  Defiance82Computer ElitePremium
join:2002-09-11
Burlington, WI | pfft... I bet you can hit that 250 GB cap in less than 30 min now :-p | |
|
 | | | Re: pfft... Absolutely.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 
When you hit the wall, the party's over.
The only benefit that I see is bragging rights. | |
|
| | CWO333
join:2005-02-24
Chicago, IL | Re: pfft... The cap is a non-issue to most people including me. Its going to be really nice to have the doubled upstream for getting things up to my website. Everyone seems to perceive faster speeds the same as inflating your downloads or something. One of the only instances that I can see the speeds pushing you faster to your cap is P2P going faster and taking more bandwidth on the upstream... If that's the case, don't let them run all night now... | |
|
|  Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by Defiance82:I bet you can hit that 250 GB cap in less than 30 min now :-p This has become the new "First Post!" nonsense.
Really, this is old. Yes we know you can do basic math. Here's a gold star.
*clap clap*
Now please move along, there's a cookie and a glass of Kool-Aid waiting at the end of the line.
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
|
| | | | Re: pfft... perhaps the point might be better stated:
why bother with faster speeds when all it means is you hit the cap sooner?
having caps in place while touting faster speeds as a selling point is sort of contradictory. | |
|
| | | Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: pfft... said by nasadude:perhaps the point might be better stated: why bother with faster speeds when all it means is you hit the cap sooner? That is a non-sequitur and an equally bogus argument.
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
|
| | | |  HangmnDon't Fight It...It's InevitablePremium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA | Re: pfft... said by Matt3:said by nasadude:perhaps the point might be better stated: why bother with faster speeds when all it means is you hit the cap sooner? That is a non-sequitur and an equally bogus argument. Matt those of us in multi user households see these CAPS as BOGUS..whether or not we agree with your view point is completely off point..what is ON POINT is historically bandwidth costs have GONE DOWN and fees have GONE UP. With that being said, these MSOs should be UPGRADING their INFRASTRUCTURE instead of MILKING the consumer..how's that for a valid argument??
--
»davescustompc.com | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: pfft... said by Hangmn:these MSOs should be UPGRADING their INFRASTRUCTURE instead of MILKING the consumer..how's that for a valid argument?? umm, did you read the article at all? Comcast is rolling out DOCSIS 3.0, a major UPGRADE of INFRASTRUCTURE? | |
|
| | | | | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: pfft... said by massysett:said by Hangmn:these MSOs should be UPGRADING their INFRASTRUCTURE instead of MILKING the consumer..how's that for a valid argument?? umm, did you read the article at all? Comcast is rolling out DOCSIS 3.0, a major UPGRADE of INFRASTRUCTURE? Yes and Docsis 3.0 is supposed to eliminate the congestion issues that Comcast cites as a reason for caps, so why sill have caps in those areas? | |
|
| | | | | Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by Hangmn:said by Matt3:said by nasadude:perhaps the point might be better stated: why bother with faster speeds when all it means is you hit the cap sooner? That is a non-sequitur and an equally bogus argument. Matt those of us in multi user households see these CAPS as BOGUS..whether or not we agree with your view point is completely off point..what is ON POINT is historically bandwidth costs have GONE DOWN and fees have GONE UP. With that being said, these MSOs should be UPGRADING their INFRASTRUCTURE instead of MILKING the consumer..how's that for a valid argument?? I agree they should upgrade infrastructure. I just don't buy the argument that providing faster speeds immediately means you'll consume a significantly higher amount of data.
And FWIW, I am in a multi-user household.
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
|
| | | | |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
1 edit | said by Hangmn:said by Matt3:said by nasadude:perhaps the point might be better stated: why bother with faster speeds when all it means is you hit the cap sooner? That is a non-sequitur and an equally bogus argument. Matt those of us in multi user households see these CAPS as BOGUS..whether or not we agree with your view point is completely off point..what is ON POINT is historically bandwidth costs have GONE DOWN and fees have GONE UP. With that being said, these MSOs should be UPGRADING their INFRASTRUCTURE instead of MILKING the consumer..how's that for a valid argument?? Look at it this way, are your online habits (or those of the people in your house) going to somehow change just because you have a higher speed connection? Unless there is 24/7 downloading going on (P2P comes to mind), these higher speed tiers wont really impact your overall bandwidth consumption. Its not like you will physically watch more Youtube videos (or Hulu, or Netflix, or (fill in the blank)) just because you can download content quicker.
EDIT: The purpose of my post isnt to argue wether caps are good or bad. I am simply pointing out that higher speed connections dont necessarily mean you will hit those caps sooner.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
|
| | | | | | HangmnDon't Fight It...It's InevitablePremium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA | Re: pfft... said by wifi4milez:Look at it this way, are your online habits (or those of the people in your house) going to somehow change just because you have a higher speed connection? Unless there is 24/7 downloading going on (P2P comes to mind), these higher speed tiers wont really impact your overall bandwidth consumption. Its not like you will physically watch more Youtube videos (or Hulu, or Netflix, or (fill in the blank)) just because you can download content quicker. EDIT: The purpose of my post isnt to argue wether caps are good or bad. I am simply pointing out that higher speed connections dont necessarily mean you will hit those caps sooner. And I completely agree. However, at this stage to offer me more speed, AND at the same time institute caps just seems a bit arbitrary. I understand the need for TV CONTENT providers to LIMIT my CONTENT derived from a COMPETING medium (internet for all those having trouble following). A better go at this than offering BOTH faster speeds and BUILT in LIMITS would be to offer CONTENT we all WANT in a manner that is decided by me.
--
»davescustompc.com | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: pfft... this will be a research mechanism for Comcast regarding caps if nothing else. If the roll out of DOCSIS 3 means the MAJORITY of customers are hitting caps sooner, theres always the possibility of Comcast raising caps. This of course would happen if there was a major public outcry.
However the opposite may also true. Another likely scenario is that after the roll out happens, Comcast builds a new median baseline based on usage, and further lowers the caps to that point. This will screw the power user .
we'll see
--
"For duty and humanity!"
- Moe Larry and Curly (MEN IN BLACK, 1934)...These are the guys we have in Congress | |
|
| | | |
1 edit | I'd say your response is bogus, 100%.
If you look at internet usage with higher speeds (just wait for a study) you'll see higher internet usage. That is just a synonymous phrasing. Otherwise you're living an equivalent of the "640k ought to be good enough for everybody" translated to internet usage caps.
Give people faster internet and they'll watch more, do more, aka use more bandwidth. Otherwise you could try to make a claim that people who had dialup use the same internet bandwidth as they do now, which is a complete lie.
Thus, comcast is going to face cap issues much faster than before, accelerated by the fact that they're doing it in their largest markets first for obvious competitive reasons.
As far as changing habits, here's a simple example. People who are not "omg p2p" and do things like listen to internet radio while browsing the web in multi user households, will now all be able to do so while doing other things at the same time. This does tend to increase with more bandwidth availability, and does tend to use a ton of bandwidth in general. | |
|
| | | quatrixPremium
join:2005-02-11
South FL
kudos:2 | said by nasadude:why bother with faster speeds when all it means is you hit the cap sooner? having caps in place while touting faster speeds as a selling point is sort of contradictory. No, it's not. I'll be happy to download a file twice as fast. It doesn't mean that now I'll download TWO files instead of just one. Why would I suddenly want an extra file that I didn't care about before? The only people affected are the ones who download constantly, most of whom are doing something illegal, and Comcast doesn't want them as customers anyway. | |
|
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: pfft... Easy answer: watching HD instead of SD content.
Easy answer: downloading less-compressed, higher-resolution content.
Satisfied? | |
|
| | | | | Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: pfft... said by iansltx:Easy answer: watching HD instead of SD content. Easy answer: downloading less-compressed, higher-resolution content. Satisfied? And why wouldn't you do this now with your current connection? I do and I only have 15Mbps.
Having 50Mbps isn't suddenly going to change downloading, viewing, or browsing habits. It certainly will over time, but it's not like as soon as a customer upgrades to 50Mbps they're going to consume a proportionately higher amount of data.
The 250GB cap isn't chiseled in stone. It can (and likely will) be raised over time as necessary.
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
|
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: pfft... I hope the cap will be raised...
I have 8 Mbps here. I do HD stuff but would do more if I had a faster connection.
Speaking of faster connections, 50 Mbps service has enough of a price differential that only power users will buy that tier. Or not...they aren't going to buy something where cost-per-GB is over 50 cents. If you have that fat of a pipe and are paying that much, by golly you're going to use it.
Granted, I probably wouldn't use much more on a 12/2 connection than I am right now on 8/2 service. But I'd certainly use more on a 22/5 connection (photo uploads, backup, etc.) and I'd use the heck out of a 50/10 line, with what I'd pay for it...
If D3 ever comes out here though, I'll probably not stick on my current service tier. It'll either be an upgrade to 22/5 or a downgrade to 12/2. | |
|
| | | | | | | Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: pfft... said by iansltx:If D3 ever comes out here though, I'll probably not stick on my current service tier. It'll either be an upgrade to 22/5 or a downgrade to 12/2. D3 being Diablo 3?
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: pfft... Considering what this thread is about I'd assume when he says D3 he means Docsis 3.0 | |
|
| | | | | | | | saying that they'll raise their cap is like ...bleh, I forgot the whole phrase. It's like asking someone to do something they can't, basically.
I wouldn't be surprised if irregardless of all logic and sanity that comcast tries to stick by this 250GB cap for 5-10 years.
Also, about the HD content, on the current connection at 10mb downstream, you cannot watch HD content. 15, is different but still not always sufficient. | |
|
| | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by iansltx:Easy answer: watching HD instead of SD content. Easy answer: downloading less-compressed, higher-resolution content. Satisfied? I disagree. Right now I "only" have 5Mbps/512k, and whenever possible I download HD content. In fact, I watch movies on my PS3 (via the PS3 store) specifically because some are offered in HD. My viewing habits are not going to change simply because I have a faster download speed, that doesnt make sense. As I said before, this will only immediately impact people that "queue up" content via P2P.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
|
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: pfft... Let me restate: if I can stream content, I'll stream the highest quality content my connection allows. There are plenty of free, legal places to do that. Granted, 've downloaded HD shows over a 512 kbps wireless connection, but not very many. In some sense, more speed does equate to more consumption.
Another example: video chat. If the connection is good enough to support it on both ends I'll use it, more if the quality is better. The quality is better when more bandwidth is used. Granted, there's a bigger difference between 512k and 8M than between 8M and 12, 16 or even 22 in terms of the magnitude of the upgrade, but the fact remains that, if the connection allows it, people will use the cloud more as it becomes closer to the speed of their home network.
Example 3: backup. Not good over a 512k upload connection. Better on a 2M connection. On a conection with 5 Mbit upload speeds I'd not think twice about backing up all my stuff to the cloud, and using it as a repository for photos and videos (note: videos, not movies...I have my own content). If I had 20/20 FiOS we're talking on-network-class speeds, and I'd be using a netbook more often.
A megabit or two may not make a difference, but significant increases in speeds, particularly on uploads (because they're rather slow right now) present new internet opportunities, and thus more 'net usage.
If you don't agree, have a Videotron account. 50 Mbit downloads, lowish cap. As Bill Gates once said, 640k oughta be enough for anybody. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | A tiny percent of Comcast users hit the "ceiling." That minority slows down the system for everyone else and ought to pay its fair share for hogging more bandwidth. I have no interest in subsidizing high bandwidth users. | |
|
| |  CjaicemanPremium,MVM
join:2004-10-12
Parker, CO
kudos:2 | said by Matt3:Now please move along, there's a cookie and a glass of Kool-Aid waiting at the end of the line. *Runs to the end of the line to get cookie and glass of Kool-Aid* 
--
Duct tape is like The Force – it has a light side and a dark side, and it binds the Universe together | |
|
| |  richdelbGo Hawks GoPremium
join:2003-01-22
Algonquin, IL | I could really use a cookie and some Kool-Aid about now.... | |
|
| |  spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
·SureWest Internet
| said by Matt3:said by Defiance82:Now please move along, there's a cookie and a glass of Kool-Aid waiting at the end of the line. Is that cookie and Kool-Aid free MattE? 
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer! | |
|
| | | Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: pfft... said by spewak:said by Matt3:said by Defiance82:Now please move along, there's a cookie and a glass of Kool-Aid waiting at the end of the line. Is that cookie and Kool-Aid free MattE? For the first 6 months, then regular price.
Note: However, if you sign up on the 3rd day of the 6th lunar cycle, the price will be multiplied by the inverse square of the Stefan–Boltzmann law, then pro-rated for the current month's usage, added to the next billing cycle, in advance.
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
|
| | |
|  aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by Defiance82:I bet you can hit that 250 GB cap in less than 30 min now :-p I wonder what comcast will do in Northern Virginia. FIOS has the 50/20 tier for only $90(89.95) here. While Comcast wants $140 for a 50/10 tier. I wonder if they will lower the price in Northern Virginia to compete?
Although even if they do will it be as consistent as FIOS? I can hit 50mbs anytime, any day. When I had Comcast my speeds would slow to a crawl every evening when the node was congested. | |
|
| | Rob_Premium
join:2008-07-16
Mary Esther, FL | Re: pfft... you would think they would have a higher cap for this tier? think people!
since i don't know the details about this, i'm sure the cap would be something like 1000 gigs/month no no cap at all since they can handle the traffic (ohh.. did i say that?)
but seriously folks, my isp has three.. count em three (advertised) speeds each with their own caps
and comcast, im sure has similar cap structure. the 250 cap would seem like for their high tier.
-Rob
--
»www.cband.info A great way to pass the time! Interactive (IRC) radio you won't find elsewhere!
Put Winamp or Itunes to good use and join our growing family | |
|
|  h4
@comcast.net | not really. in order to go over the cap you would need to spream movies 8 hour a day for 30 days to go over 250gb. | |
|
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
 JeepMattC'mon the UPremium
join:2001-12-28
Wilmington, DE
kudos:2 | Makes Sense Hmmmm..
Boston, Philly, Pittsburgh, DC, Portland = FIOS. Makes sense.
--
"ONE team - ONE city - ONE dream!!" | |
|
 kalphearionIn nomine PatriPremium
join:2003-11-08
Broomfield, CO |  Saaaaaa
| |
|
 FicmanSPremium
join:2005-01-11
Brownsburg, IN | Indiana? I wish Indianapolis would make that list... | |
|
| rugbyI think I know it all.VIP
join:2000-09-26
Plainfield, IN | Re: Indiana? No kidding. I've got 8Mbps/2Mbps and that's the fastest I could manage. Blast doesn't do much half the time. | |
|
| | Wheres Delaware??? Where is the broadband powerhouse state? Don't tell me they forgot about delaware | |
|
| | | Re: Wheres Delaware??? Delaware is part of Greater Philadelphia's cluster. You will likely see DOCSIS v3 before those of us in the DC suburbs do (and we're one cluster down). | |
|
| | bah Miami will not see an upgrade for years | |
|
| | Modem So where do I get a new modem when it comes out? | |
|
| |  Another Smoke and Mirrors marketing fizzle
High-Speed Internet service limited to a single outlet. Service subject to Comcast standard terms and conditions. Prices shown do not include equipment and installation charges, taxes, or franchise fees. Speed comparison between Comcast 6.0 Mbps service and 1.5 Mbps DSL (downloads only). PowerBoost provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5 MB of a file, respectively. Many factors affect speed. Actual speeds vary and are not guaranteed.
WOW I would get less than a second of Powerboost if they could actually deliver even close and they call that a reason to switch??? | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Another Smoke and Mirrors marketing fizzle said by jimbo48:Nice to know that Comcast is planning these speeds "somewhere". Withall this development going on you'd think that they would offer something a tad better than 6.0 with "Powerboost of "up to 12 MB/sec" The disclaimer (printer in faint very small font size) says it all. High-Speed Internet service limited to a single outlet. Service subject to Comcast standard terms and conditions. Prices shown do not include equipment and installation charges, taxes, or franchise fees. Speed comparison between Comcast 6.0 Mbps service and 1.5 Mbps DSL (downloads only). PowerBoost provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5 MB of a file, respectively. Many factors affect speed. Actual speeds vary and are not guaranteed. WOW I would get less than a second of Powerboost if they could actually deliver even close and they call that a reason to switch??? Let's tackle some of those *sticking points*, please.
1. A single outlet: As is well-known here at DSLR (and doubtless at Comcast's call centers - I should know, because I used to work in one), the preferred solution for multiple-device connections is a (get this) *router*. Heck, even wireless-N routers (with built-in gigabit switches) have sunk under $100, and wireless-G routers with Fast Ethernet switches are in the sub-$50 range.
2. The service you are referring to is the ECONOMY tier (Comcast's lowest tier); what do the other providers in your area offer at that price and availability range? | |
|
Sbrav77Premium
join:2004-03-02
Bourbonnais, IL | Have to wait and see I'm in one of the Chicago area markets. About 50 miles south of Chicago actually. I'm wondering when Chicago is upgraded, will we also see the improvement? I would love to get those speeds. However, I have a weird feeling, we'll be the last in the Chicago market to get the 3.0 upgrade. | |
|
|  K3
join:2008-05-06
Kankakee, IL | Re: Have to wait and see Im in Kankakee and as soon as the Chicago market got the Blast upgrade we got it down here to so lets keep our fingers crossed | |
|
 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | Bring it on baby! Awesome speeds at great prices. And, they seem to be moving with lightening speed in getting this rolled out across their territories now.
I really like the sound of the 22/5 tier. They're really hitting the sweet spot in terms of speeds and pricing.
It's also great to hear that the basic tier will double at no additional cost. Big changes coming our way.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|
| | | Re: Bring it on baby! No Connecticut servers up there.
Doesn't look like it's anywhere near the 20% figure they claimed. | |
|
| | These areas represent.... way over 20% of the subscriber base. Unless they've moved their goals up, or plan on covering portions of these areas, it just doesn't make sense. Heck, Chicago alone makes up over 10% of their subscriber count. | |
|
| Phugg
join:2004-09-30
Riverbank, CA | Re: These areas represent.... " Chicago alone makes up over 10% of their subscriber count." Are you high ???...
The entire Bay area of Calif makes up about 12-15 % .. there is no way Chicagoland can be that compact. | |
|
| | | | Re: These areas represent.... said by Phugg:Are you high ???... No. But I should have stated the Chicagoland metropolitan area. They've got 2 million HSI subscribers. Much of the area still can't get DSL, so Comcast is the only choice for most. | |
|
| | | | | Re: These areas represent.... According to the census bureau, Chi town and surrounding burbs have 3,198,900 households in 2000. »www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/h170-03-22.pdf
If Comcrap holds 2 million of these dwellings, they're doing pretty good!
--
"For duty and humanity!"
- Moe Larry and Curly (MEN IN BLACK, 1934)...These are the guys we have in Congress | |
|
| | | |  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Re: These areas represent.... Now, if they would acknowledge Houston - next in line population-wise... | |
|
 58483323Gurt me
join:2003-06-23
Normal, IL | Great! Wonderful!!
Love Comcast. 
How many speed upgrades have we received with absolutely NO price increase? I've lost count. | |
|
| hussle87Premium
join:2008-01-06
Sykesville, MD | Re: Great! They raise prices its called the rate hike. In the end your paying for it one way or another. | |
|
| | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | Re: Great! Comcast's standard tier has been $42.95 for more than 4 years, nationwide.
Since then, it's gone from 3/384 to 4/384 to 6/384 to 6/1 to 12/1. | |
|
| | |  aSicapplication specificPremium
join:2001-05-17
Wakulla, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Great! 12/1 my ass.. try 4/384 as standard ($42.95) in my market.
Why not bring their entire infrastructure up to speed before they cherry pick sites for even better service? Comcast would become a behemoth if they went D3 across the board from the getgo, (or at least standardized their offerings) not just in areas with competition.
Imagine the uptake of 50/10 in areas without a competitor? People without would drool over the possibility of speeds such as that. Hell, even having the option of 16/2 across the board makes more sense rather than having some areas with such low "standard" tiers....
Last time I checked my $42.95 is worth $42.95 be it with me standing in Florida, or New York.  | |
|
CjaicemanPremium,MVM
join:2004-10-12
Parker, CO
kudos:2
1 edit | Some how I doubt it Denver has ALWAYS been on the bottom of their upgrade list, why would this be any different? I'll believe it when I see it.
This might explain why we were upgraded from QAM16 to QAM64 two weeks ago...
On the otherhand, it would be nice to get this sometime this year, sign me up for 50/10 business class! | |
|
 XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL | To expensive Can't believe the cost Americans are willing to pay for Broadband. | |
|
| | Misleading This site has been up for several months with the same list of sites - it's probably more indicative of where Comcast's major backbone POPs are rather than where they would eventually deploy DOCSIS 3.0. If there were more "showcase" markets listed, then I'd believe this headline. | |
|
|  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| Re: Misleading said by wumarkus:This site has been up for several months with the same list of sites - it's probably more indicative of where Comcast's major backbone POPs are rather than where they would eventually deploy DOCSIS 3.0. I'm glad someone else noticed this; I was thinking the same thing. Those are all the cities that Comcast has a core routing node presence. | |
|
| | san jose area? When they say San Jose, anyone know what actual surrounding cities will get it also? | |
|
| jt4
@comcast.net | Re: san jose area? i work for comcast and the ceo just said south bay he did not give a list of cities | |
|
| | | | Re: san jose area? Darn, I'm in East Bay. Hope it reaches me! | |
|
| | Double da speeds I'll be happy to get my 12 mbps...
wonder if the two docsis 3.0 tiers are gonna be ipv6 capable...??? | |
|
| CjaicemanPremium,MVM
join:2004-10-12
Parker, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Double da speeds said by MalibuMaxx:I'll be happy to get my 12 mbps... wonder if the two docsis 3.0 tiers are gonna be ipv6 capable...??? I think I read somewhere that they will be...
--
Duct tape is like The Force – it has a light side and a dark side, and it binds the Universe together | |
|
| | 16/2 vs 12/2 I see very little advantage to the performance plus plan here. If they both have the same upload, and powerboost is present, then they will effectively seem to operate at the same speeds. I will gladly downgrade to the 12/2 to save money. I have always been on the upgraded tier for a speed improvement on the upload side. That advantage will now be gone. | |
|
|  trent7
join:2005-11-28
Philadelphia, PA | Re: 16/2 vs 12/2 I agree, the performance plus's most attractive aspect was more the upload than the download speed, with that gone it's not as attractive. And 12mbps vs 16mbps not that much of a difference, I rarely hit 16mbps anyway.
I'll downgrading too, once my Blast promo rate expires in a few months. Not worth the extra $10. | |
|
|  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | said by swhitney2003:I see very little advantage to the performance plus plan here. If they both have the same upload, and powerboost is present, then they will effectively seem to operate at the same speeds. I will gladly downgrade to the 12/2 to save money. I have always been on the upgraded tier for a speed improvement on the upload side. That advantage will now be gone. Agreed. At least until I can buy my own D3 modem.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by swhitney2003:I see very little advantage to the performance plus plan here. If they both have the same upload, and powerboost is present, then they will effectively seem to operate at the same speeds. I will gladly downgrade to the 12/2 to save money. I have always been on the upgraded tier for a speed improvement on the upload side. That advantage will now be gone. Performance PLUS (where deployed currently) will be directly replaced by Blast (at no additional cost). I'm a former PP customer that was stealth-upgraded to Blast; the HSI side of my bill went exactly nowhere. (I own my SB-5120, and have since 2005.) | |
|
trent7
join:2005-11-28
Philadelphia, PA | Noticed some changes in Philly A couple of weeks ago I noticed that my modem logs showed a reset overnight, around the same time I noticed a change in all my signal levels (they became slightly better) and finally my modem's hardware info page changed from DOCSIS 1.1 to 2.0 (although my upstream is still QAM16 DOCSIS 1.x). Not a firmware upgrade.
Not sure if this could be related to anything new relating to D3 being deployed. Or maybe it could be related to the new throttling system?! I remember reading somewhere in Comcast's documents that it would require some new configuration to be pushed to the modems.
Anyway since I'm already a 16/2 customer I won't be getting any love from Comcast with this round of upgrades  | |
|
| Bill03Premium
join:2007-11-26
Richmond, VA | Re: Noticed some changes in Philly said by trent7:Not sure if this could be related to anything new relating to D3 being deployed. Or maybe it could be related to the new throttling system?! I remember reading somewhere in Comcast's documents that it would require some new configuration to be pushed to the modems. Looks like they activated a Docsis 2.0 upstream carrier on your node and your modem moved over to it. | |
|
|
|
