Cable Holding Back Superfast Broadband?

[c3141hf]

http://gigaom.com/2013/06/11/comcast-shows-off-a-3-gigabit-broadband-connection-thats-fast/

Just because they can do 3 gigabit broadband and 4k video does not mean that they should immediately roll it out everywhere. Upgrades like this cost money and it comes with a bandwidth cost. Do they want to dedicate 20 channels for broadband or do they want to provide 80 more television stations?

And enough about bandwidth caps. We aren't normal users. Do you know for example the average AT&T broadband customer uses 21GB a month? I'm sure Comcast is similar. Sitting here typing it out I just realized that we are the 2% complaining about we should get more when the other 98% is paying most of the cost.

The average user uses far more than 21GB a month. Netflix alone will drive up that usage.

Downloading more gigabytes does not increase their cost. That is an entirely false premise based on the notion that bits are some finite resource like water or electricity that are consumed. There is no magical "bucket of bits" that has to constantly be refilled. I tend to do most of my heavy downloading overnight into the early morning hours and I can assure you that it is not taxing their resources in the slightest.

 

[Qinsp]

What year?

2011, and probably still today, dunno we moved, and one of the prime reasons was the broadband. We moved 2 miles and it's a world of difference.

 

[Deleted member 88227]

T1 is 1.5Mbps up and down, and is slow as shit.

A single T1 is 1.54Mbps, but you can bond up to 4 of them IIRC. After that, I think you go into fractional T3 territory, where the price nearly skyrockets.

 

[sfsuphysics]

So let me see if I can put together a TLDR summary of the thoughts in this thread.

An extremely small subset of users want speeds massive speed increases from their ISP while at the same time they want the rate they are charged reduced.

Oh and if the companies don't do it all instantly they are evil and greedy.

How's that?

Change that to US based ISPs, and you pretty much got it, maybe Canada too I don't know what their situation is over there, but when these Asian or European countries are rocking 100Mbps connections for less than slow DSL over here, it's hard to not bitch

 

[likeman]

only issue with cable DOCSIS(FTTN) over ADSL/fttc/fttp
is packet loss the faster you make cable go the worst it gets at the street level, I was quite happy when my connection was at 10mb, as DOCSIS is a shared tech more like WiFi but with loads of channels to many users active with p2p or streaming on you start to get higher ping jitter to the point it starts getting high ping at peak time then packet loss (as to why COX users are confusing slow download speeds with congested upload channel and resulting in packet loss, so internet can be unreliable at peak time speedtest will show incorrect results due to packet loss on upstream)

with adsl/fttc/fttp each household has there own link to the phone exchange or fiber node so collectively they are less disruptive to all users at peak time , the worst that tends to happen is on avg everyones speed starts to slow down a little to prevent packet loss (where on DOCSIS based networks it keeps on trying to give every one 3/5/12mb upload speed when it can't at the coxa side of the FTTN cab )

so if you do get your wish for faster speeds on cable expect peak time the internet to be unreliable unless they move the DOCSIS/FTTN closer to you or add more upstream channels

 

[choppedliver]

cox cable is decent in my area in az 100 for 150MB down.

I get 12-16 mbps and I'm probably paying the same as you.

My point is if I wanted to knock 10% off my bill I have to drop 50% in speed. They don't want to bring in less dollars per month, so the lower tier options are very unattractive. Obviously, the same company in AZ offers you a much better deal, and that is driven by competition. Cox is the fastest thing going here, so why charge less or give more speed if you don't have competitive pressure to do so?

 

[choppedliver]

I'll probably get flamed for this but I kinda agree with this statement:



Aside from the linux distro crowd, I don't see what would require a user to download roughly 400 GB an hour. It just doesn't make sense for a company to spend the money required to upgrade their infrastructure when only a tiny percentage of their users will actually pay for those speeds.

Me.

If I want to download any big file, I want it as fast as possible. That doesn't mean I plan on using that much speed all day every day. If I could download a dvd iso in 1 minute versus 20 minutes, yay for me. If it isn't instantaneous, their is room for improvement. lol. Bring the speed, fill the need.

 

[choppedliver]

I just checked, I'm paying $57/month, before all the b.s. fees, for "up to 18 mbps" which I have never seen.

For $45 a month, I can get a whopping 3 mbps.

 

[SomeoneElse]

No, fk dial-up, DSL, and T-1.

At least cable is fast.

And yes, there are HUGE regions in the US where cellphone bandwidth is faster than any other option. I know, I was in a building in the middle of a city of 160,000, in the middle of Southern California.

Fastest land based internet was 6 mbps (T-1) for $1100 a month. DSL was 256k ($90/m) as was satellite.

Now I have cable. It's 55 mbps for $60/m

Thats the problem here, all of the cable companies charge different rates depending on whee you are. I live in a College town and Frontier and Comcast are really only the 2 available options.....Comcast charges 64.99 a month for 25 mbps here and in other cities they charge 51.99.....wtf is with the 7 dollar a month difference? They are over charging college students and residents for cable because they know no one else is competition.

 

[DejaWiz]

Here's Cox Cable plans and pricing for my area:




Sickening how expensive it is for what you get. Premier shouldn't be more than $20 per month.

 

[choppedliver]

The disparity from one area to another is sickening. You are still getting way more than we are, same price, 75% more speed.

 

[choppedliver]

I'll probably get flamed for this but I kinda agree with this statement:



Aside from the linux distro crowd, I don't see what would require a user to download roughly 400 GB an hour. It just doesn't make sense for a company to spend the money required to upgrade their infrastructure when only a tiny percentage of their users will actually pay for those speeds.

The disparity from one area to another is sickening. You are still getting way more than we are, same price, 75% more speed.

woops. sorry for the thumbnail

 

[GotNoRice]

only issue with cable DOCSIS(FTTN) over ADSL/fttc/fttp
is packet loss the faster you make cable go the worst it gets at the street level, I was quite happy when my connection was at 10mb, as DOCSIS is a shared tech more like WiFi but with loads of channels to many users active with p2p or streaming on you start to get higher ping jitter to the point it starts getting high ping at peak time then packet loss (as to why COX users are confusing slow download speeds with congested upload channel and resulting in packet loss, so internet can be unreliable at peak time speedtest will show incorrect results due to packet loss on upstream)

with adsl/fttc/fttp each household has there own link to the phone exchange or fiber node so collectively they are less disruptive to all users at peak time , the worst that tends to happen is on avg everyones speed starts to slow down a little to prevent packet loss (where on DOCSIS based networks it keeps on trying to give every one 3/5/12mb upload speed when it can't at the coxa side of the FTTN cab )

so if you do get your wish for faster speeds on cable expect peak time the internet to be unreliable unless they move the DOCSIS/FTTN closer to you or add more upstream channels

There are clear examples of both DSL and Cable providing bad service when they oversell a neighborhood. Certainly, neither technology is immune. That doesn't mean, however, that it is a foregone conclusion. I keep a running ping to google going on my 3rd monitor to keep an eye on my connection and I get <20ms 24/7 using Comcast Business. I can not only max my 27Mbps download at any time of day, but I can still burst to over 100Mbps even during peak hours.

So bottom line, don't blame the failings of your shitty ISP on the underlying tech.

 

[GotNoRice]

When did TCI stop handling the Bay Area?

When I got Cable back in ~98 or so It was TCI@Home. Then AT&T bought TCI and it became AT&T@Home. Then @Home went belly-up and it became "ATTBI" (AT&T Broadband Internet), then simply "AT&T Broadband". A few years later Comcast bought AT&T Broadband.

Kinda funny that AT&T owned the cable service for so many years, only to sell it to Comcast and end up competing against their own former business by now offering UVerse/DSL.

 

[kbrickley]

I actually find the cable prices fairly reasonable compared to slower offerings ... since Google makes all their money from advertising and user data it is to their advantage to get their internet into as many hands as possible (they don't need to profit from the service since they can make their money in other avenues) ... the cable and phone companies only make money from the service itself, not what you do with it (like Google) ... given that Fios runs in the $50 for 50 range that is pretty reasonable in my book

As to the no one needs Gigabit, that is actually partially true ... computers and internet have been fairly stagnant for many years ... even popular services like Amazon Prime and Netflix are capped in terms of their maximum bandwidth they will allow individual users to consume ... the only benefit for most users of the higher speed tiers is for multiple simultaneous users ... what we need are some really bandwidth intensive offerings from someone ... 4K uncompressed video streaming with uncompressed audio would definitely consume significant bandwidth ... also, we need more of the remote game streaming services (since those will be bandwidth intensive) ... applications tend to drive services, not the other way around ... the current services actually exceed the existing application needs by substantial amounts ... we need the app suppliers to step up their game and demand more bandwidth

 

[likeman]

There are clear examples of both DSL and Cable providing bad service when they oversell a neighborhood. Certainly, neither technology is immune. That doesn't mean, however, that it is a foregone conclusion. I keep a running ping to google going on my 3rd monitor to keep an eye on my connection and I get <20ms 24/7 using Comcast Business. I can not only max my 27Mbps download at any time of day, but I can still burst to over 100Mbps even during peak hours.

So bottom line, don't blame the failings of your shitty ISP on the underlying tech.

the issue is street level so in your case your doing ok (it does not matter if your on business or home when on DOCSIS), at peak time I can't max my connection out single stream goes from 3mb-60mb depending on the day, after midnight I can download at max speed single stream, multithreaded it tends to max out connection

I do agree the isp is to blame due them running the docsis spec to its limit (at least they have enabled upstream bonding now to patch the issue where I am now pings do not go above 80ms jitter, before it was unusable between 5pm- 11pm)

 

[sfsuphysics]

My point is if I wanted to knock 10% off my bill I have to drop 50% in speed.

Kind of proves the point that the bandwidth side of things is actually fairly cheap, what costs money is the roll out of cable, and the hardware side of thing, basically if you get 5Mbps cable it's the same fucking line to your house as if you get the 105Mbps cable.

 

[Jagger100]

In 1890, nobody needed a car. Thankfully, they still made them.

 

[PornoSatan]

T1 is 1.5Mbps up and down, and is slow as shit.

I hopped onto Starcraft 1 a year or two ago just for fun, and if you ever played it back in the late 90's early 2000's you'd see people advertising games with names like "3v3 cable!!" or "3v3 t1!!!"

Well... just a year or two ago when I logged on I saw a game "3v3 T1 !!", I lol'd and went in and told him that's slow as shit these days, I got booted from the game.

 

[///AMG]

I hopped onto Starcraft 1 a year or two ago just for fun, and if you ever played it back in the late 90's early 2000's you'd see people advertising games with names like "3v3 cable!!" or "3v3 t1!!!"

Well... just a year or two ago when I logged on I saw a game "3v3 T1 !!", I lol'd and went in and told him that's slow as shit these days, I got booted from the game.

I remember those days. T1 used to be the shit.

 

[sfsuphysics]

The disparity from one area to another is sickening. You are still getting way more than we are, same price, 75% more speed.

Comcast is the same way here, with one of their speeds 25Mbps I believe it says in the fine print that the actual price per month varies depending upon the market. Anywhere between $60 to $80 a month.