Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Network Networking IT

Comcast Provides Uncapped 1 Gb Service To 1 Customer -- of 22.4 Million ( 134

McGruber writes: A month after it suffered a nationwide outage, Comcast announced that a Dunwoody, Georgia resident is the first customer in the nation to get Comcast's new $80/month uncapped 1-gigabit service. The service will only be available in select Atlanta neighborhoods. The company would not say how many people would be chosen for the initial roll out of its 1-gigabit service, but admitted the numbers would be small to 'ensure seamless deployment,' a spokesman said. The company claims that the service will roll out more broadly later in the year. Comcast has 22.4 million broadband customers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comcast Provides Uncapped 1 Gb Service To 1 Customer -- of 22.4 Million

Comments Filter:
  • First thought... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @10:25PM (#51705367)

    "Oh, it must be a Google Fiber city."

    Bingo. []

    Remind me why competition among public utilities is bad again?

    • by LordSkippy ( 140884 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @11:04PM (#51705541)

      Remind me why competition among public utilities is bad again?

      Because big telecom will need to cut prices to be competitive. And you know what happens then? All the C-level executives will have to cut back and get just the large Jacuzzi instead of the extra large Jacuzzi! That's one less hooker you can fit in there, you know. We can't have that, now can we?

      • Re:First thought... (Score:5, Informative)

        by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @12:52AM (#51705839)

        I live near Tempe, Arizona, a city that Google had just legislatively cleared to officially make one of their Fiber cities. Just after that happened, Cox sued the city to prevent it from happening.

        Meanwhile, guess what's currently going on? Just about every neighborhood in that city has signs near it saying that Cox is beginning a fiber rollout. That city, and that city alone, and none of the surrounding ones. There were already a few deployments in the more affluent areas in neighboring towns, however in Tempe it seems every neighborhood is getting it.

        My guess is that this is one of Cox's cash cow markets and they dare not risk losing it, so they use the courts to make sure that they get ahead of the game.

        • by mishehu ( 712452 )
          Ma Bell has signs about Gigafiber in select neighborhoods of the general 4 Points area (a rather affluent area) in Austin now. Guess who else is in town, just at the other end, right now? You-know-who...
        • by GNious ( 953874 )

          That's actually awesome - Google doesn't have to provide the infrastructure for their fiber-upgrade-plan-things, just get clearance to install, and Cox does the work for them!

      • Less hookers, less trickle-down?

      • They'll just have to swap the one $200 hooker for 200 $1 hookers. I'm sure they'll manage.
      • by doccus ( 2020662 )

        But... But.. they NEED the "Xtra Large" jacuzzi because they're carrying all the fat they've scraped off the bones of their subscribers...

    • Seriously. WTF is taking so long? Google fiber started 4 fucking years ago. Now all the other providers suddenly realize they can also offer 1GB...but only in the ~5 towns google fiber is already in? ./ has a bunch of users that work for or run ISPs so can someone chime in and say if its really too expensive to roll out? About 10% of my neighborhood runs a business out of their house and would probably pay to run fiber through the neighborhood on their own. Is 4G just so profitable that Verizon can't be bo

      • Part of it is that Google is cherry-picking the easiest locations to deploy fiber in because they already have the infrastructure (underground conduit, possibly with dark fiber already in it) ready to go and a local government that isn't bound by contracts to the existing monopolies. The conditions that make it easy for Google to deploy fiber also make it easy for other ISP's to as well but the existing ISP only do it when they are threatened with the loss of business that Google Fiber presents. is

        • by sjames ( 1099 )

          Sure, but those conditions existed BEFORE Google picked the city but none of the incumbents (humor, spell checker suggested encumbrances) were interested until after Google announced.

          • They were not interested until after Google stepped in. But Google started buying up dark fiber at the end of the dot com era (right before the bust was actually called the bust) so they have been sitting on it somewhat too.

            Of course speculation was that they were using it for data centers and such which might be true. But they own a lot of dark fiber now.

          • Previously the incumbents were comparing the cost of rolling out a fiber network for homes and small buisnesses to the extra revenue they would get from offering faster speeds. They may also have been worrying about the faster "broadband" services canabalising their dedicated fiber services.

            Once Gooogle gets involved in an area the incumbents are comparing the cost of rolling out a fiber based network to the cost of losing customers to Google en-masse. While they are trying to put up legal barriers in Googl

            • They have nearly a natural monopoly, so it's in their best interest to invest the minimum amount required to keep customers from canceling their service and milk the cash cow forever.

              The truth is that the payback for a fiber rollout is probably under two years in areas where they have a high number of subscribers - and in areas where they don't have a high number of subscribers, a fiber rollout probably still pays for itself quickly because they'll get more subscribers due to the better speeds.
            • by sjames ( 1099 )

              In other words, the markets were far too unhealthy to provide any benefits since even where there were two choices, they tacitly agreed not to compete very hard.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by tburkhol ( 121842 )

 is an independent ISP that has been slowly rolling out fiber to the SF Bay Area even before Google Fiber started but it has been incredibly slow because they only do it to areas where they have high customer density AND all the other ideal conditions.

          This is exactly what's wrong with capitalism in the presence of natural monopolies. Any company making a good profit has no reason to take a big risk on improving or upgrading, because they already have a guaranteed profit and their customers already tolerate their current service. Any company thinking about taking that big capital risk can be sure that the incumbent will slash prices to the point where they're cash-flow positive, leaving no room for capital recovery.

          If we want to see competition in the I

          • by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @04:45PM (#51710735) Journal

            IF you look at the last mile as the Monopoly, and solve THAT problem, then Competition can exist and bring better service.

            Think of it this way, ROADS aren't paid for by UPS and only UPS trucks are allowed. We have local roads that can be used by UPS, FEDEX, DHL and just about anyone else.

            We should do the same with Fiber, where the Municipality owns / maintains the Fiber, and provides access to providers such as ATT, Comcast, Verizon etc... Providing real competition where it counts, without the need for Franchise Agreements between cities and the monopolies.

            • At that point why would you even allow the greedy middleman into the equation? Just let the local government handle it.
        • Google has no interest in becoming an ISP. The only reason GF exists is to serve as a threat to ISPs so they don't hit Google with increased peerage/backhaul/QoS/other fees. It is Google's own Sword of Damocles.
      • by Etherwalk ( 681268 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @02:33AM (#51706035)

        Well, first they had to provide tech support to one customer and put 22 million calls on hold.

        • HAH!
          • As the sole beta tester, I'm sure this customer will have a much better technical support experience than the average customer. Aww, who am I kidding? They'll route her support calls through the seven layers of hell just like everyone else. I'd love to see the numbers on a fiber deploy to a single household...
            • HAH! I like your point!

              Did you know that they treat businesses in exactly the same way they treat residential customers? I just moved one of our offices, and Comcast (only option) scheduled their tech for 8am-noon. Completely insane considering how typical office hours are 9-5. It's like they think office staff will be there sipping coffee in their bathrobes, not leaving home an hour earlier to be there an hour before opening. I'm extra annoyed because it was a remote office that takes almost an hour

      • Well, Google has Fiber in parts of Atlanta, but hasn't rolled it out in Dunwoody (part of Atlanta) yet. See the link for the "coming soon" []

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @11:42PM (#51705679)

      a cherry picked affluent suburb, AND.... drumroll, please...

      the home of the offices of the only major daily newspaper in the atlanta area...... surprise, surprise.

      when they offer all of atlanta proper the same service and price, THEN it will be newsworthy..

      until then, fuck off, comcast.

      • by Anonymous Coward
        Isn't that newspaper owned by Cox Media?
      • So they really are "select" neighbourhoods as the summary calls them... That sort of language is most often used by the companies themselves to lend an air of exclusivity to the word "some".
    • umm because I only get 200mbps down for the same price rite outside of a municipal fiber area.....

    • Re:First thought... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @03:45AM (#51706157) Homepage

      Remind me why competition among public utilities is bad again?

      Don't confuse giants competing over monopoly rent with healthy competition. Pre-fiber it was a near-monopoly. Post-fiber it'll be a near-monopoly. Short term they're willing to do almost anything including service upgrades and price dumping to keep you, because they know long term they got you over a barrel. Nobody's going to run a second fiber network after the first one is hooked up, they're going to make back what they lost and more and it's coming out of your hide. That's why we arrange natural monopolies as public utilities, nobody's going to lay down new water or sewage pipes if 99% in that area already get service from somebody else. Fiber will be the same, enjoy the honeymoon but it won't last very long.

      • Nobody's going to run a second fiber network after the first one is hooked up

        Except Google is doing it, and others have tried only to be stopped by lobbying of local telecom and cable companies.

        TWC ALREADY has fiber on my street, its fiber to the node, not the home, but considering in this case the node is literally in my front yard, it doesn't really matter for anyone anywhere in my neighborhood ... they effectively have fiber ... and in a few months, we'll have Google Fiber.

        Lots of places want to have competition, they just aren't allowed to.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Google isn't a special fairy. If and when they have monopoly status as an ISP you can bet they will institute tiered pricing or data caps. It makes financial sense.

        • by Bengie ( 1121981 )
          Fiber to the node is 40% more expensive than fiber to the home. Nodes are very expensive. They're already talking about 25Tb/s fiber giving each customer 100Gb/100Gb of dedicated bandwidth. How long do you think it will be before they have copper nodes with a 25Tb/s upllink and able to handle 100Gb/s over your copper connection?
      • Comcast has been doing this nation-wide for a few years now. Their "Blast!" service (as in, "Blast! It's out again!", although that seems to happen a lot at 2 in the morning...) has stepped up from 50Mbit/s to 80Mbit/s to 110Mbit/s to now 150Mbit/s; the day Blast! got re-labeled to 150Mbit/s, it was clocking in real speeds of 179Mbit/s. The price has been $79/month plus like $11 in taxes and fees (because it wouldn't be Comcast without horse shit) for nearly a decade.

        People have been talking about ove

    • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @09:34AM (#51707153)

      Hey, don't knock Comcast. They offer every one of their customers speeds of up to 1Gbps.

      • I have Comcast, and I can buy 1Gbps from them - but it's $299 per month, not $80. I couldn't talk my wife into it, though.
    • As a matter of fact, it is! Well, Atlanta is, and Dunwoody is part of Atlanta. Technically it's own municipality, but "inside the perimeter" of I-285, so it's part of the greater metro area. Also, there's this: []
  • by DMJC ( 682799 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @10:27PM (#51705379)
    256kbit for everyone! noone needs fibre to the home!
    • What good is fiber to you when you have data caps on INTERNAL traffic than NEVER LEAVES national fiber network??!?

  • by mrsam ( 12205 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @10:28PM (#51705381) Homepage
    ... is that the mysterious resident in Comcast's CEO.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    • by Anonymous Coward

  • for the next 6 months or so.

  • they still are too big and therefore they suck!

  • by swb ( 14022 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @10:54PM (#51705509)

    Business class. It's kind of a ripoff from a pure speed perspective, but it was really easy to get a /29 and they will set PTR records for you. None of the fiber options that I can get -- CenturyLink or US Internet have an equivalent service they will sell to residential addresses.

    I did have a crazy idea, though -- run pfsense as a cloud VM, IPSec to my home network and present my public facing network via the cloud hosted pfsense static IP. It would crimp my style, but I could get by with 2 or maybe even 1 public IP address. Mostly what I access is fairly non-interactive like file syncs or email, so the added latency or reduced throughput of the IPSec session shouldn't be too burdensome.

    I can make it work in a virtual lab setup (I wasn't sure if pfsense could port forward for IPSec tunnel remote networks, but it can).

    I figure this way I could indulge in the goodness of gig Internet and enjoy the benefits of a static IP via the cloud.

    My only complaints so far are that AWS has no pfesnse images except for a "rental" that's outrageously expensive and has other drawbacks (like no updating; the authors have to release an updated image). I found another host that supports FreeBSD and will let you boot your own ISO installers, but I'm skeptical they have the network that Amazon does and the pricing is less transparent than Amazon.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I may be misunderstanding your requirements but DigitalOcean supports FreeBSD (as well as booting into your own ISO installer) and is transparent about pricing. I would definitely take a look at them. They take their business seriously and have seen (and handled) tremendous growth lately. They're a safer long-term bet than anything you'd find on LowEndBox. They directly compete with Linode, who I also use and would recommend except they don't officially support FreeBSD although some have installed it via IS

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Linode US West is exclusively/entirely hosted in Hurricane Electric's FMT2 (Fremont) datacenter, which has had repeated networking problems and service outages (particularly power-related) throughout the years (i.e. just like FMT1). Dig through the mailing list archive [] (and outages-discussion []) and you can get an idea of how regular they are. Here's one story in detail [].

        In short: if going with Linode, pick something other than Linode US West.

      • by swb ( 14022 )

        Thanks for the DigitalOcean pointer. It's surprisingly hard to search for a hosting provider that supports FreeBSD and either has a pre-configured pfsense image or will let you use your own ISO.

        I'd consider direct FreeBSD support almost a requirement, as pfsense has enough weirdness built into it that getting it working in a cloud environment has some gotchas built in before you work against the grain of a hosting environment tuned for Linux.

    • You should be able to get static IPs (I think even a /29 block) on a Centurylink residential line. That's what I'm using and the single IP I have is a few dollars extra per month. You can also set it to properly do reverse DNS, allow port 25, etc. However, my connection is just DSL and not fiber so, maybe there are further restrictions on fiber.

      • by swb ( 14022 )

        CenturyLink/Qwest's DSL was always available around here in a pick your own ISP model, so telco provided the signalling and the ISP provided the IP. I had an ISP that gave /30s then.

        But the new CL fiber doesn't provide for any static IPs as far as I know. Which isn't too far, all I've done is talk to the rent-a-sales guy who was going door to door. But he did know what I was talking about and said I wasn't the first one to ask, either.

        From what I can tell, the other fiber provider, US Internet can do sta

  • apart from 1 Gb what else are they doing SCTP in their modern Set Top Box's or IPv6 to bettter handle the contention and streaming ?

    seriously PR stuff give us some details...

  • by Nethead ( 1563 ) <> on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @11:00PM (#51705533) Homepage Journal

    Can he get a BGP session with them?

    • It is the general agreement among providers that they will only provide BGP (broadcasting routes) between providers if you have;

      Your own ASN number (go to ARIN for that)
      At least a /24 of IP space (good luck with that)

      Providers don't do BGP for CIDR blocks smaller than /24 because the router tables on the net would balloon in size. (OTOH, you can get iBGP within a single provider's network with a block smaller than a /24, but then you aren't getting cross-provider alternate paths)

      • by Nethead ( 1563 )

        Understood. I was at a NANOG 21 BOF discussing getting major websites an allocation when they might not be able to justify a /21 because they are just a website but still needed multi-homing. This was when Amazon was just a website. I was the one running BGP for them then. I was the one that got them their ASN and first netblock.

        My wife got an ASN and netblock the two years before, and a second netblock on the first try back in 1999. We're not new to this game.

        It was a joke, son.

        • Understood - didn't realize that.

          I work for a carrier and it's not the joke you might think, for some people. I argue on a regular basis with customers who don't understand why I can't set up BGP for their /28 or /29. And then there's the 'you have millions of IP addresses - you can spare a couple of /24's for me, right. What's the problem?'

          Too many people (who knew better) have waited til the last minute and stubbornly refused to embrace IPv6. They don't understand why I can't reach into my back pocket and

          • by I4ko ( 695382 )
            Since you work for a carrier now, and I quit in '07, are the tier 1s still pulling shenanigans forcefully aggregating routes?
            IIRC Level 3 aggregated several of our very specific /24 announces (and we had a good reason to have those small and better announces, as they were on other continents, but didn't want to run GRE or other tunneling to them, as they were supporting delay sensitive application - VoIP) back into one of our big(er) /18 or /19 announcements at that time. There was no logic whatsoever at l
  • by Anonymous Coward

    However, I only use the service to check email and occasionally read the news. I transferred almost 300Mb of data last month. Typing this message seems a bit hefty on the old data usage but I can afford it now.

  • I was wondering who let the air out of the Intertubes.
  • Guess they will also start up-selling some gigabit routers!
  • I hear they're only going to offer one initial patient a full body transplant when the tech becomes available. Scandalous!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    it's not 1 gigabit per second.. it's simply 1 gigabit (per $80).

    • It probably makes me pathetic, but that got me to laugh out loud. Thanks. "We're sorry. You've transferred 125 MB of data this month. To get another gigabit, you must first send another $80 payment."
  • Remember, this is Comcast we're talking about.
  • ...30M down and whatever up.


  • Translation, only to the very rich.... Fuck you poor people.

  • I can't find any documentation on the upstream speed.

    One of our Princeton schools has 100Mbps cable modem service, with a paltry 20Mbps upstream. This is crap for many reasons.

    When I asked about getting more upstream speed, they said for only $1000/month I could have 50Mbps upstream with their metro ethernet service.

    Comcast sucks.

    • eh, that's normal for low end service to be asymmetric as it fits most consumers and there is good technical reason for it. You want a business grade symmetrical service, fine, you'll pay out big bucks. quit your whining

      • Our other school has a 300Mbps symmetric FIOS connection with static IP for $289/month. I could have 500Mbps if I wanted it for a couple hundred more a month, but we simply don't need that much bandwidth.

        Why can't Comcast get anywhere near that for a similar price?

        The reason is that, in many areas, Comcast is a monopoly and they see no reason to upgrade their plant. Lack of competition is hurting the advancement of broadband in this country.

        • by Bengie ( 1121981 )
          A local non-profit has been providing enterprise grade 99.999% up-time 1Gb fiber for $300/m to schools, libraries, and hospitals for the past 15 years. Of course AT&T wanted to deny them right-of-way access because the non-profit was not a telcom or cable company. The state spent several million dollars in legal costs and won, by a hair, with the restriction that this non-profit could not sell to residential or private sector. The only reason the law makers allowed them access was because AT&T wante

Money can't buy love, but it improves your bargaining position. -- Christopher Marlowe