Network was so congested.....

the infrastructure investment and support requirements are already accounted for and included (amortized) into the price you now pay for internet service
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
I agree with CrookShanks. Speed does matter. Some routers allow you to throttle certain services to a maximum bps. For instance, FTP or peer-to-peer protocols. If you have a 50Mbps line and you tell your router to throttle those protocols to 10Mbps, you can use them ALL DAY LONG at maximum speed and the rest of your access will never "feel" it. At the end of the day, you'll have downloaded may GB. Without throttling, you might download the same amount in 1/5 of the time but during that time, anything else you try to do is going to be all but unusable.

Hence, from a network impact perspective, it really is how fast and when and not how much.

whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by Os:

But the number of GB is what matters to what travels over the network, not the speed. Sure, they're getting it faster.

This is actually the exact opposite. The time of downloading and fast download speeds matter more to congestion.

Not the actual amount of data downloaded. Someone maxing out their connection at 3 AM in the morning until 6 AM (downloading lets say 600 gigs) is causing less congestion than someone downloading at peak periods doing 250 gigs.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
naturally network congestion is simply monetary congestion. It is why business customers also have no cap. they pay more.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
jagged

join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL

Re: But if the Network was so congested.....

no, they pay more because of the 99.999% SLA guarantees business service comes with
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
Easy: 305M is delivered over fiber, not coax. You aren't competing with other users for last-mile bandwidth, and since Comcast actually has a pretty strong backbone (and cheap too...people pay them for peering nowadays) they don't have to worry about contention on this kind of tier, where their deployment costs are dealt with thanks to the high initial ($500) and monthly ($300) prices.
Os

join:2011-01-26
US

Re: But if the Network was so congested.....

So why not start migrating other customers over to the fiber and off the coax?
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Re: But if the Network was so congested.....

Because Comcast can't get $500 from said customers for an installation, plus $300 per month
jagged

join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL

Re: But if the Network was so congested.....

yet Google can provide 1Gps symmetrical for $70 per month not counting install costs
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL

1 recommendation

Re: But if the Network was so congested.....

They don't have intermediate tiers, and they're doing everything as cheaply as humanly possible. Oh, and they can take an initial loss while things spin up, since access isn't their core business.

Don't get me wrong, Google Fiber is awesome. However it shouldn't be the benchmark to which every ISP in the world should be held accountable.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
If it's fiber, why the pitiful upload speed?

If they have fiber, I'm shocked that it's FTTH and not FTTC. Short run coax has tremendous bandwidth capabilities -- especially when it's dedicated to a single premises. Heck, I'd guess with the right engineering and hardware, 10Gbps over 600' runs wouldn't be out of the question.

I suppose it's better to run FTTH if there's no such gear but holy cow, it would be a lot cheaper to use that old coax for the last bit of distanceif the right gear was available.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: But if the Network was so congested.....

At the distances we're talking (less than 1/3 of a mile) the cost to install fiber to one location isn't ridiculously huge anyway, as long as you've got aerial plant. Plus, Comcast provisions enough metroE circuits over fiber that their equipment there won't be too expensive either.

As for pitiful upload speeds, look at FiOS. Are they doing any better?
tanzam75

join:2012-07-19
said by rradina:

If they have fiber, I'm shocked that it's FTTH and not FTTC. Short run coax has tremendous bandwidth capabilities -- especially when it's dedicated to a single premises. Heck, I'd guess with the right engineering and hardware, 10Gbps over 600' runs wouldn't be out of the question.

That's true. But they'd have to power the coax transmission gear both at the pole, and also at the side of the house. Why power two pieces of equipment when you can power just one?

Now, I am kind of shocked that they're willing to dig a trench to replace the underground drop to the house. Considering that this is already a limited deployment -- limited to houses within 1/3 mile of the node, with aerial infrastructure to the curb -- why not also limit eligibility to locations that have aerial drops to the house?

It's probably a consequence of the fact that this is designed to compete against FiOS. Since FiOS is willing to dig a trench, then so is Comcast.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: But if the Network was so congested.....

Could the CPE device provide power back to the pole device? Of course this assumes the device on/in the pole/pedestal is per customer. A multi-drop device powered by a one customer's equipment would kill all the drops if they go on vacation and unplug stuff.

I was reading through the thread in the Comcast forum that discussed the approach and one post claimed it might be also be DOCSIS, depending on the area.

whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by iansltx:

Easy: 305M is delivered over fiber, not coax.

The articles still list DOCSIS as being used. I've yet to see a clear answer between the forum post claiming fiber and the articles claiming DOCSIS.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2

Re: But if the Network was so congested.....

When in doubt, look at the forum posts
tdouglas22

join:2001-09-25
Memphis, TN

Shout out to Comcast....

For doing something that makes a whole lot of sense... lol.

Seriously, if you're charging a customer $300.00/month for the service you're getting a huge ton of revenue just from THAT!

I'm still on 50 service and I LOVE IT so Comcast is all good in my book.

ASDFSADF

@comcast.net

FOR Now!!!

For Now could be very soon:) LOL!!!

antdude
A Ninja Ant
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:4

Re: FOR Now!!!

said by ASDFSADF :

For Now could be very soon:) LOL!!!

Like tomorrow.
brianiscool

join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL
kudos:1

Fail : )

Fios $214 Comcast $300 with possible cap.

Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Comcast

VIOLATION!

FCC better step in. Sorry, but it's not right that they can provide uncapped service in order to compete with Verizon while their other customers have a cap.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us

•••

The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2

But...

The 1 percent will sign up for this tier.
15444104
Premium
join:2012-06-11

Re: But...

Actually it will be the .001% that sign up for this. LOL

So indeed why bother talking about it.

Just a bunch of greedy short sighted execs that want to stroke their own egos.

Of course they won't work on more pressing issues like horrid customer service, poor techincal support, and poor value for the money with the rest of their services. LOL

Cthen

join:2004-08-01
Detroit, MI

Nice but...

Let's get to the actual important part, what is the upload speed on this?