Comcast Offers 50 Mbps Residential Speeds 332
An anonymous reader notes that Comcast is offering a new 50-Mbps / 6-Mbps package for residential customers for $150, starting in Minneapolis-St. Paul and extending nationwide by mid-2010. The new service will use the DOCSIS 3.0 standard, which is nearing ratification. We've recently discussed Comcast's BitTorrent throttling and promise to quit it, and their low-quality 'HD' programming. How attractive will $150 for 50 Mbps be compared to Verizon's FiOS offerings?
WoW (Score:5, Insightful)
Where do I send my 150$ again?
How attractive compared to FIOs? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, if you live in an area not covered by FIOS, it's as attractive as you're going to get, buddy.
Burst vs Sustained Speed (Score:5, Insightful)
offtopic: the new design (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tell me, Mr. Slashdotter... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not very if there is a monthly throughput cap (Score:5, Insightful)
50Mb sounds nice, but if they cut you off after 100GB per month for "excessive traffic", what good is it?
Re:offtopic: the new design (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:offtopic: the new design (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Avoiding FIOS markets (Score:3, Insightful)
50Mbps untill... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Wow, 50Mbps, let me try something"
second later
"Hey, it just slowed down to 40Mbps"
second later
"what the, it slowed to 12Mbps"
one more second
"Hey, it's at 28.8Kbps!"
While back at the Comcast HQ
"Gentlemen, the beauty of the system is that it is only 50Mbps until someone actually uses. Any use of the pipeline for such bandwidth gobbling activities such as web browsing or email will be immediately countered with our new bandwidth load balancing software, reducing the available bandwidth in order to keep our profits up..."
Re:WoW (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a very large wager, mind.
Re:Burst vs Sustained Speed (Score:5, Insightful)
The advertised vs. actual problem occurs when the architecture of the network is itself sloppy, and relies on end users never testing their bandwidth at the same time. Generally, this works, but is NOT good for guaranteed QoS.
If every neighborhood WAN/Ring was set up with 2x the required network feeding it you would get reduced speed during an outage and guaranteed bandwidth possibilities. The problem is that requires upgrades, and we know that won't happen till some pork toting politicians says the county/state will pay for it.
Current and previous network designs were vamped up analog cable tv networks (read as router jammed in outdoor cabinet somewhere in the neighborhood) the cable companies went into the network business with less than suitable design and staff and winged it. The public is now happy to have the less than optimal service that was offered rather than demanding 'you can hear a pin drop' quality.
50Mbps is what I would equate to high end, but I'm willing to bet that the QoS is NO better than dialup, just faster most of the time. If the QoS was better, they'd advertise it.
What this means is that the cheapest upgrade to crap old equipment came with a huge bandwidth increase by default. They could give you a QoS guaranteed 15Mb/3Mb and setup the network to produce that... but nope, not happening. It 'SOUNDS' so much better to say **50Mbps**
It's nothing but marketing droid bs.
They throttle more than P2P (Score:1, Insightful)
But it begs the question, what good is this supposed speed you buy when Comcast doesn't actually let you use it? This is deceptive advertising at its best on Comcast's part. Their internet packages are more expensive than DSL typically and could be justified because they were "faster", but their not really, because you don't get to use that speed. I'm in the process of migrating to DSL because of Comcast's deception and denying they've been doing this. Net neutrality needs some more poster children like Comcast.
So buy hosting from somebody. (Score:3, Insightful)
Commercial web hosting is so cheap that there's no reason to do it on a home machine. Don't get it from your ISP; there are hundreds of competing web hosting companies. You can get quite decent capabilities for under $10/month.
Just dont use it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WoW (Score:3, Insightful)
They sell the "8meg" tier here but the pipe to the headend cant handle the 8meg so if you do any speed tests OUTSIDE their reccomended you never get more than 4.4-5.
The thing with cable is it's all about location. If you are in an area with nobody but you in your local "group" then more than likely you be in sweet bandwidth heaven.
If you are on a street with 10 15 year olds downloading every 720p/1080i movie via bittorrent your bandwidth is probably going to suck.
Youtube + Profits. (Score:5, Insightful)
What they could not conceive of was the fact that would be getting free video that you didn't have to pay Comcast for.
So what they do now is throttle your connection back out of spite. If I have any kind of sustained download, I end up at sub-dialup speeds on my supposedly 6 mps Comcast cablemodem. It works very predictably -- 7mbs for about the first 10 seconds and it starts dropping, and then a while later I am at 40 kilobits per second, I kid you not. If I stop the transfer and start it again I get the exact same "loss of service" curve.
Re:Youtube + Profits. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly the nicest thing to do to someones webserver, but would pretty much entirely negate comcast's throttling.
Re:WoW (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WoW (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How attractive compared to FIOs? (Score:3, Insightful)
depends... are you going for "bad movie" or "bad movie with partial nudity"?
At least with the partial nudity you also get an amusing storyline, Michael Madsen, Ben Kingsley and a movie that goes someplace. with the "bad movie" you get some fake-good actor like "Liam Neeson" the WORST fanbase of anything in the world, and a move that goes NOWEHERE
The reason they did it: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, the buttons are too tall.