Comcast Planning 2Gbps Service, Starting With Atlanta 208
joemite points out a PC Mag article which begins "There's been a lot of talk about Google's 1Gbps "gigabit" Internet service, but Comcast said today that it is planning a 2Gbps service, beginning in Atlanta," and writes: All of the ISPs seem to be "out-doing" each other in terms of offering faster and faster service, but why can't they compete on reasonable rates for "slower" speeds? My 5Mbit service from Comcast is currently costing me $50/month, about what it was 10 years ago. Seems that if they can push a 2 Gigs for a few hundred dollars, I could get at least get 50Mbit for what I'm paying now.
It's nonsense. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. The link you provided quite specifically states that if you have pain and remain erect despite the absence of both physical and psychological stimulation it is an issue. I can tell you from personl experience that if you have the right combination of chemicals in you (e.g. LSD and/or MDMA, ideally combined with copious quantities of THC) and you are indeed putting your erection to good use, one can indeed have an erection for significantl
Re: (Score:2)
Super fast downloads. (Score:5, Funny)
Sweet. Now you can hit the data cap in your "Unlimited" plan in 15 minutes instead of 30!
If you could run your own cable this would go away (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't insane. We should have thousands of mom and pop ISPs. Run the cable in the city conduit/poll and pay whatever the fee is for leasing some space there.
Yes, it would be messy if there were a LOT of cable running there, but then the fees would pay for a conduit and it would all go underground.
We don't need these ISP monopolies. Open it up for competition. Then if the ISPs behave like assholes, you just go to a competitor offering you a better deal to get your business.
In my area there are two ISPs like in most of America. One for DSL and one for Cable. No one is allowed to run cable but the phone company and the cable company.
And that is why the speeds suck. If you could have someone else also allowed to run cable it would force the ISPs to compete or die.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the setup you are describing, everyone is still connecting to a single city hub, which would count as a monopoly if it were private. Pretty much no matter what you do, you are going to run into the issue of eventually require use of some public property that we don't want in the hands of a for-profit company.
Why not just expand the public portion of the public internet service to include the cables as well? Then you don't need a disorganized and inefficient mess cables going to the central hub.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, small towns might have on hub but medium to large cities have many. And there is not only no reason for them to be centralized but they're not centralized. In a small town if there were one connection through the trunk then you'd have just one there. But that only applies in that one case.
And even then the prices for back end bandwidth are far far cheaper. Current backbone network saturation is less than 30 percent. Lots of capacity. And the likes of L3 don't care who they connect to. They're ve
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I misread your post, so my reply doesn't make any sense. I will amend my reply.
In your example, the government still owns the conduit. Rather than simply providing conduit, why not provide the conduit and the wires in the conduit as a public service? The government is in a unique position to do this *efficiently and fairly.
*I don't mean to imply that governments are always efficient and fair, but merely that they are capable of being efficient and fair in a way that for profit corporations can not
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind them providing the conduit. I do mind them providing the cable. the cable you must appreciate will change. there will be innovation.
it isn't like water or power or roads.
Road technology hasn't change much in the last 100 years. If your car had to drive on a paved road build to 19th century standards, it wouldn't be a big deal. They had asphalt back then.
Water is water is water. The fucking Romans could pipe water to your house and it would be about as good as what you get from the city. The big
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind them providing the conduit. I do mind them providing the cable. the cable you must appreciate will change. there will be innovation.
1. I think the conduit probably does need to change from time to time although I wouldn't call those changes the same kind of innovation traditionally associated with technology.
2. The government doesn't have to be the one doing the innovating in order to provide the cables. They can just pay consultants to research which new technologies for cables should be used, and voters can decide if the government officials are doing a good job of hiring the right consultants. I am not saying this system is foolpro
Re: (Score:2)
1. No the cable wouldn't need to change. The British are currently running fiber through Victorian sewer pipes. So... no. The conduit doesn't need to change. All it needs is enough space in it. That's it. So the only thing that could happen is that the could run out of room. But that is something you could upgrade the next time you do road maintenance.
2. As to the government not needing to do the innovation, they would need to approve things.
Look, the government providing my internet access is a non-starter
Re: (Score:2)
I meant the "conduit" would not need to change. Not the cable. The cable obviously needs to change with some frequency. But the conduit so long as it was large enough could remain the same for hundreds of years.
Re: (Score:2)
1. As long as it always has enough space and never degrades it will never need to change (i.e. it will eventually need to be changed just like everything else).
As to the government not needing to do the innovation, they would need to approve things.
yeah that's what they do. It would be what they would be doing in your system too (approving individuals to rent space in the conduit)
Look, the government providing my internet access is a non-starter. You've seen all the privacy abuse stuff they've done already. If they actually own the cables it will be even worse. And that is just ONE reason amon
Re: (Score:2)
1. Again, the english are running cable in pipes that are over a hundred years old. So give me a break please.
Okay... last time.
CABLES DETERMINE BANDWIDTH.
Also for all you know they'll splice something into the cable... a wire tap of some description. I'm not keen on it.
As to you not invoking the notion that without the government running it there would be chaos. *facepalm* That is exactly your argument. Tell me right now why we can't have 20 companies running cable and do not anywhere infer that it will be
Re: (Score:2)
Again, the english are running cable in pipes that are over a hundred years old. So give me a break please.
So you think 100 years == forever?
Okay... last time. CABLES DETERMINE BANDWIDTH.
I never said they didn't. I don't know why you think I did.
As to you not invoking the notion that without the government running it there would be chaos. *facepalm* That is exactly your argument.
No it is not. And it is obviously not, because my plan involves private ISPs.
As to the only difference being who owns them, wrong. Because if they own them and no one can compete with them, what is to stop the government cables from just staying old and shitty forever?
I did not make the argument that government always works, but you seem to be making the argument that government never works...except for conduit.
This is not a profitable discussion. You've got no reason for wanting the city to have control. You just DO want them to have control. Either cite the reason for wanting the city to be in control of it without referring chaos or order because you said that wasn't your argument... or what exactly are you fighting this so hard for? Why?
The reason I want the city to own the cables is (like I already said) efficiency. It is efficient to have government controlled infrastructure. There is a reason we don;t have private water pi
Re: (Score:2)
wow... so you're saying that if the city has to do a rebuild on the conduit once every 100 years that is a deal breaker for you?
that's idiotic. I'm not saying you're an idiot. I'm saying you said something that was very stupid. Please don't do that.
As to admitting that cables determine bandwidth, then you are admitting that the government could control internet speed simply by being lazy about upgrading cables.
As to arguing that government never works, I did not say that. I just said I don't want to be held
Re: (Score:2)
wow... so you're saying that if the city has to do a rebuild on the conduit once every 100 years that is a deal breaker for you?
You are even worse at reading comprehension than I am. At no point did I say or imply that. I think conduit needs to be replaced far more often than every 100 years, and even being changed every 100 years does not contradict my statement that it will eventually need to be changed.
As to arguing that government never works, I did not say that. I just said I don't want to be held hostage to their incompetence if and when they fuck up. Is that unreasonable? Or does everything have to be a too big to fail government clusterfuck?
I'm a libertarian...
Name anything the government does that the private sector does and we'll go through the cost figures. The government literally is always less efficient. Without exception.
This is something that an ideologue says.
Here is something the government does more efficiently than the private sector. Dealing with the problem of "tragedy of the commons". Markets solve a lot of problems
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not bad at reading. I'm just not cooperating with your attempts to control my argument or strawman me.
The conduit will require maintenance. So what? Everything does. That is no excuse not to have it. the cost of maintaining it will be cheap. it is a fucking pipe. I don't want to hear you whining about what the conduit will cost to maintain again.
That portion of the discussion is done.
As to you being a libertarian, then why are you so in favor of putting the government in charge of everything? No lib
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not bad at reading. I'm just not cooperating with your attempts to control my argument or strawman me.
As to you being a libertarian, then why are you so in favor of putting the government in charge of everything?
Evidence of your lack of ability to read.
As to your allegation that I must be an anarchist, no... I said the the government is needed for laws, police, and courts. That automatically means I'm not an anarchist.
I specifically pointed out that you were not an anarchist for that same reason.
More evidence of your lack of ability to read.
You're not a libertarian... that's obviously a lie. You're sitting there arguing a statist position.
My voting history: 2000: Harry Browne, 2004: Harry Browne, 2008: Ron Paul, 2012: Gary Johnson.
It's retards like you that are giving a bad name to libertarianism. You take a very reasonable ideology and turn it into something completely irrational and closed-minded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly a regulation issue. I mean, why do we only have 4 cell phone companies? Because those 4 bought all the spectrum and no one else can have it no matter whether those companies use it or not. So lets say you have a small town somewhere with no cell phone coverage at all... can you throw up your own tower? Be the cellphone provider of Bob's town? Nope. Can't do it. Federal law. Forbidden.
Absent that, you'd have lots of cell phone providers. Thousands. And while some people are going to offer up myopic te
Re: (Score:2)
you don't have to run separate cable for every company.
in fact there is zero benefit to doing so, regardless of your belief that the cable is some sort of magical substance that must be replaced in order to enable better service and competition. (your belief is in fact the same belief that causes people to buy Monster cables)
just mandate open access to the wire and you get your competition.
Re: (Score:2)
I look at the FCC.
If everyone's home wifi equipment was a mesh networking system that interfaced with 10s of neighbors, then every side of that neighborhood would be a connection. This would all connect to "Central" City-based hardlines for faster routes around the world (because this most-resembles the roadway system, which is paid-for similarly).
The result:
- Cheaper prices (just the cost of peering with other cities).
- Faster Peering/Torrenting: Someone in-town has the file? Then it's just a network copy.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame me, I didn't ask for them to be cited as utilities. I've been saying they should let more people run cable for years. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, respectfully, you're citing problems that only exist because we don't have a system set up to handle all those companies.
Effectively, your argument is "we can't do this because we're not doing this".
I know that isn't how you see your argument. However, your "I don't want people digging up the street" comment only makes sense if you assume no one would work out a reasonable way to do it.
For example, conduits. You just have a pipe that goes down the side of the street with regular access points. No digg
Re: (Score:2)
here you go talking about the magical conduit again.
we've covered this before.
you're wrong and unrealistic.
forcing open access to existing cable works and forces competition and is all it takes.
how do we know? because we've done it before with long distance service (remember all the 10-10-220 services?...it was so effective that now long distance is essentially free for everyone now with a cell phone, and no one even remembers paying for long distance anymore. and which is how the main telcos killed off the
Re: (Score:2)
Tautology... you can't have competition if you don't allow it to exist.
You say we won't have it because we don't have it and we don't have it because you've made it illegal.
the economics of the issue are besides the point. You've made it illegal.
If you felt that the economics were sufficient to stop competition... which you clearly hate... then you wouldn't feel it was further required to make competition outright illegal.
The simple fact that you think you need to make it illegal means that you fear that it
Re: (Score:2)
We have already wired the entire country. Twice. Once for phone and again for cable.
Almost right. Once for electricity and then for phone. There are many places still without without cable lines and will probably never get them now that TV signals are digital.
That being said, you shouldn't need a cable to get good quality internet. If I were King for a day, I'd mandate ubiquitous and free wireless for all.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem:
Do we really want 20 ISPs all running their own cables all over town. And digging up every street to do it? That is something which is neither desirable nor practical.
We had a lot of choices when modems were the best we had. They all shared the same lines.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with that. I really don't care who runs the thing so long as they don't fuck it up.
I'd love a company to do it as well. Because you can fire a company. Can't fire government. :(
Re: (Score:3)
I have no problem with that. I really don't care who runs the thing so long as they don't fuck it up.
I'd love a company to do it as well. Because you can fire a company. Can't fire government. :(
Ah well, there's your mistake.
Apparently you don't live in a location with democracy and elections, but do live in an area with multiple telcos competing for business.
The rest of us live in America which has the reverse situation: we vote and can thus fire our city governments and influence our public utilities, but can't fire Comcast unless we're willing to go without internet.
Title II? (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't Comcast get the memo that Title II regulations meant that they were suppose to stop all investments in broadband?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, they stopped all broadband investment; this is purely marketing investment at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Well we all saw how Title II killed wireless phone service back in 1993. I mean, who uses a cell phone these days?
So what your saying is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FIOS and GigaFiber (Score:4, Interesting)
I currently have FIOS from Verizon, I pay $105 a month for 150 megabit down and up.
AT&T this month is in the process of installing their new GigaFiber service.
They are offering 1 gigabit up and down for $120 a month, but with a data cap of 1 TB per month and $20 per additional TB.
We use a lot of data in our house, with a connection speed about 6 times faster, I imagine we'll use even more.
1 TB is a lot, but frankly isn't THAT much when you consider 4k streaming and 1 gigabit to share among 5 tech heavy users.
Verizon currently doesn't have a cap, at least not a published one. If they have a soft or hidden cap, I've never felt or seen it.
---
Then the issue comes up... Do I NEED gigabit? Well, I once would have thought that 150 meg was nuts, and today I love it, so I'm sure I'll find a use for it. But honestly, I'm not sure it is worth the bother.
What I'm hoping is that Verizon will price match, or offer something close. Currently they want something crazy like $300 a month for 500 up/down, if they offered me that for $120, I'd take it in a heartbeat.
Even 300/300 would be enough for $120, but time will tell.
You really don't (Score:2)
Each order of magnitude of network speed increase matters less than the one before it as more stuff is trivial, and there's less stuff that is still problematic. There are things out there for which gig is a noticeable improvement over 100mbit, but not many. As time goes on and things grow it'll matter a little more, but still not a huge amount.
Eventually we may find that something is "enough" for end users and further upgrades aren't needed, perhaps in the 10gibt range. That even when we are doing all kind
Re: (Score:2)
If you could get 1 Mbps for $10, 5 Mbps for $15, 20 Mbps for $20, 100 Mbps for $40 or 1,000 Mbps for $80, which would you pick?
Personally, I'd go with the $20 for 20Mbps option. I like speed, but I also like money.
Re: (Score:2)
If you could get 1 Mbps for $10, 5 Mbps for $15, 20 Mbps for $20, 100 Mbps for $40 or 1,000 Mbps for $80, which would you pick?
You didn't ask me, but I'd take the 100 meg for $40.
I don't think right now I have enough use or need for 1 gig to justify twice the price.
If AT&T had no cap and was 1 gigabit for $120, I'd jump all over that like white on rice. $105 for 150 meg vs. $120 for 1 gig? That is easy.
But what if AT&T said 1 gig w/ no cap for $210? Naa, I'd pass.
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, AT&T is charging $120 for 1 gbps and apparently does not enforce their data cap on gigabit plans. And if Google is interested in your area, they drop the price to $70. That's what's happening here, anyway, and some other places I've read about online.
The choice to sign up is tough though. Here's what's going on in my area.
1. AT&T installed fiber in my neighborhood this Monday (I was really impressed.. they started Monday and were done by Tuesday afternoon, for about 150 houses).
Re: (Score:2)
All I could think when reading your post was...
"Gosh, look what happens when we have real competition!"
Sweet, isn't it? :)
Me? A gig for $80 (Score:2)
But like I said, crazy geek. What would I recommend to people? Probably 20mbps for individuals, 100mbps for families or power users.
Cost of delivering service matters. (Score:2)
The ISP's cost of delivering service includes network upgrades, network maintenance, customer service, and bandwidth costs (plus others such as marketing and G&A costs).
The network upgrades are generally not "per customer" but "per area" so if you have the higher speed available, the ISP has already paid the costs of the network upgrades and you just are not yet buying that service but
Great (Score:2)
So I'm going to need a fancy server motherboard with dual gigabit ports to use it? or perhaps even one with a 10G port?
Oh Yeah? (Score:2)
Coming soon: Google to start offering 3 razor blades...errr I mean 3Gbps internet service.
Do the math. (Score:2)
Do the math. With 3% annual inflation and you are still paying $50 for service ten years later?
You are actually paying about $36 compared to the $50 dollars you were paying in 2004 dollars. Not that I'm ever going give Comcast any props, but they are giving you the same service for less money.
Just like going large for just a quarter more, the base cost for each customer is basically the same whether they
Re: (Score:2)
It still blows the mind that we walk around with more computing power than was available in the 60's to NASA, and probably most of the rest of the US, in our pockets. That reminds me time to watch some youTube videos of a cat riding on a Roomba.
outdoing each other? (Score:2)
Last time I checked ISP's in the US aren't competing to out-do each other at all in most markets. A few places have fiber and catch internet headlines but most don't. The phone companies are sticking to slow 20mbps ADSL2+ tech while the cable companies put the fiber a little closer to you so that they can offer 100mbps service but the cable internet fees are ridiculous from top to bottom.
I actually have worse speeds than I did 15 years ago because of my distance from the CO but at least my ISP (Sonic) is on
GPON or home-run? HUGE difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Google on the other hand is apparently doing home-run fiber from each house to a central location, where it can aggregate the bandwidth into ludicrously fast switches and hand it off to 100Gbps etc backhauls. That means that (with guessed but plausible numbers) instead of e.g. 50 houses sharing each 2Gbps for an average of 40Mbps with Comcast, you would have 1000 houses sharing 100Gbps for 100Mbps average with Google. Yeah, the "peak theoretical" is higher, but the actual effective available bandwidth is very different.
Then there's the fact that with a home-run fiber to each house, Google can easily upgrade their aggregation equipment and backhaul links in order to boost total shared bandwidth, without having to go out in trucks and mess with fibers again. Comcast OTOH would have to go around and split all their GPON loops in half and hope they can get those new sub-loops run back to their agg points. Heck, there's nothing stopping Google from upgrading the transceivers at each end of the fiber for a given house to make use of more advanced optical techniques, because the fiber isn't shared.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you suppose Google actually uses for backhaul in its municipal fiber? OC-192, 10GBASE-ER? Depending on how many strands they light I would bet the backhaul capacity is probably way less 100G although I'm sure it's engineered so they can light more as usage would dictate.
I'm sure all rollouts probably assume a ton of oversubscription because the greediest average household consumer is going to be what, 4x video streams with random downloads on top of it?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you suppose Google actually uses for backhaul in its municipal fiber? OC-192, 10GBASE-ER?
And who do you suppose they buy it from? Cell tower backhaul and dark fiber is a fair revenue generator for major cable companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Buy it? If they get utility status within a city, I would assume they would string their own backhaul.
I can't see Google tying themselves to Comcast for any purpose, plus there's probably some strategic long-term value to owning their own backhaul network in a city for future services like wireless or cellular.
2Gb/s to Comcast's Router, 256kb/s Past It. (Score:2)
What good is very fast last mile when their peering is crap AND their routers are dropping traffic?
Cutting air supply (Score:2)
This is Comcast trying to squelch Google. You are most likely to see them "roll out" Gb+ Internet in areas that Google Fiber is being rolled out, and the reason is *only* to make sure that Google can't make money at it and quit altogether.
This is called "cutting off their air supply"; the assumption is that Google can't fund a literal roll out nationwide. Welcome to the the end-game for your most "free markets" - a monopoly.
Article author contradicting himself. (Score:2)
If the author wants more reasonable rates for slower speeds, why is he asking for more speed for what he's paying for, instead of
Re:Buh buh but ComCast is Evil. (Score:5, Insightful)
And internet access in the US is so slow compared with everywhere else....
It is slow. "planning 2 gig service" is very far from "Delivering 2 gig service."
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding. I live in Atlanta and have Comcast internet. If they roll out 2 gigabit service to me for any sort of reasonable price before Google Fiber becomes available, I'll eat my hat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Gigabit Pro will be available to any home within close proximity of Comcast’s fiber network and will require an installation of professional-grade equipment."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Australia's one of the few parts of the developed world you could find where the ISPs are ripping people off even more than in the USA. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Australia's one of the few parts of the developed world you could find where the ISPs are ripping people off even more than in the USA. :-)
This is one of the points I was going to make.
Why don't they lower prices on their services, as OP asks? Simple. Because they haven't had to. ISPs in the U.S. do not compete. There is no market, so there are no market forces driving cost down.
The few places where Google has installed fiber are "the exception that proves the rule", as they say.
Re: (Score:3)
Australia is not an example of a country with good internet service. One of their problems is lack of density; they have nearly the area of the US but less than a tenth of the population. Canada is in the same boat.
The countries that we hold up as shining examples of good internet service are mostly dense European countries and even denser Asian countries. The notable counterexamples are in Scandinavia, where there is a tradition of robust government-provided services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The FTTH NBN was supposed to address this, but then the Lib's decided that the old rotting copper is more than enough. I was lucky enough to get FTTH and while its pretty good its still only 100Mbps PPPoE so actual throughput is around 91Mbps and for some stupid reason outbound is capped at 40Mbps, doesn't make sense on fibre like it did on xDSL.
There are a few reasons for the outbound cap:
1) this allows them to separate consumer Internet from commercial hosting services Internet. You have to pay a bunch more to become a hosting service. This has nothing to do with network capability, and everything to do with marketing and sales.
2) AU has limited interconnects with the rest of the world. As such, it doesn't matter how fast the federal fibre network is, you're going to eventually hit the intercontinental cable and be competing with everyone else
Re: (Score:2)
The FTTH NBN wasn't killed because copper was good enough. It was killed to give money to Telstra for partisan political issues. The NBN would have been all new and used none of Telstra's infrastructure which would have made all that copper worthless. So the new politicians decided to help Telstra out and kill the NBN ensuring that any rollout would use telstra's network and keep them in the loop while limiting competition.
It was a huge giveaway of billions of dollars to telstra and I have no doubt the peop
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to count anything in the telecom industry "competition". There are only 4 cellular providers in the US and they use a public resource (i.e. radio frequencies), not to mention a bunch of cell towers all over the city. It's not like anyone can just become a cellular provider.
Furthermore, you can't just compare data rates. While cellular data speeds are pretty fast, they also typically come with caps. It's a lot easier to provide potentially fast service when all your customers are trying to cons
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree with your argument that 4 companies competing is better than 2, and certainly better than a monopoly. I was just pointing out that there is also a difference in the pricing model. I think there is more incentive for cellular companies to provide faster data rates apart from competition (i.e. they charge customers for the amount of data they use).
If internet companies charged per byte, there would be a strong incentive to increase capacity (even in a pseudo-monopoly), because it would increase t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you get "falling prices". My cell phone bill is currently 4 times what it was in the late 90s. I paid GTE $30/month back then. Of the Big 4, only AT&T currently has a plan of similar price and features. But it certainly isn't cheaper. Boost Mobile adds data for the same price but then you're on Sprint's network.
Re: (Score:3)
What is the non-evil choice?
We have copper land line POTS from Verizon. I got a phone call from a Verizon operator who told me that they would be in my neighborhood next week doing "network upgrades", and could I please schedule an appointment for when a technician could be onsite. I said, "sure," and thought nothing of it until I got the "Welcome to FiOS" letter in the mail a few days later. When the technician called me to tell me he was on the way I told him not to bother. He said, "Yeah, I get that
Re:Buh buh but ComCast is Evil. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Non-Evil Choice is to have Last Mile go into a COLO facility, where you can order service from any one of a number of providers, based on your needs and desires.
The problem is, and always will be, Last Mile. Until you solve that, by taking it out of the equation, then you'll be stuck with monopoly (franchise agreement) service. My solution removes Last Mile from the equation, doesn't require stupid (and misleading) legislation (Net Neutrality that isn't), and opens it up to full free market enterprises.
Don't like crappy Comcast, get TimeWarner. Don't like that, get Charter. Don't like that, get Netflix only .....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast is evil.
And net access in the US is slow.
Comcast adding 2Gbs service to a major metropolitan city that they control ~99% of the market for (Charter being available in only a handful of areas that Comcast doesn't serve in the city) with a metro population of ~8million people, and doing so largely in response to Google announcing Atlanta is one of the next cities to get Google Fiber, is hardly a refutation or dramatic change of the current state of US internet access.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Because they only deliver stuff like this in the few tiny areas where they have competition.
This is a response to Google Fiber. Were it not for Google Fiber, this wouldn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Offering higher speed, doesn't mean comcast is being a better company... They just want to make sure that you don't switch to fiber.
The slow US speed, is about reporting on average, where the US has a lot of rural areas which do not have access to high speed.
It's all about competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course Comcast could make a profit selling you 50Mbps for $50, if you lived in a high population density area. But they won't because they can maximize profits by charging you more. The problem is a lack of competition. There is a lack of competition because Comcast controls the physical cables which take advantage of public right of way (much of which was granted for a different purpose altogether.... power lines). That's why cable companies should be treated as the utilities they are. They should be forced to share right-of-way (even better it they have to share the actual cables) with competitors. Then you would see real competition based on efficiency, quality of service, and PRICE.
It's amazing that the big American corporations like to talk about the virtues of free enterprise and capitalism.... but they don't seem so fond of the most important ingredient in free enterprise, which is competition.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
WiFi tops out at 50
Maybe if the year was 2003. I've been getting near-gigabit speeds on my 802.11ac AP.
Re: (Score:2)
I just bought a new laptop and the cheapest one that included 802.11ac was a $700 Dell - but that had absolutely shitty specs other than that (720p graphics, non-touch, a slow i5, Intel integrated 4000 graphics...). For $800 I got a much faster i7, nVidia 840 gpu (shitty, but better than Intel 4000 by far), and 1080p graphics in the same form factor, but only 802.11n wifi (which was in almost every other laptop I looked at as well). It is unfortunate, but 802.11ac is not widely adopted yet :(
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately WiFi cards in most laptops can be replaced. It may require a complete tear down to get to it but it can be done.
Re:It's all about competition (Score:4, Informative)
That is not true if you use Lenovo.
Lenovo doesn't want customers to be able to upgrade their laptops, so they implemented a list of approved mini-pci cards that can be used in them. It's called "bios whitelist".
Therefore if you have a Lenovo laptop you will have to change the whole laptop. Presumably to a different brand that doesn't pull this crap.
For those who do. Not.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately WiFi cards in most laptops can be replaced. It may require a complete tear down to get to it but it can be done
That is not true if you use Lenovo.
Lenovo doesn't want customers to be able to upgrade their laptops, so they implemented a list of approved mini-pci cards that can be used in them. It's called "bios whitelist".
Therefore if you have a Lenovo laptop you will have to change the whole laptop. Presumably to a different brand that doesn't pull this crap.
For those who do. Not.
That is F*cking ridicules. Guess I will have to add Lenovo to the list of Companies to never buy hardware from.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you ask for is for Comcast to take on all the risk of building a physical network, only to have to share it with competitors. It makes zero sense.
Apparently that's what South Korea requires and is often cited as one of the reasons why their average home bandwidth is much higher than the US. Of course, a part of that is also getting rid of the situation where Comcast or some other company has a government mandated local monopoly. Then other companies could build their own networks in new housing developments/apartment complexes (or when the local PUC allows for upgrades to existing areas) but be able to provide service on Comcast's lines as well.
Re:Competition is finally coming to metro areas... (Score:4, Funny)
Cancelling Comcast was an obscenity laden 45 minute long ordeal, but I couldn't be happier.
Quitting Comcast is easy. Just stop paying any bills they send you. They'll quit you.
Re: (Score:2)
Any chance of getting a location on that apartment building? Might be moving to the area in a year or so. I have 500down 200up FTTH where I live and I cannot live without it anymore (think streaming your media library from your server to a Chrome-Cast in another country).
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a very remote area, out in the country, the grocery store is 45 miles away.
Note that he actually lives in New York City; but he prefers to shop in Connecticut.
Re: (Score:2)
There are basically two providers here in the Libertarian Paradise of Concord NH (Tea Potty Central). Comcast and the remnant of Verizon's "investment" in Internet connectivity (abandoned by VZN and saddled with VZN's debt) called Fairpoint, which is neither fair nor sharp.
Comcast is so fucking awful when it comes to customer service (my partner's daughter was seriously creeped out by one of their techs and when she turned down his advances he fucked around with her computer and basically trashed it. Comc
Re:Capitalism works...again (Score:4, Informative)
Capitalism works. Competition works.
Monopolies are bad.
For some reason there are a lot of so-called "conservatives" that think that monopolies are "good" and "natural" and think that breaking them up is somehow bad. ISPs are monopolies in many areas. There /isn't/ any competition.
Monopolies aren't capitalism. They are rent-seeking.
--
BMO
Re: Capitalism works...again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes an ass out of u and mptions?
Re: (Score:2)