Comcast Promising Ultra-Fast Internet

Espectr0 writes "Comcast's CEO Brian Roberts gave The Associated Press a preview of his speech for the Consumer Electronics show, and said that Comcast expects to demonstrate a technology that delivers up to 160 megabits of data per second over cable. At that speed you could download a high-definition copy of 'Batman Begins' in four minutes. The technology, DOCSIS 3.0, will start rolling out this year." Here's a note about Cisco's announcement of their DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem.

That's Incredible.

[cromar (1103585)]

Too bad we aren't going to see any speed close to that for personal use, at least not without forking over hefty sacks of bling.

Re:That's Incredible.

[gbulmash (688770)]

Too bad we aren't going to see any speed close to that for personal use, at least not without forking over hefty sacks of bling.

Yeah. Comcast is bitching and moaning about bandwidth usage at current speeds and doing all sorts of dirty stuff to "shape" usage. If they increase speeds by 15-20x, their wailing and gnashing of teeth will know no end (or upper decibel level).

On the consumer side, they'll probably roll out speeds and pricing only comparable to FIOS and not get anywhere near the higher end speeds at all, or they'll offer 50-100 megabit speeds on business accounts for $200-300 a month.

Still, Verizon just made FIOS available in my neighborhood. I was waiting to see if they'd roll out FIOS TV too and get the package (dump Comcast altogether). Now I may wait to see if Comcast rolls out the new speedy stuff around here to compete with FIOS in the near future. Could be worth the wait.

- Greg

Re:That's Incredible.

[Shakrai (717556)]

was waiting to see if they'd roll out FIOS TV too and get the package (dump Comcast altogether)

Why wait? Dump 'em now. I dropped my cable package down to "lifeline" service (local tv stations only) and wouldn't even have had that if I could have gotten decent reception with rabbit ears.

I actually like TV but it's just not worth the fucking money. In my area it now costs $55/mo for basic cable. $660/year. More if you want digital cable, DVR, or any of that. And it goes up every year. I can recall before Time Warner came in and bought up the local cable companies -- basic cable cost about $25/mo for 60 channels. Now it's $55/mo for 68 channels. I guess those five home shopping networks, BBC America and Spike TV really cost them $30 more....

It's just not fucking worth it. Having the networks will get you most new shows. Cable only shows can be downloaded, oftentimes quite legally (The Daily Show). There's also DVD rentals of older shows (Netflix anyone?).

Re:

[CMF Risk (833574)]

All the bling in the world will do you no good when they only roll it out to already bandwidth-saturated markets(with FIOS and more), while they leave everyone else out in the cold.

Yay for market lock-ins

Re:That's Incredible.

[jonsmirl (114798)]

FIOS OTN is my basement is running at 680Mb/s. I'm paying $40 to get 20Mb/s of that. They have 2.4Gb/s OTNs but there's no need to deploy them yet. Coax cable plants are legacy.

Re:

[jonsmirl (114798)]

No, I get 5Mb/s up. I can check it with Speakeasy and it is really there. For $200/mth you can get 40/40Mb symmetrical service.

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

Racist? What have YOU been smoking, son?

Re:That's Incredible.

[evanbd (210358)]

you yuppie little shit.

And this is better because...?

bittorrent

[sankekur (998708)]

maybe fast for other things but not for bittorrent

Re:bittorrent

[_xeno_ (155264)]

Oh, I don't know, people using BitTorrent to download legal things, like Linux distros, OpenOffice.org, World of Warcraft patches, or anything else that offers BitTorrent downloads.

Seriously, why is that insightful? There are plenty of legal uses of BitTorrent that don't involve pirating movies.

(And, of course, things like, uh, porn and fansubs may not be available on demand. Not that I'd know anything about that. Oh, and indie films and less popular films and all sorts of digital things that aren't likely to be available on demand.)

Re:

[just_another_sean (919159)]

I am pretty sure the GP was making reference to the recent situation where cable companies, specifically Comcast [slashdot.org], were throttling BT traffic.

Re:

[Nullav (1053766)]

Oh, I don't know, people using BitTorrent to download legal things, like Linux distros, OpenOffice.org, World of Warcraft patches, or anything else that offers BitTorrent downloads.

There's plenty of FTP/HTTP mirrors for Linux distros, same for OO.o, and WoW patches. (Speaking of which, the Blizzard downloader always closed right after finishing. How exactly is that helping anyone?)
So yes, there are plenty of legal uses, but it's not exactly necessary to use BT for many of them.

Sure, somewhere, once in a blu

Re:

[ksheff (2406)]

I guess you don't know anyone that records concerts and then distributes the audio & video with the musician's permission. BT is great for that - much better than trying to get on some overloaded FTP site or mailing blank media to someone.

Re:bittorrent

[internic (453511)]

There's plenty of FTP/HTTP mirrors for Linux distros, same for OO.o, and WoW patches.

Spoken like someone who's never tried to download a popular piece of software right after release. If you have a reasonably fast connection BitTorrent is often the fastest way to get, say, the latest version of your distro, especially during periods of high demand. My net connection isn't even that fast (only 1.5 Mbps) and I've found this. Considering the connection speeds being discussed in TFA, this point is that much more important. Additionally, for community projects this is a way for people to give back by, in effect, donating their bandwidth temporarily, so it has that advantage over FTP and HTTP as well (where you can setup a mirror, but this is a separate and more cumbersome process that must then be managed).

Sure, somewhere, once in a blue moon, someone downloads a public-domain movie/book using BT, but that doesn't make it the norm by any means.

And I care fuck all about what the norm is. BitTorrent is just a tool for shuffling bits around. I use it for perfectly legal purposes. If other people use it for illegal purposes, by all means go after them, but don't punish me for what other people are doing. And don't think that by targeting this one way of shuffling bits you'll stop whatever the activity is, because it will just shift to some other method. As far as I can see, the existence of trackers in BitTorrent probably makes it poorly suited for legal activity when compared to other p2p technologies.

I just hate the 'people download Linux' argument.

Well some of us actually use it for downloading Linux and such, and we hate it when people act as if we don't exist and back the totally idiocy of targeting a very useful communication protocol because some people happen to use it for illegal purposes.

Upload bandwidth?

[timeOday (582209)]

I think that's the question on all our minds.

Re:Upload bandwidth?

[mi (197448)]

RTFA. The description [xchangemag.com] of Cisco's DOCSIS 3.0 "modem", linked to from the summary, says:

Cisco Systems Inc. is demonstrating a DOCSIS 3.0 modem that would let operators support downlink speeds of 160mbps and uplinks of 120mbps [emphasis mine -mi].

Whether Cable companies will allow you to use all this is another story — probably not, because that's the simplest way for them to combat file-sharing without affecting downloads from "legitimate" servers... And I'm pretty sure, they'll continue blocking port 80, etc.

But you'll continue buying it, because the awesome download speed will trump all other concerns...

Re:

[timeOday (582209)]

Is your Comcast port 80 blocked? I've been running a webserver on mine ever since I first signed up (2000 or 2001, it was @Home then), and it still works.

Re:

[stubear (130454)]

"And I'm pretty sure, they'll continue blocking port 80, etc."

I've been running my web server (IIS7 with DNS2GO) on ports 80, using 5150 as a automatic fall back should 80 be blocked. So far all my traffic has been going through 80 for quite some time now.

Re:Upload bandwidth?

[pitdingo (649676)]

But you'll continue buying it, because the awesome download speed will trump all other concerns...

Wrong. I will keep buying it, because like the vast majority of Comcast subscribers, I have no other choice.

Ultra-Fast Internet?

[kevin.fowler (915964)]

How about Comcast comes out with "cable infrastructure in my thickly settled neighborhood that doesn't cripple my television and internet bandwidth". I'm in for 2.

Now it makes sense

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

When I heard about it this morning, it suddenly made sense why Comcast would want to kill off bittorrent: competition! Well, that, and they also wouldn't be able to provide the bandwidth claimed in the contract with their customers.

Slick!

[Pahroza (24427)]

Speeds as listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Speed_Table [wikipedia.org] are rather impressive. Max usable down and up speeds are 152/108 Mbit/s, respectively.

Hopefully they'll roll this out with an affordable pricing plan; they already announced that they'll be raising prices in February.

Re:Slick!

[garcia (6573)]

All this shows is that it doesn't make one bit of a difference if it's DOCSIS 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0 because Comcast is still going to throttle you via a config file and you will probably never see 150mbit connections on their network unless you're getting on-demand movies.

If we were currently seeing 38mbit/(9|27)mbit connections now, I might be inclined to say, "yeah, they're going to give us 150+" but because they're operating at about 6mbit/less than 1mbit for the majority of connections (yes, they go a higher for short bursts) this is nothing more than fluff for CES.

Re:

[Kjella (173770)]

While true, the bullshit factor stays at least somewhat constant. So if they get faster speeds in the pipe, you'll probably get a tiny fraction now like you got a tiny fraction before. Same share of a bigger pie is after all bigger.

Who cares? They don't max out DOCSIS 1!

[Danathar (267989)]

Having your modem capable of these speeds is good technically, but I have the "premier" comcast service now and it does not come even close to maxing out DOCSIS 1.x.

having a DOCSIS 3.x modem would be like having a firehose into your house but only having measly garden hose pressure amount of water going through it.

Good news and bad news

[sm62704 (957197)]

The good news is that Comcast just bought out Insight, the cable company here in Springfield.

The bad news is that slashdot stories about Comcast are all full of horror stories with Comcast the monstrous villian. Yikes!

-mcgrew [slashdot.org]

Re:

[mh1997 (1065630)]

I've had both Comcast and Insight (because comcast bought insight)...if they would offer ultrafast customer service I would have been thrilled with the normal connection speeds.

When I reported outages, it would take days for them to respond. When I called to cancel my service, the customer service guy reviewed my history and asked why it took so long for me to cancel.

More Empty Promises

[quanticle (843097)]

The Internet industry has been promising us higher speeds for nigh on a decade now. However the rollout of this new technology has always been slow to nonexistent. What guarantee do we have that Comcast will roll out DOCSIS 3.0 over any kind of reasonable timespan? Also, given that this is Comcast, what guarantees do we have as far as network neutrality goes? I know that one of major arguments used by proponents of traffic discrimination is the reality of limited bandwidth. Now that bandwidth will be b

that's some interesting math right there...

[MarcoAtWork (28889)]

4 minutes would download about 4.5 gigs, which is basically DVD quality... of course you can upconvert this to whichever HD resolution you want, but it's still going to look like crap compared to a 'proper' 30-40 gigs encode. OTOH having something that could d/load a blue-ray/hd-dvd level encode in less than an hour would be pretty good, but in any case the odds of getting that kind of transfer speed connected to a real site are pretty low IMHO.

Re:that's some interesting math right there...

[cnettel (836611)]

Well, while not as good as proper HD disc, VC-1 or MPEG-4 or anything at 4.5 GB will give far greater quality than DVD MPEG-2.

Re:

[codeboost (603798)]

A 720p BluRay x264-compressed rip is around 4.5GB and a 1080p rip is around 8GB. The quality is very good, probably very close to the original and not worth downloading the 30-40 gigs.

And you get this for...

[BUL2294 (1081735)]

...the low, low price of $1000/month. But if you also sign up basic cable, home phone, and HBO/Starz, the package will cost $1050/month (for the first 3 months)--plus taxes and regulatory fees. It's Comcastic!

Comcast - We own you.

Faster internet, faster disconnection

[Jailbrekr (73837)]

So at that speed, how long do you think it'll take be be cut off for 'excessive use'? I'd give it 5 minutes, tops.

1/4 Batmans per minute?

[X_Bones (93097)]

what's that in Libraries of Congress per second?

100 Mbps fibre available here already

[Ixlr8 (63315)]

I happen to live in a first-to-roll-out neighborhood for fibre to each home/appartment. Available in my street in 2 months, I get symmetric 20/20 internet bandwidth for some 30 euro/month. Speeds up to 100/100 Mbps are also available (. In addition the fibre carries your voip, radio and tv signals. So I'm guessing the 100/100 is just a convenient maximum speed for internet given that most people either have 10 or 100 stuff in their home.

Wonder what this 160 is supposed to be priced at and how the technology scales in the future.

Promises promises

[Kelbear (870538)]

I'll believe it when they actually offer it, there are plenty of ways for them to tie down that speed into an undesirable product. Excessive pricing, throttling, bundling, lock-in, hidden caps...

How fast is the upload, and for that matter, how many download sources are there that can actually hit that speed for numerous users? Even in a torrent it's tough to find enough seeders to equal those speeds. If it can be done, how many suscribers can hit that speed before they crowd each other out?

I think the biggest boost to my practical download speed would be an increase to other people's upload speeds. That sort of breakthrough would be far more exciting.

They can't deal with what they already provide?

[stickyc (38756)]

I'm confused - Comcast has admitted they can't handle the speeds they're already providing to customers, what's the point in providing a faster end-user connection if the back-end can't support it?

Re:They can't deal with what they already provide?

[jbeaupre (752124)]

Because they can charge more for delivering the same thing.

Upload speed will still be 128k though

[pyite69 (463042)]

If this is full duplex, then it will be a great deal. Otherwise it is just sad.

Re:

[smallfries (601545)]

Full Duplex [wikipedia.org] doesn't mean what you think it does. The term that you are looking for is symmetric.

Net Connection Lite

[internic (453511)]

Yeah, but will this ultra-fast connection come with port blocking, traffic shaping, unspecified caps on data transferred, and TOS that make you agree not to run a server of any kind?

What about customer service?

[Spy der Mann (805235)]

Um, have you forgot about Hammer Granny [slashdot.org]? How about the Sleepy Tech guy [youtube.com], who ended up falling asleep because they put him on hold for over 2 hours? (And of course, he was the one fired, while the problem remains).

No matter how fast they claim to be now, if their customer service remains a bureaucratic hell, no way.

Batman?

[glitch_xl (933407)]

I've already GOT batman - what else you got?

But it's still Comcast

[Avatar8 (748465)]

Given the company's history, I don't trust a single word the article says.

-"Up to" 160 mbps likely means "We'll sell you 20Mb for $50/mth to barely squeeze out our competition, but real speed will cost ya $$$$."
-Is it still a shared network? So if my neighbors are all downloading Batman Begins, is my internet download going to slow to 1mbps? I bet it will.
-Will the service be reliable, as in always on, 24x7x365, you know, like the phone companies and my FiOS connection are? I completely and totally doubt it.
-Will the charge per month keep increasing every six months? I think it will.
-Will you still charge customers for house calls even when the fault lies in your network and your equipment? I'm sure you will.
-Will you replace your unskilled, rude and generally ignorant customer service with talented, considerate and intelligent people? Only if Comcast decides to pay a decent wage, so I guess not.
-Will the VoD carry the latest movies as soon as they're legally available? If the CEO is using Batman Begins (2005) as an example, probably not.
-Will Comcast ever apologize or make amends for all the anguish, pain, suffering and overbilling they have caused their customers since Comcast came into existence? I'm not holding my breath.

My only wish is that Comcast executives, where ever they go will receive the same kind of service they themselves deliver.

Bad summery by CNN

[gravis777 (123605)]

After reading the article, the content of the article pretty much backs what I was thinking - that while Comcast may be using some of the bandwidth for internet, most of this looks as if it will be employed for High-Def content on demand. This is 160 meg a second on their network, not on the internet. At least, that is what I am making out of the story.

Maybe they should work on reliability first

[NateTech (50881)]

With an outage a week since the installation of supposedly "Commercial grade" Comcast data service in Denver, and their technical staff not even opening tickets for it...

When someone tells me that Comcast is offering speed, I yawn and ask them to tell me when it will be back up, since it's down at least once a day.

Warning: Anyone thinking about purchasing Comcast in the south Denver suburbs for any serious data purpose... don't. No matter how fast they say it'll be.

When it's up, 12 Mb/s down, 2 Mb/s up is nice. But reliability is more important than those speeds. The downtime will drive you crazy if you're used to anything transported by a previous Bell entity. As bad as the Bell's may be, their crap generally stays up or they fix it.

Comcast shows no interest in fixing chronic problems at all. They're all about the 80/20 rule. If you happen to fall into the 20% that are up and down all the time, they could care less.

Re:

[Pojut (1027544)]

Or...perhaps some ultra-slow failing?

Re:

[quanticle (843097)]

Really? You don't get 4Mbit/sec? Are you in a heavily settled area or something? I know that I get 5Mbit/sec. on a consistent basis, and my throughput peaks around 7Mbit/sec. Of course, I'm paying for 8Mbit/sec, so what do I know?

Re:

[homer_ca (144738)]

Ah, that's nothing. This [tech.co.uk] 75 year old retired lady in Sweden has a 40Gbps connection. However it is experimental, and her son is Peter Löthberg, apparently one of the pioneers of the Internet in Sweden. Still, lots of people in Sweden and S Korea can get 100Mbps broadband.

Re:Its advertising that counts, not the product.

[C0rinthian (770164)]

Believe me, many of us are aware. Damn the telecom industry. Damn them to hell.