Comcast rolling out faster internet

[Eos]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eos
What would they do if people wanted to start using 200gb per month? Make a new cap?

This bullshit about better capacity is, well, bullshit. They simply don't have enough bandwidth for the amount of customers they've sold to. The reasons given for the cap to curb heavy usage by .01% of the users are completely bogus.

So facts don't make sense to you?

The fact is .1% of customers go over 250 GB (nomenclature correct). 1% would be 1 out of 100. .1% would be 1 out of a thousand. Math...learn it.

Your post IMHO is pure ignorance. Not a slam, but just ignorant.

I quote:

"They simply don't have enough bandwidth for the amount of customers they've sold to."

1) Point - do you know what bandwidth is? It is data moved over time in simple terms - delta bit/delta time. Let throw out L1/L2/L3/L4 protocol overhead and focus on throughput for a moment so to not confuse everybody that has no idea what they are talking about, like you.

2) Point - What do you mean by they don't have enough bandwidth?

3) Point - Concept of into and out of each layer of a modern network, ingress and egress.

4) Point - what are best practice ratios of ingress and egress of each layer of modern network design? Refer to point 1 and 2, do you know what bandwidth is?

So I used the .01% posted by others in this thread, not the .1%. Add a fucking zero to the numbers in my first post.

"LOOK AT MY HUGE E-PENIS!!! I KNOW THINGS ABOUT THE WEBZ." - spidey01

Way to call me out. You sir, have won. Won what, I don't know for sure. Douche nozzle of the year award?

I give up. This is just like politics. You're not going to change anybody's mind and neither am I.

 

[Reckoner]

Do you guys think it's worth going from 16/2 to 22/5?

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
Do you guys think it's worth going from 16/2 to 22/5?

If it's still capped at 250GB, probably not.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Cue the 1% of internet users who go over 250GB because they violate intellectual property laws.


WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

How about those of us who were really looking forward to services like 1080p movie rentals from Netflix via Xbox Live? Do you have any idea how much data is needed to utilize that service regularly? 250GB is not reasonable.

Really? 20 movies a month wouldn't suffice?

The average 1080p movie is between 25-30 GB and my family watches about 10 movies total per week.

Then guess what? Just like any other service, you get to pay more for being in the top 1% of users.

25 - 30 GB if you download something from newsgroups. Those are usually 13 - 16 gb with x264 compression. You can't even finish downloading it in 2 hours, so no Netflix does NOT use that much bandwidth when you stream. Stop making streaming seem like it hogs bandwidth like a bitch because it doesn't.

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Canai

I don't know where you live, but internet is 100% essential for me, being a college student. Class assignments, information, communication, resources, etc... are all available solely online. Many of my profs don't even give out phone numbers any more.

Also, contracts carry early termination fees.

Ahh, now I understand the entitlement mentality. Look, you don't NEED to have the Internet, it's a luxury. Also you have libraries if you need to get online. It isn't essential.

To complain about comcast upgrading their network when you guys have been clamoring about "*rabble* UPGRADE THE NETWORK *RABBLE*" for a while now is just silly.

1. comcast has a much lower quality network than they should (look at the rest of the developed world)

2. comcast is NOT a good company (paying people to prevent legit complaints from being heard)

3. comcast throttled traffic while denying it, and probably still do

4. comcast has monopoly over many places in the US

5. comcast is now rolling out faster internet right after they set their bandwidth limits in stone

6. online courses = 6+ hours of online work per week. the libraries here have 30 minute time slots you can sign up for and don't allow you to install anything and never have updated flash / java etc... making it utterly impossible to do coursework.

thankfully Charter has the monopoly here, not comcast.

I don't care who you are or who you work for, your views on this are exactly wrong. You're exactly like the pro DRM people.

this is just like politics, and you're too stuck in your ignorant mindset to listen to reality and nothing anyone says will change that, so I'm going to get another beer, get slammed for my ignorance in this post, and not give a fuck.

:beer:

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Cue the 1% of internet users who go over 250GB because they violate intellectual property laws.


WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

How about those of us who were really looking forward to services like 1080p movie rentals from Netflix via Xbox Live? Do you have any idea how much data is needed to utilize that service regularly? 250GB is not reasonable.

Really? 20 movies a month wouldn't suffice?

The average 1080p movie is between 25-30 GB and my family watches about 10 movies total per week.

Then guess what? Just like any other service, you get to pay more for being in the top 1% of users.

25 - 30 GB if you download something from newsgroups. Those are usually 13 - 16 gb with x264 compression. You can't even finish downloading it in 2 hours, so no Netflix does NOT use that much bandwidth when you stream. Stop making streaming seem like it hogs bandwidth like a bitch because it doesn't.

It will soon, that's my whole point. the bandwidth caps look fine now, but not for long.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Canai

I don't know where you live, but internet is 100% essential for me, being a college student. Class assignments, information, communication, resources, etc... are all available solely online. Many of my profs don't even give out phone numbers any more.

Also, contracts carry early termination fees.

Ahh, now I understand the entitlement mentality. Look, you don't NEED to have the Internet, it's a luxury. Also you have libraries if you need to get online. It isn't essential.

To complain about comcast upgrading their network when you guys have been clamoring about "*rabble* UPGRADE THE NETWORK *RABBLE*" for a while now is just silly.

1. comcast has a much lower quality network than they should (look at the rest of the developed world)

2. comcast is NOT a good company (paying people to prevent legit complaints from being heard)

3. comcast throttled traffic while denying it, and probably still do

4. comcast has monopoly over many places in the US

5. comcast is now rolling out faster internet right after they set their bandwidth limits in stone

6. online courses = 6+ hours of online work per week. the libraries here have 30 minute time slots you can sign up for and don't allow you to install anything and never have updated flash / java etc... making it utterly impossible to do coursework.

thankfully Charter has the monopoly here, not comcast.

I don't care who you are or who you work for, your views on this are exactly wrong. You're exactly like the pro DRM people.

this is just like politics, and you're too stuck in your ignorant mindset to listen to reality and nothing anyone says will change that, so I'm going to get another beer, get slammed for my ignorance in this post, and not give a fuck.

:beer:

Hey dummy!!!!

Comcast's press release to roll out docsis 3.0 was WAY before the cap announcement and even before the FCC slapdown.

There's no conspiracy here. Just competition.

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Canai

I don't know where you live, but internet is 100% essential for me, being a college student. Class assignments, information, communication, resources, etc... are all available solely online. Many of my profs don't even give out phone numbers any more.

Also, contracts carry early termination fees.

Ahh, now I understand the entitlement mentality. Look, you don't NEED to have the Internet, it's a luxury. Also you have libraries if you need to get online. It isn't essential.

To complain about comcast upgrading their network when you guys have been clamoring about "*rabble* UPGRADE THE NETWORK *RABBLE*" for a while now is just silly.

1. comcast has a much lower quality network than they should (look at the rest of the developed world)

2. comcast is NOT a good company (paying people to prevent legit complaints from being heard)

3. comcast throttled traffic while denying it, and probably still do

4. comcast has monopoly over many places in the US

5. comcast is now rolling out faster internet right after they set their bandwidth limits in stone

6. online courses = 6+ hours of online work per week. the libraries here have 30 minute time slots you can sign up for and don't allow you to install anything and never have updated flash / java etc... making it utterly impossible to do coursework.

thankfully Charter has the monopoly here, not comcast.

I don't care who you are or who you work for, your views on this are exactly wrong. You're exactly like the pro DRM people.

this is just like politics, and you're too stuck in your ignorant mindset to listen to reality and nothing anyone says will change that, so I'm going to get another beer, get slammed for my ignorance in this post, and not give a fuck.

:beer:

Hey dummy!!!!

Comcast's press release to roll out docsis 3.0 was WAY before the cap announcement and even before the FCC slapdown.

There's no conspiracy here. Just competition.

yay!

one last thing. (correct me if I'm wrong which I probably am )

you = industry perspective

everyone else = consumer perspective

notice the large gulf between them?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: eos
Lets look at some numbers.

1000 users
10 are "the baddies"
2,500,000gb of allowed bandwidth for those 1000 users (250gb * 1000)
900 users using 50gb each is 45,000gb (this is being very generous for granny and her knitting websites)
2,455,000gb left for 10 users or 23.9tb.

1mb upload on for 24/7/30 would be 303gb upload.
8mb download on for 24/7/30 would be 2.07tb downloaded.

Max possible is 2.5 tb with an 8mb/1mb connection.

What's the issue? I couldn't care any less about P2P or leeching or whatever reasons someone is using their connection. There is no way .01% can use more bandwidth than what is available for the other 99.99%.

On a related note, you can bet your ass that if the cable internet business was bad, the owners/investors would have sold a long time ago. The rich don't stay rich by continuing to own or invest in companies that lose money.

*removed an extra 0 from the baddies

bingo, why improve your network customer value when you can just cry "bandwidth hog!" and get more profit as bandwidth gets ever cheaper.

and yea cable companies tend to be government sanctioned monopolies. only so much digging that can be done in neighborhood.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
bingo, why improve your network customer value when you can just cry "bandwidth hog!" and get more profit as bandwidth gets ever cheaper.

and yea cable companies tend to be government sanctioned monopolies. only so much digging that can be done in neighborhood.

But they are bandwidth hogs. Only one out of a thousand users exceed 250GB per month, and median usage if I remember correctly was two or three GB per month. These users do use disproportionally more bandwidth than most customers. They may not think their usage is excessive, but the statistics clearly suggest it is. And while a lot of people claim that their high usage is legitimate (and I don't doubt that in some cases it is), I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of those high bandwidth users are doing something illegal or against the ToS, be it sharing copyrighted works, hosting a server, etc.

Let's say you were starting a restaurant with an all-you-can-eat buffet. Would you really go out of your way to cater to the 0.1% of customers that come in and eat 83 times more food than most customers? Would you hire more staff and keep more food in stock just to make sure that 1/1000 is happy? It makes absolutely no business sense at all.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: Xavier434
How about those of us who were really looking forward to services like 1080p movie rentals from Netflix via Xbox Live? Do you have any idea how much data is needed to utilize that service regularly? 250GB is not reasonable.

Really? 20 movies a month wouldn't suffice?

The average 1080p movie is between 25-30 GB and my family watches about 10 movies total per week.

Then guess what? Just like any other service, you get to pay more for being in the top 1% of users.

25 - 30 GB if you download something from newsgroups. Those are usually 13 - 16 gb with x264 compression. You can't even finish downloading it in 2 hours, so no Netflix does NOT use that much bandwidth when you stream. Stop making streaming seem like it hogs bandwidth like a bitch because it doesn't.

That is not what I an arguing. I am arguing about the 250gb cap, lack of rollover bandwidth, lack of competition, their demand to purchase their TV cable service to remove the cap, their demand for me to pay over 3 times the amount I pay now to have the cap removed, and finally the quality in general.

I don't mind paying a little more since I use a lot, but all of the above is absolutely ridiculous and only exists due to lack of competition.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
bingo, why improve your network customer value when you can just cry "bandwidth hog!" and get more profit as bandwidth gets ever cheaper.

and yea cable companies tend to be government sanctioned monopolies. only so much digging that can be done in neighborhood.

But they are bandwidth hogs. Only one out of a thousand users exceed 250GB per month, and median usage if I remember correctly was two or three GB per month. These users do use disproportionally more bandwidth than most customers. They may not think their usage is excessive, but the statistics clearly suggest it is. And while a lot of people claim that their high usage is legitimate (and I don't doubt that in some cases it is), I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of those high bandwidth users are doing something illegal or against the ToS, be it sharing copyrighted works, hosting a server, etc.

Let's say you were starting a restaurant with an all-you-can-eat buffet. Would you really go out of your way to cater to the 0.1% of customers that come in and eat 83 times more food than most customers? Would you hire more staff and keep more food in stock just to make sure that 1/1000 is happy? It makes absolutely no business sense at all.

an all you can eat buffet is quite a different concept from an unlimited isp account. they are moving physical goods with rather tight margins and material costs that aren't constantly lowering in price. if the cost of food and service dropped by multiples each year perhaps your comparison would be more accurate. isp is more like your phone service. you pay for unlimited call time, not everyone uses it 24/7, but to complain that a user would is just absurd. you pay for the service and access to the network. if the isp is overselling or not building enough capacity that is their fault. and as i said, further more they are a government sanctioned monopoly, they should have an obligation to provide a public service as well as well as just running a business for this privileged access, never mind the whole truth in advertising bit.



and isps like comcast have conflicts of interest. a 30gb streaming movie seems absurd now. but it won't in the future. comcast knows this and they are a media delivery company and would like to stiffle competition. it wasn't that many years ago that youtube seemed like a massive data stream.

 

[imported_apocalypse]

Way better than the Canadian BS version of high speed internet.

Up to 5Mbit with a 60GB cap. Lol.

 

[aceO07]

I wonder what the avg usage is for a college area, where an apartment could have 3-4 people/students. The most of the stats I've seen in this are really only for people living alone or where they are the primary user.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
That is not what I an arguing. I am arguing about the 250gb cap, lack of rollover bandwidth, lack of competition, their demand to purchase their TV cable service to remove the cap, their demand for me to pay over 3 times the amount I pay now to have the cap removed, and finally the quality in general.

I don't mind paying a little more since I use a lot, but all of the above is absolutely ridiculous and only exists due to lack of competition.

You still don't get it.

The reason they are upgrading and doing all this is BECAUSE OF COMPETITION. Look at the markets Comcast is pushing docsis 3.0. Gee, it's where FIOS is.

There is so much competition in the consumer broadband arena it should make your head spin.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
Do you guys think it's worth going from 16/2 to 22/5?

I don't really see the point. If you can only download 250GB/mo with either one, whats the difference? Don't most websites cap their outbound speed per user to way less then either of those downloads anyway? Maybe if you wanted to host a game server with more people or something I guess the upload might come in handy.

Frankly, when I had comcast I always found their "we've upgraded you to 8mb/12kbps to 75mb/24kbps crap annoying. How about you increase the upload to something less useless or just give me the same service for less money...of course we all know that will never happen. Everything above 1-2mb/per second is a big who cares for me, how often is it even possible to saturate that? And thats why they give it to you of course.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
Do you guys think it's worth going from 16/2 to 22/5?

How about 18/1?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: coldmeat
my cap is 60gb. rogers ftl

and this is split between 4 guys in the house. So I really only get 15.

Same here, xpt out Landlord paid for 25GB.....we hit that by the 6th of the month. Luckily its only 25$ maximum surplus charge.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Cue the 1% of internet users who go over 250GB because they violate intellectual property laws.


WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

I got 300Gb one month downloading Itune CD purchases


though, that was a one time thing

I do use about 60-70GB a month on average, and have no TV. People using 250GB+ of Media need to get a job/hobby so they don't spend 14 hours a day infront of the computer

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Cue the 1% of internet users who go over 250GB because they violate intellectual property laws.


WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

I got 300Gb one month downloading Itune CD purchases

That's like 5,000 albums, well over 100 per day... :roll:

Even if you're talking 300 gigabits, that's still over 600 albums, more than 20 per day

Figure $10/album, I call shens on the actual purchasing of the music.

 

[thomsbrain]

But will those speeds be sustained or "Powerboost?"

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Cue the 1% of internet users who go over 250GB because they violate intellectual property laws.


WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

I got 300Gb one month downloading Itune CD purchases

That's like 5,000 albums, well over 100 per day... :roll:

Even if you're talking 300 gigabits, that's still over 600 albums, more than 20 per day

Figure $10/album, I call shens on the actual purchasing of the music.

aspergers......

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Cue the 1% of internet users who go over 250GB because they violate intellectual property laws.


WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

I got 300Gb one month downloading Itune CD purchases

That's like 5,000 albums, well over 100 per day... :roll:

Even if you're talking 300 gigabits, that's still over 600 albums, more than 20 per day

Figure $10/album, I call shens on the actual purchasing of the music.

He just kept downloading the same one over and over again.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: jersiq

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: spidey07
Do you have any idea how much a 45 meg connection costs?
Do you have any idea how much a 155 meg connection costs?

And Comcast is giving it to you for less than 200 bucks? That's the deal of the century right there.

Well I know one thing, Comcast isn't rolling out DOCSIS 3.0 and Verizon isn't rolling out FIOS because they enjoy pissing money away. I think if anyone here knew exactly how much this costs they'd go into business for themselves.

VZ hasn't turned a single dime of profit from FIOS yet. Projections show they won't for another 4-7 years IIRC.

They took a huge gamble at the time, and only time will tell if they gambled correctly.

It most definitely will, but it was probably a difficult sell for shareholders. IIRC it wasn't a very popular idea at the time.

no, bell atlantic/verizon was planning this for a long time. they have been sitting on this for more than a decade, waiting for technology to mature and costs to come down. it's not a gamble, it's a sure thing that will take a long time to play out. the up-front costs are huge ($5-6000 per customer) and the result is a network with high capacity, high expandability, high reliability, and very low labor costs.

anyone in the us claiming company x has a monopoly on their telecom business needs to familiarize themselves with the telecommunications act of 1996. anyone can sell any service to anyone else. no municipality is forced into exclusive service contracts, and no company is forced to service a region they don't want to. if there is only one service provider where you live, chances are it would be impossible to make a profit on your sleepy little town. you can't force me to build and maintain a network in the middle of nowhere, at a huge loss.

 

[ballmode]

No one should stop another from being able to download tons of porn, this is an OUTCRY