Slashdot Mirror


3 Megabit Cable Modems, Anyone?

joelav22 writes: "I've got to move to San Francisco! RCN has upgraded current customers to 3 megabits of bandwith for no extra charge. In the days of all the bandwith chopping and caps, this is definitely a welcome trend. I hope ATT and Comcast can take a hint."

302 comments

  1. Caching by SpatchMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can probably get away with things like that if you use transparent proxies to do web page caching, and so on. Or traffic shaping to make individual connections a little slower.

    Call me suspicious, but I bet they have all sorts of tricks to keep the actual usage past their network down.

    1. Re:Caching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I bet they're doing that on the 1.5 meg links already.

    2. Re:Caching by SpatchMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      My local cable company does transparent proxying with common www and ftp ports. It seems to work ok, but it's misleading to always get a connection even when there is no server on the remote host.

      And when their caching servers are down, I can't access any webpage at all (in which case it's time to use an external proxy server)

    3. Re:Caching by Wild+Wizard · · Score: 0

      easy they take the australian isp's way out

      Bigpond Cable

      uncap the speed, cap the data/month

    4. Re:Caching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rest assured of that. My provider used to offer 10Mbps uncapped download (and occasionally, the real speed even comes close to that).
      For new clients they lowered that to 4Mbps on paper, but there is no real capping: the new number just reflects the average top speed you can really expect.

      The other side of the medal: use of their proxy is mandatory, outgoing port 80 (and others, like SMTP) plus all incoming ports below 1024 are blocked.
      The only time they ever took back on this was because a number of people complained they couldn't use VPN.

      Running a server (including any kind of P2P) is expressly forbidden: punished first with a warning, the second time a warning to which you have to reply within 24 hours, the third time it's termination of contract.
      They even have instructions on their helpdesk site on how to avoid this, like (still) "how to configure Napster without turning it into a server" - i.e. leech-only. I'd include a link, but the helpdesk site is blocked for the outside world.

      An addittional limit: total traffic is limited to 10GB, and outgoing to 1.5GB over a 30 day sliding window. Exceed that, and your modem is capped at a ridiculously low speed until you've sunk back to 98% or less (fully automated process). The capped speed is below analog model level, just about enough to collect your e-mail - assuming there aren't too many attachments.

    5. Re:Caching by dmarx · · Score: 1
      They even have instructions on their helpdesk site on how to avoid this, like (still) "how to configure Napster without turning it into a server" - i.e. leech-only. I'd include a link, but the helpdesk site is blocked for the outside world.

      Maybe you cound copy/paste the useful ones here...

      --
      "Do I dare disturb the universe?"
    6. Re:Caching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, optimum online has a 10Mbps/1Mbps cap and they have no problems with it for $40/mo.

      In reality, one can get about 8Mbps max from sites outside of their network. No tricks, it's real.

  2. Re:scrotum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I second your scrotum.

  3. What for... by Neutronix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sorry for being cynical, but...

    Why should I even care for 3 Mbit cable modems if sometimes my provider can even sustain a 500k connection?

    3Mb would imply a complete restructure on most cable providers and I doubt that they would invest that kind of money.

    --
    Long live TUX!
    1. Re:What for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got a crappy provider, then. I'm with Comcast and I always pull at least 1Mbps, usually hovers just below the fastest DSL lines. I don't care what my upload speed is, I never upload anything.

    2. Re:What for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OOL has a 10M/1M cap for cable and winfirst runs (ran?) 10/10 fiber lines to peoples houses for about $50.

    3. Re:What for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RCN is based heavily on fiber, as opposed to most of the cable companies that got into the ISP business. I have RCN in Boston and they have been outstanding and cheap.

    4. Re:What for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also have RCN in the Boston area, and love it. I hope RCN rolls out this expansion in the Boston area soon. Not that I've ever had any problems with their existing service, but more download bandwidth couldn't hurt.

  4. 3Mb/s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what i get on Road Runner near Orlando too,
    and i'm out in the boondocks (Oviedo).

  5. Re:Monotony Report 20020704 by SpatchMonkey · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That is nice. I like being a whore.

  6. unfortunatley, i'm a hick by cyberbob2010 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Living out in the middle of fucking - nowhere bummsville Ohio really sux. right now i'm scamming juno with beware of dog to get free internet cause i refuse to pay . maybe if they ever got cable or DSL out where i live than i will get it but the option is not even there. Screw 3m/s I'll take and old school 128DSL connection. NEthing has gotta be better than downloading at 2-6k/s.

    --
    We seldom regret saying too little but often regret saying too much.
  7. downloads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    at that rate of download I'll run out of things to download.

  8. upload speed? by gabriel_aristos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I noticed that no mention was made of upload speeds. How much do you want to bet they're capped at 128Kbps...

    --
    Torg, come out of the spaceship. Nothing can stop Torg.
    1. Re:upload speed? by turnstyle · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Amen. There's never any mention of upstream. People don't seem to appreciate the value of outbound communication, and no doubt the cable companies would prefer to see their customers remain exclusively consumers.

      I take this personally because I make software, Andromeda, that builds streaming web sites from collections of MP3s. Some folks run it on a server at home (PHP or ASP) so that they can play their home collection while at work (or elsewhere).

      Capping upstream prevents people from fully enjoying the potential of the network.

      --
      Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    2. Re:upload speed? by turnstyle · · Score: 1
      TOS is just a legal means to cap upstream and limit the nature of how we communicate over the network. The question is why do they provide asynch bandwidth and a TOS that limits what you can 'say'.

      I think that they prefer to keep us passive consumers of their content, and that upstream poses a legitimate threat to big media hegemony.

      For instance, you could easily use Andromeda to serve MPGs of your July 4th BBQ, and I'd rather watch some of that than another episode of Buffy.

      --
      Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
  9. congratulations timothy by Jeff+Probst · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    the metric time story has nearly 1000 posts.

    this brings a tear to my eye.

    - mjl

  10. Not to be cynical, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Why does 3 Mbit over cable modems matter if my provider can hardly keep up a 500k stream to my computer? I don't think the providers are willing to sink the kind of money into infrastructure that they would need to to guarantee us 3Mb streams at this time, especially when they're talking about metering and capping us.

    Might be jumping the gun a bit. BTW: congrats on getting userid 300000.

    1. Re:Not to be cynical, but... by SpatchMonkey · · Score: 2

      That is an excellent point. I wonder how they even came up with 3 MBit measurement in this case? It's not like people want to access the ISPs servers all the time anyway.

    2. Re:Not to be cynical, but... by SpatchMonkey · · Score: 1, Redundant

      How rude. I bet you only talk to people like that when you're on your computer.

  11. Upstream versus Downstream Dilemma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As more and better Broadband services are offered, it seems that the disparity between upstream transfer rate and downstream transfer rate is growing proportionally, as well.

    I, for one, would like to see the gap between upload and download speeds shortened, rather than simply increasing the download speed ad infinitum while maintaining a static(and barely above analog) download speed.

    1. Re:Upstream versus Downstream Dilemma by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      I doubt we will ever see this; it's all due to economics.

      The reason is, the extremely high cost of upstream bandwidth (from an endpoint to the backbone) is what subsidizes the cost of the network. Consumers of bandwidth (end users) get downstream bandwidth for cheap, but are only paying maybe 10% of the cost of that bandwidth. The remaining 90% is paid by the entity serving the content.

      It seems both fair and unfair; fair in that those who usually serve content (corporations) can afford the high bills, those who normally receive it (individuals) cannot... But on the other hand it is unfair because it limits what an individual can do when it comes to serving content. Websites go down all the time because they become "too popular".

      Perhaps when bandwidth gets cheaper, this situation will improve... But for now, count on sub-500Kbps upstream bandwidth for the vast majority of inexpensive connections.

      One solution that could improve things would be better implementations of fair queueing on consumer cable modem and DSL equipment. Right now, a "high speed" DSL/cable connection can hit latencies of over one second during uploads due to the output queue at the throttle-point being full of packets waiting to be transmitted; with a proper weighted fair-queue implementation, the delay can drop into the sub 100ms range.

      Additionally, providers can be less anal about folks running servers. Their upstream is already capped; they might as well allow users to do whatever they want with that slow upstream.

  12. Weird web site by CmdrTaco+(editor) · · Score: 0, Troll

    I saw the 3 Mb and thought I immediately had to check out their site. But, when I got to the page supposedly would give more info on the cable service in CA, they had me fill out a form, yet CA wasn't even an option for state! What gives? Especially since this 3 Mb cable is only supposed to debut in LA and SF...

  13. Call me crazy... by NiGHTSFTP · · Score: 1

    But isnt bandwith... not free?

    Maybe something slipped past me.

    First bandwith = free
    Then bandwith = $$$
    Now... ?

    What is causing these changes?

    Ah ha! Smoke and mirrors my good friend!

    --
    http://www.angryburrito.com/ The best, completely unfinished software review site ever.
  14. bits or bytes? by evalhalla · · Score: 1

    The article isn't much clear about the actual speed: it is 3 megabytes per second (usually written MBps) or 3 megabit per second (Mbps, as they wrote)? I believe that usually connection speed is measured in Mbps (bits, not bytes), but they may have different habits...

    1. Re:bits or bytes? by explosionhead · · Score: 1

      Afraid its megaBITS. If we had 3 megabyte/sec connections, we'd all hit any download caps within seconds : )

      --
      ?
    2. Re:bits or bytes? by forkboy · · Score: 1

      3 Mbps * 1 MBps / 8 Mbps * 1024 KBps / 1 MBps = 384KBps (the highest number you will theoretically see on a transfer)

      The highest I've ever gotten on AT'd network is about 175KBps, a little less than 1.5 MBps, so I'm getting reasonably close to my advetised limits. I highly doubt I'll see AT upgrade maximum bandwidth unless I pay an assload for it. Too bad a decent DSL line is so expensive in Denver.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    3. Re:bits or bytes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MBps is megabytes
      Mbps is megabits

      that same can be said for KBps and Kbps

    4. Re:bits or bytes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whenever network or internet speeds such as (Mbps) it means "megabits per second" and (Kbps) means "kilo bits per second"

      for example....
      in this case 3million or 3X10(to the power of 6)bits and NOT 2(to the power (whatever))bits

      and

      (for example) 500Kbps means 500x10(to the power of 4)bits, and NOT 500x2(to the power of 10)bits

      I know i didnt explaint it very well but i hope it hellped some1 understand

      steve

  15. mod parent offtopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    offtopic!!!

  16. Great news! And one little inaccuracy by forged · · Score: 5, Informative
    Favorite quote:
    • While other broadband providers are limiting their download speeds or cracking down on so-called bandwidth hogs, we've been working to give our customers even faster speeds at a terrific value.

    Way to go, RCN! And take this, ATT, Comcast ;)

    The inaccuracy was free of charge. It's only free for customers paying the Gold and Platinum ResiLink packages. For all other bundles, there is a price increase between $10 to $25 for the 3Mbits service.

    1. Re:Great news! And one little inaccuracy by squison · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not like it matters to anyone outside of RCN's territory. Because cable companies (ATT/Comcast) have monopolies in 90%+ of their markets this doesn't mean crap to them. Optimum Online has been doing higher bandwidth than them for years and they apparently they don't give a damn.

      All ATT/Comcast have to do is compete with DSL in some areas and it doesn't take a whole lot of bandwidth to do that.

      So, congrats to those who can take advantage of this. Too bad the rest of us will most likely continue to suffer in 'broadband' hell.

    2. Re:Great news! And one little inaccuracy by MrPippers · · Score: 1

      Comcast offers a 3.5 Mbps downspeed for ~$95/mo. I didn't pay it because I felt it was a ripoff (especially when the increased upspeed bandwidth was less than half of what @Home offered). Now that a company offers about the same downspeed for the same cost I can see it might very well have been a ripoff. The sad thing is that this company's announcement won't affect Comcast in the least considering it's a monopoly.

    3. Re:Great news! And one little inaccuracy by Heem · · Score: 2

      I've asked Comcast numerous times and they always respond that there is no such thing as this higher priced, higher speed connection. I think it is fair to pay more to get more and would like to take advantage of this. Do you have any documentation of the existance of this?

      --
      Don't Tread on Me
    4. Re:Great news! And one little inaccuracy by MrPippers · · Score: 1

      In the member services area of Comcast.net go to Broadband Products and then where it says go pro click on more. I wouldn't be suprised if their customer support doesn't know anything, they never do.

    5. Re:Great news! And one little inaccuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you know, I'd been feeling so ripped off, paying comcast $40/mo for 1.5Mb down, 128 up. The optional $95/mo for 3.5Mb down, 384 up, with five static IPs is just unacceptable.

    6. Re:Great news! And one little inaccuracy by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      I use a Optimum Online for cable modem service and when I saw raising to 3Mb/sec cap, I was wondering what horrible service these people are getting. I've gotten downloads on my modem of up to 600kiloBYTES+/sec and my friends in the same town/same service have gotten over a megaBYTE/sec.

      NOTE: These speeds are downloads using Download Accelerator Plus.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    7. Re:Great news! And one little inaccuracy by kesuki · · Score: 2

      Actually, it was two mistakes. RCN provides Local Fiber optic networks. They offer Cable, Telephone, and internet all over a single fiber optic cable. This is NOT a cable modem, and better still, it's not 'shared' bandwith. I'd also like to point out that there are a number of small indpendant cable operators that went entirely fiber optic to the home, and all of them offer much better quality than any coaxial based provider can hope for.

    8. Re:Great news! And one little inaccuracy by Snover · · Score: 1

      If a company like RCN can do it, why can't Time Warner do it? They're multitudes larger, with tonnes more money.

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
  17. A step in the right direction. by explosionhead · · Score: 1

    I'm trying not to be cynical about any tricks that they may try to pull, whilst the marketing boys yell from the rooftops about the speed. Looking on the face of it, this is such a good push in the right direction. Now only if a supplier in Australia would step forward with a decent plan so that we can stop being raped by Telstra's 3Gb limit and crappy reliability. (Note: I have gone back to dial-up)

    --
    ?
    1. Re:A step in the right direction. by SpatchMonkey · · Score: 2

      What's wrong with a 3Gb per month limit? That's like about 100Mb per day. The difference between that and the paltry amount you'll get on dial-up is probably quite worth paying for!

    2. Re:A step in the right direction. by explosionhead · · Score: 1

      When I first had broadband, I used it for downloading relatively low bitrate movie clips that I'd worked on, so I could do rough cut editing to them at home before I booked time in the actual edit suites at uni. I used closer to 12gb a month because of this, and when the cap came in and was enforced, I now have to use alternative methods.

      --
      ?
    3. Re:A step in the right direction. by geesus · · Score: 1

      Ah hello? Im on dialup and id go through over 3gb a month, and Im not even a l33t little doze warez dealer :P~

      --
      Gnome wasnt built in a day.
    4. Re:A step in the right direction. by xQx · · Score: 1

      We had a telstra bigpond connection.
      Last year we downloaded av. 50 - 60gb per month, uploaded 10 - 20gb.

      Telstra introduced the cap. We handed them back the cable modem.

      Now I'm on a dialup connection.
      Usage from June 1 to July 1 2002: 6,200MB

      Telstra, we see your 3gb (up + down) cap. .. I'll tell you where you can shove it.

    5. Re:A step in the right direction. by secondsun · · Score: 1

      It sounds sensible until you try to download a full Linux distro (like mandrake or Redhat) which are between 1 and 2 GB each. If somone cancels your download, the computer crashes, or gets interupted for any reason you are out a lot of Downloads.

      *note: I am assuming by Gb you meant GigaByte and not Gigabit, if so my argument changes from if it fails to when you try.*

      --
      There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
    6. Re:A step in the right direction. by Tempura_Roll · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with a 3Gb per month limit? That's like about 100Mb per day. The difference between that and the paltry amount you'll get on dial-up is probably quite worth paying for!

      A 56k connection downloading at a constant 5kB/sec for 30 days will use a total of approximately 13 GB of bandwidth. That's gigabytes (GB), not gigabits (Gb). I'm hoping that was just a typo, a 3 gigabit limit wouldn't allow you to download even one CD ISO. Hell, you'd use that up in a few days of merely web browsing (you can forget about using any streaming content).

  18. If this is for real.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I think I can hear the MPAA crying, and the RIAA shitting its pants.

  19. Let's get the 2-way broadband upgrade done first by Phoenix-kun · · Score: 1

    After ATT bought out our local cable company almost 2 years ago, they had canceled the imminent plans to upgrade my neighborhood. Now 18 months later, they finally got around to competing the job. Having a true 2-way broadband connection is so sweet, I can live with that for a long time to come. By the time they get back around to us again, fixed wireless will likely be the standard.

    --
    Phoenix
  20. Common Misconception? by captainclever · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Quoting the story from yahoo:
    "RCN Corporation (Nasdaq: RCNC - News) announced the launch of a new "super-charged" high-speed Internet service in its San Francisco and Los Angeles markets. Known as MegaModem(SM), it enables RCN's California customers to access the Internet at download speeds of up to 3 megabytes per second (Mbps), double the company's standard downstream speeds of up to 1.5 Mbps, and up to twice as fast as competing cable modem and Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) services. "

    Shouldn't that be "3 Megabits per second" not megabytes?? 3Mbps (megabits-per-second) equates to theoretical maximum of 384 Kilobytes a second download, not 3 megabytes..doesn't it? :-)

    --
    Last.fm - join the social music revolution
    1. Re:Common Misconception? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Way cool, then.... That means that with Shaw Cable, I've got something well in excess of 3 Mb/second. I've never actually gone to the trouble of figuring it out. =)

      (Fastest ever download was at approximately 600 kB/s, which is up there towards 2/3rds of a T3).

    2. Re:Common Misconception? by funwithstuff · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, you're right. The fun part of this one is that it's the company's mistake in a PR release. They've just promised bandwidth of eight times what they can deliver. Sign up, then sue.

      Glad someone's fallen foul of that bits/bytes marketingspeak that's been allowing bad companies to quote large impressive numbers for years.

      --
      it's not about the karma, it's about the whuffie
    3. Re:Common Misconception? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a T1 is 1.5xMegabytes/sec, and a T3 is something like 40 megs/sec, so it is nowhere near it, but that is prety damned good though. :-)

    4. Re:Common Misconception? by Nick+Number · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, you're right. The fun part of this one is that it's the company's mistake in a PR release. They've just promised bandwidth of eight times what they can deliver. Sign up, then sue.

      The disclaimer at the end of the release will probably cover them though.

      Some of the statements made by RCN in this press release are forward- looking in nature. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in forward-looking statements as a result of a number of factors. RCN believes that the primary factors include, but are not limited to[...]technological developments and changes in the industry

      I used to temp at one of the two big newswire services. Every single release has one of these at the end, and they are darn tedious to type out.

      --
      Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
    5. Re:Common Misconception? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T1=1.5Mbps (megabits, or roughly 150 KB/s)

    6. Re:Common Misconception? by TheDick · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What, you can't copy/paste? You typed it out EVERY single time? d00d, you suck ;)

      --

    7. Re:Common Misconception? by pbrammer · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are correct...

      8 bits in 1 byte

      3 Megabits = 3072 Kilobits

      3072 Kilobits / (8 bits/1 byte) = 384 Kilobytes

      So, you are getting an additional 384 Kilobytes per second extra. NOT, 3072 Kilobytes per second extra...

      Phil

    8. Re:Common Misconception? by hydrofi · · Score: 1

      From RCN's product info:

      How can I tell the actual bandwidth I am receiving?

      The best way to do this is to download something large from the Internet, either via FTP or your browser. While you're downloading the file or program, your client (your FTP application or browser) should tell you the rate at which that file is downloading. Beware though. Some applications will report your throughput in terms of Kbps (Kilobytes per second), while others will report your throughput in terms of kbps (kilobits per second; note the lower case k).

      I'm pretty sure that b stood for bits and B stood for bytes (and to avoid misconception, it's better to use bit (kbit, Mbit..) for bits.) Isn't it quite embarrassing for broadband company to mix things like this, or do they even care?

    9. Re:Common Misconception? by pbrammer · · Score: 1

      What are they talking about?? First of all, to stick with SAE notation, it should technically be kbps, not Kbps (although they are the same, but still, both are bits, not bytes). We are *technically* supposed to use a little 'k' to note a decimal number... Anyway...

      If we really wanted to say bytes and not bits, we'd have to use the KBps notation, although that's not too common to see. Bits per second is the more common notation. Users just need to be educated as to PC terms and measurements. (That might even include certain ISPs as well.)

      Phil

    10. Re:Common Misconception? by pbrammer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, the conversion for data storage is 1024 bits per kilobit, but generally speaking 1000 bits per kilobit is used for data transmission.

      So, a refinement is in order... 3 Megabits = 3000 kilobits

      3000 kilobits / (8 bits/1 byte) = 375 kiloBytes

      So, you are getting an additional 375 kiloBytes per second extra. NOT, 3000 kiloBytes per second extra...

      Now, diverting a bit...

      According to IEEE (38.5K .doc), (if you really want your mind blown) our term for a kilobyte on a disk, should really be kibibyte (kih-bee). We have megabytes (10^6) and then there are mebibytes(2^20)... Wierd, considering I've never heard those terms... And of course there are more...

      Phil

    11. Re:Common Misconception? by Nick+Number · · Score: 2

      What, you can't copy/paste? You typed it out EVERY single time? d00d, you suck ;)

      They paid me to type in faxed releases. I pointed out that it would be much easier to scan them and use OCR, but they weren't interested in suggestions from a lowly temp.

      Each disclaimer is worded slightly differently, but they all mean the same thing: nothing we just said is necessarily true. Please please don't sue us.

      --
      Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
    12. Re:Common Misconception? by pod · · Score: 1

      Indeed, 3mbits is nothing to crow about, since virtually all cable providers cap their download speeds at around 300kb/s anyways. After overhead, etc, that's roughly 3mbits. So it's PR, nothing else.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    13. Re:Common Misconception? by MarvinIsANerd · · Score: 1

      10 times, not 8. its easy to forget that with communications traffic there are 10 bits to a character, not 8. the two extra bits are control bits that signals the start and end of the data sequence. so, with a 3 megabit/sec data connection you can get a download speed of 300 kbyte/sec, not 375 kbyte/sec.

    14. Re:Common Misconception? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just news services. I worked in a fiberoptics components company who wanted to keep all their "databases" in Excel on the grounds that they can analyze it easier with what they already know. As long as they were going for MS only solutions I suggested using Access and exporting a query to Excel when necessary. We could at least have concurrect access to the database unlike the broken multi-user mode in Excel. People were changing passwords on files that weren't theirs and such, it was crazy but management liked having 50 Excel files of 20 MB each to keep track of inventory, yield and all sorts of other stuff that could have been done automatically if they'd done their formulas properly and used a database.

    15. Re:Common Misconception? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF. This used to be a geek site and most of the people don't even understand basic shit like 8 bits = 1 byte.

    16. Re:Common Misconception? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plz mod as troll, moderators.

    17. Re:Common Misconception? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And some people still don't understand simple English, like what the word "roughly" means.

    18. Re:Common Misconception? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird mixing of units...

      K = 2^10 = 1024
      k = 10^3 = 1000 (kilo)
      M = 2^20 = 1048576 (mega)
      m = 10^-3 = 0.001 (milli)
      b = bit
      B = byte (8 bits)
      s = seconds

      So 3mbits is 3 milli bits, without any timebase specified. Not much of an internet service!

    19. Re:Common Misconception? by lepton+noodle · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. Only asynchronous protocols (RS-232 and the like) need the extra stop and start bits. Cable modems use modulation schemes where the clock can be derived from the signal, making the start/stop bits unnecessary.

  21. Bandwith Gnome Syndrom? by NiGHTSFTP · · Score: 1

    1. Give Away Bandwith
    2. ???
    3. Profit

    --
    http://www.angryburrito.com/ The best, completely unfinished software review site ever.
    1. Re:Bandwith Gnome Syndrom? by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

      No gnome syndrome here...

      1. Give Away Bandwidth
      2. Usage cap /w overage fees - easier to use up your 3gigs/mo if you can fo it 3 times faster...
      3. Profit!

      Makes sense to me. Either that, or they're buying into the same thing worldcom did - the Internet will be high-speed always-on access to everyone, so plan ahead!

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    2. Re:Bandwith Gnome Syndrom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phase 1... collect the underpants.
      Phase 2... "whats phase 2?"
      "well phase 1 is collect the underpants"
      "...and phase 3 is profit"

  22. Upstream??? by cca93014 · · Score: 1

    What's the upstream capacity?

    1. Re:Upstream??? by ramdac · · Score: 1

      Most likely no change.

      That's where the expense for the company comes in. That'll be the last thing they'd want to "upgrade".

  23. My 3 meg line by JPriest · · Score: 1
    I have a 3 meg modem with Adelphia and after some windows tweaking (MSS*44 = RWIN) I usually stay consistent at 2500+ from fast servers. It also has a rock solid uptime. You couldn't pay me to trade my modem in for a T1. I hope the provider that buys Adelphia keeps my service at that level.

    PS. No matter how much tweaking I do in Windows I alway get a better throughput on my Linux partitions. I've tested this with multiple *nix/win* operating systems, configs, and computers and am still looking for more information on why.

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    1. Re:My 3 meg line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and by better I mean in the range of 20-30% or more.

    2. Re:My 3 meg line by geesus · · Score: 1

      cause windows sucks :P~

      --
      Gnome wasnt built in a day.
    3. Re:My 3 meg line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MTU size differences maybe??

    4. Re:My 3 meg line by wumarkus420 · · Score: 1

      That's funny, I used to have an Adelphia PowerLink 3Mbps (in Charlottesville, VA) and they could rarely sustain transfer rates higher than 60K/s, which would equal less than 500mbps. I had this problem even during off-peak hours. Hopefully this was isolated to the area I was in. Luckily, I switched to 1.5Mbps DSL and got sustained 1.5Mbps throughput! That beats unreliable 3Mbps connections any day!

    5. Re:My 3 meg line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the Windows vs. Linux comment. I switched to XP and I never can get anywhere near the throughput I get from my slower Linux boxes. My solution? Fire up a Squid proxy on a linux box and point my XP box at it.

    6. Re:My 3 meg line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm on insightbb way out here in nowhere indiana and I get a sustained 3.1-3.2 Mbit connection all the time. All u gotta do is live somewhere that broadband will never become popular...in attempting to "socially engineer" all i could outta the cable guy that installed this I found that there's no one else on my node, and knowing the people around me there never will be. throughout this pitiful little town we're all pulling double T-1 on the down....up's still a pitiful 128k, no matter how many times i've tweaked either the windows or the linux routers...

    7. Re:My 3 meg line by klevin · · Score: 1

      I've got a Cable Modem hookup from Cox Cable in Wichita, KS. They previously used Roadrunner and now they do their own internet access. In both instances, I got 3 Mbs. Just before I signed up, they had dropped their download caps from 10 Mbs to 3 Mbs. I run Linux, and, with sites that have the bandwidth, I can sustain 350 KB/s, with peaks of 450 KB/s (any time of the day, I've never noticed a difference in what my connection can sustain based on time of day). I wasn't aware that it was common to have caps set lower. I'm looking to move back to Washington state, and now I hope I can find a provider that's got 3 Mbs caps.

  24. Look like a good deal by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But it leaves you with a tough choice:

    1. Use it responsibly to get faster downloads of the data that you actually want.
    2. Get your snout in the trough and suck down everything you can before they admit that it's unsustainable and cut it, cap it, or start charging sensible money for it.

    Incidentally, I'm in the first category, but I'm beginning to feel like I've been pretty stupid. Sure, I understand that "all you can eat" is just marketing blurb, and that the fees charged for retail flat rate services don't cover the ISP costs of using them to their full capacity. But why would the majority of customers understand or accept that? They're sold as always on, flat rate, all you can eat. A typical user (i.e. Joe Windows) would expect to be able to use them as such, which is why all of these schemes are doomed from the get go, and are just short term marketing schemes to attract customers (1. Burn money to attract customers away from other company's profitable schemes, 2. ..., 3. Profit!).

    And so I'm inclined to say go for it, and leech like you've never leeched before. I know that's unsustainable, but the first sin is being committed by ISP's allowing their marketing droids to sell services as being all-you-can-eat, when that's just not true. Perhaps when they offer services based on an actual sustainable model them then we could consider supporting them. But as long as they're selling services that we know aren't going to work, purely to attract customers in the short term, then there's little point in being the only guy on the block trying to play by the spirit of the rules, because the letter of rules are going to change in the mid term anyway.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Look like a good deal by kelnos · · Score: 1
      Sure, I understand that "all you can eat" is just marketing blurb, and that the fees charged for retail flat rate services don't cover the ISP costs of using them to their full capacity.
      it must, at least where i am. i live in a university town - i'm a student who has just moved off campus. everyone on-campus is spoiled by the direct 10mbit lan connection (served by a two 155mbit pipes to the outside - i regularly got 600-800kb/s to the outside world), and once they leave campus, they (myself included) get cable. it's summer now (obviously), and with so many students gone, i get 300-400 kb/s regularly. but during the academic year, speeds aren't much better than dialup - normal connection speeds are between 10 and 15kb/s. if they're not at full capacity, i'd be quite surprised (and annoyed).
      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
  25. RCN Rules! by linuxlover · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have RCN at home (zip : 94401, San Mateo, CA - aka San Francisco Bay area). They give me the combo package with phone + cable TV + broadband.

    The most impressed part gotta be their broadband. here are some stats
    - mozilla dowload speed : 324 kB/s ( ~= 2.5 Mbps!!)
    - people dowload from me on Limewire around 120 KB/s ( ~= 1Mbps)

    Now that is just leaps better compared to any DSL or cable here. Eat that AT & Pacbell :-)

    My new found obsession is Furthur (furthernet.com). And right now people are downloading from me @ 50KB/s. A buddy of mine is also on Furthur, but his upstream is capped at 15KB/s (~= 128 kbps). I told him about RCN and he is *seriously* thinking about moving to a place where he can get RCN :-)

    So people, please, if you are San Francisco Bay area give these guys a try. I have nothing but good things to say about RCN.

    IF you need further info see my website or drop me an email. /LinuxLover

    1. Re:RCN Rules! by Phosphor3k · · Score: 1

      Your friend is an idiot. I hope that smiley is indicating some form of joking.

      I could see if your friend was already moving, and had to make a decision between two locatins that he liked, and isp became the deciding factor, that is one thing. But moving soley based on the ability to get a faster connection is just stupid. Unless of course he needs the connection for his lively-hood. In that case, he'd want to get some sort of uber-reliable connection, like a T1 or T3, frame relay or some such non-cable modem technology, which would, unless he really is in the middle of nowhere, not require moving.

    2. Re:RCN Rules! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are what's wrong with broadband.

      pig.

    3. Re:RCN Rules! by jordanb · · Score: 1

      This is the same RCN that charges $125/mo a peice for static IPs, am I right? No thanks, I'll stick with speakeasy.net DSL.

      --

      Jordan Bettis

    4. Re:RCN Rules! by cmowire · · Score: 2

      Until the phone companies manage to put Covad out of business, which will then take Speakeasy.net out of the picture, too.

      Good thing I'm not any more of a geek than I already am, or I'd be severely stressed or something.

    5. Re:RCN Rules! by linuxlover · · Score: 2

      a little sense of humour please! :-)

  26. UK bandwidth by drunkahol · · Score: 1

    My cable provider (Telewest) in Edinburgh recently had us all upgrading to 1Mbit/sec download with 256kbit/sec upload.

    The cost of this is £39/month I think (it's on my girlfriends bill!). They also went and dropped to 512kbit/sec bandwidth to £25/month.

    The prices may be wrong, but the bandwidth isn't.

    I know we're way behind Europe and the rest of the World in rolling out broadband, but hopefully moves like this will force BT to speed up the DSL roll-out.

    P.S. That's the Edinburgh in Scotland that hardly even 1 in 100,000 Americans can pronounce properly!

    1. Re:UK bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We might not be able to pronounce Edinburgh, but at least we know how to brush our teeth you ugly fucking limey.

      I bet your girlfriend looks like Alan Cox's wife Telsa. Isn't that about the norm in the UK?

    2. Re:UK bandwidth by Vanders · · Score: 1

      Last time I looked, Blueyonder were offering the 1Mbps service at twice the price of the standard 512Kbps service. Which means that they're charging £50 per month for a 1Mbps downstream connection.

      I'm quite happy with my 512Kbps service though, so I won't be switching just yet.

    3. Re:UK bandwidth by nuser · · Score: 1

      Last time I looked, Blueyonder were offering the 1Mbps service at twice the price of the standard 512Kbps service. Which means that they're charging £50 per month for a 1Mbps downstream connection.

      That is certainly not true if you upgrade from the existing 512 service. I've done this and it costs 39.99 per month. If you also take telephone or TV it's less.

    4. Re:UK bandwidth by DiscoBiscuit · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Funny you should say that...as, aren't all these people Americans?

    5. Re:UK bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is this close?

      ed-n-buruh

      BTW, not all Americans are ignorant, just the stereotypes, just like not all you Scotts fuck your sheep, just the stereotypes.

    6. Re:UK bandwidth by drunkahol · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much perfect.

      I was of course just talking from years of experience of American tourists in Edinburgh (yes I know they are the pinnacle of stereotypes).

      It's either Edin-bOrO OR Edin-burG

      Sheesh it makes your skin crawl ;-)

      P.S. to a previous poster - my teeth are perfect since I had them all replaced due to a fight on the rugby pitch with someone else's boot. If you want to slag my girlfried - then come round my house you pussy!

    7. Re:UK bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. The 1Mb service from Telewest is not £50 - it's £39. And only £35 if you also have their telephone service. Source: http://www.blueyonder.co.uk/evenfaster/summary.htm l

  27. This situation seems a bit familiar by Sheetrock · · Score: 3, Funny

    Kind of like Prisoners' Dilemma, except that in the end you know no matter what happens the cable company is going to jack up the rates. So yeah, just wget the Internet now and check it out from your hard drives later when the rates go up.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:This situation seems a bit familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1, Funny

  28. Spain bandwidth by pubjames · · Score: 2

    I've had DSL from Telefonica in Spain now for about a year. The prices are similar to those you quote.

    There seems to be loads of competition here to provide DSL and cable services. Six different comms companies have laid fibre in the street I'm in (including BT, funnily enough). Thankfully the city council was organised enough to get them all to do it at the same time.

    P.S. For any American's reading, Spain is in Europe ;-)

    1. Re:Spain bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe? That there must be somewhere up north. Ahm fixin to visit mah Yankee cousins in Europe real soon. Just gotta hop into mah truck!

    2. Re:Spain bandwidth by digitalsushi · · Score: 2
      P.S. For any American's reading, Spain is in Europe ;-)

      Ugh, yeah, we knew that.

      ...but did you get rid of those pesky Moors yet? :-D

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    3. Re:Spain bandwidth by jstarr · · Score: 1

      Belgium has a law that, whenever any company is going to lay a cable (primarily telecommunications), they have to advertise the fact and allow other companies to also use the 'hole.' So, a few years back, when the entire place was being dug up to lay fiber-optic, typically five companies would be cooperating to lay lines. Traffic, always a concern in European cities, was hopefully less impaired by this policy.

      P.S. Belgium is north of Spain.

    4. Re:Spain bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Spain, PUTO SUDACA

  29. BBB in Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you already going to move, why not move to Sweden? :-) I've been using (among 50000 other households) Bredbandsbolaget for 2 years now. True 10Mbit transfer both upload and download. For this great service I pay just 225 SKR/month (approx. US$25). And _no_; I'm not resident of a Campus or something like that. Cable modems are just dull and slow.. ;-)

    1. Re:BBB in Sweden by MrBandersnatch · · Score: 1

      10Mbps!!!! A few more years of American environmental policy and it might be warm enough to live there too ;) Only problem then :- Jag kan inter tarla svenksa!! *sigh*

    2. Re:BBB in Sweden by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      There's a couple of large cities here in Italy which are covered by a very similar service, more or less they hook you up to a 10Mbit lan connection, it's pretty inexpensive also (pity I don't live in one of those cities)...

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    3. Re:BBB in Sweden by DiscoBiscuit · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I have a friend in Sweden with this sort of connection. His apartment block shares 10Mbit and it would appear that he is the only person using it. His connection goes from his apartment down into the basement where its plugged into a switch. The switch has a 10Mbit fibre transceiver and a fibre cable which dissapears off to the telco through a pipe.

      His ISP is also quite happy to give as many IPs as he wants on his subnet. Add a new machine, and its DHCP just allocates you another address.

      I remember when he first told me he had broadband, and I said, "What type" and he said "Ethernet" and I said "No, which type of broadband have you got - not what your internal network is" (thinking he was being dumb), and he said "No, really, its 10Mb ethernet!"

    4. Re:BBB in Sweden by osgeek · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but then you have to put up with all of those beautiful Swedish women... who needs that? :)

    5. Re:BBB in Sweden by tetrode · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Same in Belgium, 10 MBit for 38 which must be around 40 $

      Mark

    6. Re:BBB in Sweden by Uart · · Score: 2

      I read about that in Forbes. I wish we had that here in NJ. But I guess its easier to do so in an appartment block than it is in suburban hell...

      I can't even get DSL.... grr..

      --

      Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
    7. Re:BBB in Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically speaking, of course, ethernet isn't broadband. It's baseband, since it only uses one band for transit. It's high-thruput, but that in and of itself does not broadband make. Truthfully, DSL isn't broadband either; though cable modem is(i think).

      Everybody always thinks high thruput == broadband, but such is not the case. It's just alot of rabid marketdroidism. Much like the use of the word 'cyber'.

  30. Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It still can't compare with the 8 Megabit downloads the Optimum Online people get. Check out the speed tests at DSL Reports.com if you want to see proof.

  31. Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be, "Jag kan inte tala svenska". Oh, and you can get the same deal in norway to, except you'd have to write "Jeg kan ikke snakke norsk". .. anyway.

    1. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you mean "Norway too" (Norge också) inte "Norway to" (Norge till)

  32. broadband britain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We in the good old united states of london england are graced with rates of 500Mbits. They also keep telling us that there is an huge overcapacity of fiber network and that 90% of it is unused.
    How's this for a solution?: Use it. Planet's run by idiots mumble mumble mumble

    Also, since I'm ranting, my "Always On Connection" isn't and I DO have to waste time logging on.

    1. Re:broadband britain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I thought MY brain was fried from drinking too much beer.

  33. Really, you need to move to Tokyo by stevejenks · · Score: 1

    I've got 100 megs of fiber running into my house, uncapped bandwith, for 65 bucks a month. Life is good when you have broadband...

    1. Re:Really, you need to move to Tokyo by kir · · Score: 1

      Dude. We posted at pretty much the same time on the same thing. My post follows right after yours (at least it does on my screen anyway.).

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    2. Re:Really, you need to move to Tokyo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, I'm a poor exchange student in Tokyo right now. everything is expensive but not my nice little 8Mb/s ADSL Connection (~$20/m) and guess what? they are now doing tests with 12Mb/s services starting soon. (^_^)v Too bad i've got to move back to Europe soon though.. Kpnqwest died, internet connection fees are going up..ramble..ramble..

    3. Re:Really, you need to move to Tokyo by ramdac · · Score: 1

      you're in TOkyo with that speed?

  34. Nice... yet sad! by kir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's really nice to hear that bandwidth in the USA is increasing... at least in San Fran.

    It's SAD that I'm writing this from Tokorozawa, Japan via my 8Mb ADSL (3500yen/month ~= $30) that I've had for 6 months (My modem currently says 6.2Mb down, .842Mb up - I don't negotiate at max, but I'll take it)!!! SAD! I guess that article the other day was right - Japan really DOES get all the cool stuff first...

    WAY FIRST! My sister-in-law, who lives about 10 minutes from me, can't get ADSL due to fiber in the middle. That's OK. She can get 2Mb Cable (again, about $30/month) or 100Mb FIBER ($90/month)! FIBER I SAY!

    --
    3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    1. Re:Nice... yet sad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah but when I live there 92-97 ..I think in 95 I signed up for the internet. I did the 'terehodai' which means 'all you can call' from 11pm - 8am which cost 3600yen ($36). And 2000yen for att isp ($20). At the time ISDN was the huge rage in Japan and it was like 600 month or so or so it seemed something outrageous like that.

      Glad to hear japan is finally getting reasonable rates, etc. Serious Japanese still spend more time on their cellphones than on computers. Just look at http://slashdot.co.jp and see how few comments are posted.

    2. Re:Nice... yet sad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked in Tokorozawa from 1971 to 1972 and there was no internet back then. Is the big park where Tokorozawa AB used to be still there? I haven't visited there in over a decade or two.

    3. Re:Nice... yet sad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was in Tachikawa in 1998, I used a modem over a old POTS system and got close the to max connection easily. I hear it has gotten even better in Tokyo and its suburbs. Due to deflation the prices are dropping and it is about time.

  35. Speed in Quebec by KissMyCpu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm in Quebec and both major providers (Bell for ADSL and Videotron for cable) have created new "extreme" plans.

    Videotron's gives you 4mbit downstream and 640k upstream, with a cap of 10 gigs per month for each direction. All that for a hefty 60$. Bell has a similar plan, working at 3mbit / 640k, same caps, although they end up charging 70$ per month or so.

    These plans are the result of the previous "caps" of 6 gigs / 1 gig which P2P downloaders were going over by orders of magnitude and were paying through the nose. One of my friend ended up paying 215$ for a single month because his upload/download were at 20 gigs each.

    I guess these caps and prices may end up moderating file sharing.

    1. Re:Speed in Quebec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thoses prices are in Canadian dollars.

    2. Re:Speed in Quebec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "normal plan" at Videotron is not too bad: it's 2.8 mpbs download/ 128kbps uload for $29.95 CDN/month, and it's like that since Videotron is in business (more than 5 years now)

  36. Not all Cable Modem Providers are currupt by peterdaly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have a RoadRunner, through Time Warner, and have been very happy with the speed and reliability of the service. Each "area" operates very independantly, so service and "culture" is not the same at all TWC offices.

    I have previously talked with head of the technical team for the local division on a professional level, and his comments were quite interesting. For instance, the no NAT clause in the contract. They know people have more than one machine behind an IP, but really don't care. They won't do anything about he user unless they suspect bandwidth reselling. The no NAT clause makes it easier for them to drop the user since manytimes it is hard to prove the reselling end of things. Our local time warner office has their own (at the time a talked to him this was the big game) Quake II server. They are very gamer friendly, and realize that is why many of their customers want the service.

    I know people here love to bash cable modem providers, but up until now I have absolutely no complaints against mine. I take the back, the retards can't get tv/internet on one bill, I get two bills from them at different times of the month, with different due dates. That sucks.

    Anyway, not all providers are bad.

    -Pete

    1. Re:Not all Cable Modem Providers are currupt by wandernotlost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For instance, the no NAT clause in the contract. They know people have more than one machine behind an IP, but really don't care. They won't do anything about he user unless they suspect bandwidth reselling.

      Great, so people have to break their contracts to do reasonable things with their cable modems, but the people working in your local office don't mind (for now). Sorry, but that's no way to run a business. What happens when the friendly guy you talked to gets a better job and the new guy isn't so friendly? Now he has the power to cut you off because you're breaking your contract. You're naive if you think that what some individual that works for your cable company tells you holds any weight against the written agreement. I've been flat-out lied to by several people at AT&T regarding my cable modem service, and when it comes down to it, they don't give a damn unless you have it in writing.

    2. Re:Not all Cable Modem Providers are currupt by iceT · · Score: 2

      I'm also on Roadrunner on time warner in michigan, and in our T's, there is no clause about using NAT. It also states that you can run services over their network, as long as 'it doesn't adversely affect their networks'.

      They are currently blocking inbound port 80, but that didn't get enabled (disabled?!?!) until the Nimda virus came out (Thanks, Microsoft).

      I run an SMTP/POP3/IMAP4 and web server(on an alternate port), and life is good.

      Thank you, TW/RR!

      --
      -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
    3. Re:Not all Cable Modem Providers are currupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you there. I not positive about a "no NAT" clause in my contract, but I don't believe there is one.

      Ironic, defined: Time-Warner selling cable TV services using the ability to use one cable line on several TVs in your house for free as a seeling point over cable, while simultaneously shutting down your cable internet service for doing exactly the same thing.

      But in my area (Northeast Ohio) I just get one bill. Now, if only I could pay online by credit card... The only setup they're going with right now involves some 3-rd party storing my BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER, and charging me ~$5/mo to boot! Screw that, I'll stop by the office myself on my way home from work.

      In fact, a tech is on my way over to figure out why my modem suddenly "stops" seeing the cable line.

    4. Re:Not all Cable Modem Providers are currupt by stripes · · Score: 2
      What happens when the friendly guy you talked to gets a better job and the new guy isn't so friendly? Now he has the power to cut you off because you're breaking your contract.

      BFD, I'm quite sure there is a "like it or lump it" clause in the contract that lets them change it on 30 days written notice, or the like. So even if NATing was allowed, if the "friendly guy" left, and "mean guy" showed up, it only makes 30 or so days difference.

      Of corse it would be nice if doing things like plopping a run of the mill 802.11 access point with the sock config onto your local network were allowed. Even nicer if they would let me pay for a reasonable number of fixed addresses. Not that the DHCP assigned ones seem to ever change. From a practal point of view though, it doesn't matter.

    5. Re:Not all Cable Modem Providers are currupt by wandernotlost · · Score: 1

      BFD, I'm quite sure there is a "like it or lump it" clause in the contract that lets them change it on 30 days written notice, or the like. So even if NATing was allowed, if the "friendly guy" left, and "mean guy" showed up, it only makes 30 or so days difference.

      That's not the point. The point is that the official stance of the corporation is all that matters in the long run. Having a friendly guy in your local office may be nice, but it doesn't protect you from getting screwed when his boss says that now they're going to sue his customers to make a point, for example. Don't let a friendly representative fool you into thinking that the corporation is benevolent, because there are plenty of superiors that can decide to enforce the agreements you've signed -- and if you've broken your contract, they can make your life pretty miserable if they want to. A clause like that gives them too much power over you, and you shouldn't be comfortable with it in your contract, just because the friendly rep doesn't care to enforce it right now.

    6. Re:Not all Cable Modem Providers are currupt by stripes · · Score: 2
      The point is that the official stance of the corporation is all that matters in the long run

      My point is there is no long run in any comsumer contract with the "we can change it any way we like any time we like" clause, there is no long run. Just think of any contract that says that as having a clause that says "we'll get around to screwing you, just wait".

      Don't let a friendly representative fool you into thinking that the corporation is benevolent

      Don't let anything fool you into thinking a corporation is benevolent. By law any public corporation can only care about it's shareholder returns. So of corse they aren't benevolent. Well, not to you at any rate.

      enforce the agreements you've signed

      Or, and here is the real point, the agreement you didn't sign. Since all they need is a little time to change it to whatever they like.

    7. Re:Not all Cable Modem Providers are currupt by wandernotlost · · Score: 1

      Or, and here is the real point, the agreement you didn't sign. Since all they need is a little time to change it to whatever they like.

      Well, that's why you should read the contract everytime they change it, and complain bitterly if they put in a clause like that which we're talking about. It may not get you anywhere, but if enough people complain, eventually they won't get away with it. IANAL, but I don't think a unilaterally altered agreement would hold up in court. Regardless, they have much more power over you if you're breaking their contract, which is why you should fight to keep crap like this out of it.

  37. What you meant to say by NiftyNews · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I hope ATT and Comcast can take a hint."

    I think you meant "I hope ATT and Comcast can take a check," because you aren't getting anything for free from those two price-gouging bastards...

    1. Re:What you meant to say by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 2
      I think you meant "I hope ATT and Comcast can take a check," because you aren't getting anything for free from those two price-gouging bastards.

      Yes you will get something from those two price-gouging bastards... one big price-gouging bastard :(.

  38. Trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck the lameness filter. It is just censorship in disguise. Bloody slashdot.

  39. Article says 3 megaBYTES per second by Skapare · · Score: 1, Redundant
    PRINCETON, N.J., July 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- RCN Corporation (Nasdaq: RCNC - News) announced the launch of a new "super-charged" high-speed Internet service in its San Francisco and Los Angeles markets. Known as MegaModem(SM), it enables RCN's California customers to access the Internet at download speeds of up to 3 megabytes per second (Mbps), double the company's standard downstream speeds of up to 1.5 Mbps, and up to twice as fast as competing cable modem and Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) services.

    I'm sure it's really megaBITS per second, otherwise the company would surely have promoted it as 24 megaBITS per second if the speed really was 3 megaBYTES per second (so they could use the larger number). You don't generally see 1.5 megabits per second promoted as 187.5 kilobytes per second. But this does show how reporters are still subject to making technical errors, which I suspect is due to their lack of knowledge of technical details. At least they got the case of Mbps correct.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  40. 10Mbit in Australia BUT... by oaksey · · Score: 1

    Telstra upped the bandwidth to 10Mbit/s about half a year ago but this was a while after they introduced a 3GB limit, after which you have to pay 13c/MB(AUD). You can get popular files off their server at 500KB+/s which aren't included in usage though. From anywhere else the monthly allowance just gets eaten up too quickly. I have also got up to 800KB/s off a local edu site. I'm pretty sure they just took off restrictions rather than changing infrastructure.

    1. Re:10Mbit in Australia BUT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man I wish I had 3 gigs per month.

      I live in canberra and have ~45megs of fiber running into my house ... the only problem is that my modem is capped at 256kbps and I get 350megs of download (!!) per month.

      I pay a$50 per month for line rental which includes telephone, TV with set top box and an internet connection. In addition to that I pay a$25 of internet service fees for the 350megs. I wish I was in your position!

  41. I once had nearly 5mbit. by NNKK · · Score: 1

    I was on AT@Home for a year and a half before moving (which happened to be right before @Home died). At one time I could grab 5mbit/sec and sometimes a little more... those were the days...

    By the time I moved, I was still getting up to 3mbit/sec. Now I'm on 512kbit fixed wireless at twice the cost, ouch.

    1. Re:I once had nearly 5mbit. by NNKK · · Score: 1

      Ooof course... Typos and forgotten information.

      Should have been "AT@Home".

      And I was in southwest Washington.

  42. not new by wcb4 · · Score: 1

    What's the news?.... I live in Carroll County Maryland. My provider is Adelphia... I've had 3Mbps down and 256 Kbps up since I got it. While I seldom really hit those speeds, I get close on most occasions. I don't remember ever being as slow as 1.5 Mbps down and they consistently provide well over 200 kbps up

    speed test results

    --
    I reject your reality ... and substitute my own.
    1. Re:not new by bsane · · Score: 1

      You get 256k upload? I'm capped at 128k (Warren County Virginia). When I called tech support they argued that 128k was more than enough to do anything allowed in TOS and that it was a coporate policy (although there's no mention on the website)... That and now I'm paying almost $60/month for it. The only good thing is that downloads are quite good and I get reasonable pings on counterstrike...

  43. Comcast is doing it as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just got a letter from comcast here in central indiana and they did the same thing for us. Granted we were paying $99 because we are a small business it was still a welcome improvement since we never expected it. :)

  44. 100Mbs in Japan... by darekana · · Score: 1

    Good old NTT is offering 100Mbs fiber to za home. (if you live in Tokyo, pay the $250 install fee etc) For about ~$70 a month... with providers available for another $20 or less, no bandwidth restrictions. My question would be how long can THAT last.

    The US gov should help fund laying fiber everywhere and rebuilding infra. Like with interstate highways, railroads and stuff.

  45. I hate you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :-)

    The same thing happened here when ATT bought up our cable. They had plans for upgrading to be done by last December and they are only starting to put things in place to finally give us a true 2-way connection.

    I can't wait to be able to play CS and the rest of the online multiplayer games (not to mention being able to upload files reliably) again.

    They already charge us up the yazoo, I won't what sort of bill they'll slap on us when they're done.

  46. Italy a 3rd world country?No!10mbit optical access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just for those peopople that mean that Italy is synonymo of pizza,pasta and mafia:

    In Italy, (for now only in the 5 major cities) you can get internet access via optical fiber at 10mbit speed FULLDUPLEX for about $60/month (61 Euro).

    Well as a home user you don't get a public IP address (otherwise people would misuse the account and put online hispeed webservers) and you are behind a NAT but this is not a big limitation.

    If you subscribe to additional services, you can even watch digital television or have video on demand. (via settop box that streams you the digital video over IP).

    I can only laugh when I see these "3 Mbit cable modems,anyone ?" announcements. :-)

  47. Re:10 Mbps in Finland, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Suddenly my 10 Mbps downstream/~256 kbps upstream cable modem connection (about $40/month) started to feel like antique. Well, actually it is, since it has been available in Finland since 1997 or so... :-)

    And _no_; I'm not a resident of a Campus or something like that.

  48. optonline.net by rephlektiv · · Score: 1

    although that may be lovely news to achieve 3Mb/sec connections -- i still say cable companies should model themselves off of optonline.net's backbone.. granted it's 120K/sec upstream capped now.. but downstream still peaks around 900K/sec.. -- *drools on himself* optonline = NY/CT/NJ area.

  49. Try NJ by Servo · · Score: 1

    I live in Northern NJ, and subscribe to Cablevision. I have their "Optimum Online" service, which is advertised as "100 times faster than modem". Although they won't tell you an official speed ANYWHERE, I have checked my speed with several different bandwidth testors and I get 3Mb down and 1Mb up on a routine basis. Of course, during peak hours, I get nowhere near that, but hey, its the internet, you can' expect it to be all for you.

    --
    A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
  50. @Home in the Netherlands is fast by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 2

    I can download with 425 KB/s any time a day, for EUR 45,- a month. My upload is 128 kbit.

    @Home has some slight disadvantages though:

    • Unreliable mailservers
    • Unreliable newsservers
    • Expensive helpdesk
    • Connection seems to drop for a minute several times a day
    I simply took another account with a quality dialup provider for mail and news, and I'm a happy person :-)
    --

    This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

  51. Comcrap offer more for same? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think NOT! With my much-loved @home service, now dead of course, I used to get ~700k/sec bandwidth everywhere. If the given server was able to handle it, I'd be sitting pretty. Now with Comcon, I get 150k/sec tops, EVERYWHERE, no matter what. And for the troubles, I get a $10 increase. I live in an area that also has DSL, but it's the same price for slightly lower speeds.

    A friend of mine who has OptimumOnline, who does not live that far away from me, enjoys ~600k/sec everywhere. But of course, I do not have a choice. I'm stuck with Comcapped. I wish cable companies weren't allowed to monopolize and gouge it's customers like this.

  52. That's good news, but ... by dzym · · Score: 4, Informative

    In the NY/NJ/CT tri-state area, we have Optimum Online, a service from which I've often obtained speeds up to 7, 8 Mbits/s.

    The upload speed isn't too shabby either, I've sustained uploads at around 1.5 to 2 Mbits/s for periods of more than 1 hour at a time, according to my MRTG graph.

    1. Re:That's good news, but ... by ahaning · · Score: 1

      You should have posted a link to MRTG so I didn't have to tell Google that I was feeling lucky! :-)

      Wow. I've seen graphs like this before, but didn't know what the programs were called. I always thought they were from Apache. I'll have to check out MRTG when I get home this evening. Thanks for mentioning it.

      --
      Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
    2. Re:That's good news, but ... by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 1

      Same here. I went over to DSLReport.com to check out what kind of speed I was getting up / down -- 1.2Mb down, 0.98Mb up. Good for just about everything I'd use it for -- Halo Online, KaZaA Lite, Neverwinter Nights and surfing. :)

    3. Re:That's good news, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Optimum online is great... When it works...

      It is anything but "always-on", I've been screwed without a connection for almost 24 hours at times.

    4. Re:That's good news, but ... by Algan · · Score: 1

      I totally agree, the only thing is I get around 5Mbits only.... oh well, I guess is my crappy modem. I'm happy with it anyway. However I'd be really interested to find out how do you get 1.5-2Mbits upload since OOL caps it at 1Mbps. If you uncapped your modem you might be in hot waters, I don't think it's worth it...

      --
      If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
    5. Re:That's good news, but ... by dzym · · Score: 2

      In 3 years I've been with the service, I've only had it go down once for about 6 hours due to a service interruption. Are you sure your cable wiring in the house is ok?

    6. Re:That's good news, but ... by dzym · · Score: 2

      I'm using an old modem, it doesn't have any way to flash firmware or even web page configuration access. I haven't modified it in any way.

  53. Not a good company by moosesocks · · Score: 2

    From my experience, RCN is one of the worst cable companies in existance. They are the ONLY cable provider servicing my area (and the surrounding towns for 30ish miles)

    In a recent survey, 85% of those who answered said they were dissatisfied with RCN, and would switch if another provider existed.

    When I subscribed to their cable TV service, the broadcasts were fuzzy, we had an extremely limited channel selection (no digital service either), and it was more expensive than satelitte, which is what I now subscribe to. In addition, RCN kept bugging me for several months to resubscribe, refused to cancel service, and finally slammed me with a bil for $500 for a decoder needed to view premium channels - the decoder was given to us free when we subscribed 10 years earlier, and worked for only one year.

    Their cable modems have been reported to be even worse. I don't subscribe, but have heard horror stories. Subscribers are given old first-gen modems - their service is supposedly painfully slow, and is only a 1-way connection, requiring a dial-up connection on the upstream side. RCN has promised to invest about 75 million into our area to improve their service - this was several years ago, and they have failed to take any action since making the promise.

    Of course, the SF customers seem to like them. I live on the east coast in a small town on the brink between suburbia and the rural areas - it's quite different here.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    1. Re:Not a good company by DragonPup · · Score: 2

      True story!

      My parents signed up for the 3 package deal from RCN. Getting them a working email address was a utter nightmare.

      What should have been a remarkably easy thing took 2 monthes. When my parents signed up and picked their email address. All good so far.

      A few days later their password stops working. They call, reset the password. At this point we think it was a minor glitch, no big deal. Life is good.

      The next day the password stops working AGAIN. Rinse, lather and repeat this with escalations to engineers and supervisors over the course of the next month and a half. No one had a clue what was going on.

      At some point my father's best friend emails him. His email is replied to by a nice old lady out in Ohio or some midwestern area asking who he was. After a few email swaps we found the problem: They assigned the same email address to 2 people. And talk about idioticness that they would have never figured it out on their own. Stupid, stupid RCN.

      Oh, they just changed my parent's billing cycle to squeeze some more cash out of them this month. They are in the process of moving back to ATT.

      Disclaimer: I work for ATT so I am not the most impartial of sources

      -Henry

      --
      "Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
    2. Re:Not a good company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the truth for RCN in New Jersey. My cable modem has dial up upload that averages 1 Kbps. The download speeds are decent when you reconnect, but they quickly fade to speeds that aren't much better than 56k. The TV reception in my area is the worst I have ever seen.

      RCN is actually phasing out all of it's services in New Jersey over the next few years or so, even though their offices are in New Jersey. They just can't compete with Cablevision and Comcast.

    3. Re:Not a good company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RCN's description says they are trying to deploy services in the major metro areas, i.e. according to their quarterly report:

      'The Company is building its Megaband Network in the most densely populated areas of the nation, which we believe gives the Company access up to 44% of the residential telecommunications market by building its network in only 6% of the nation's geography'.

      I know RCN bought out quite a few providers (infact thats how they got into the cable business, and basically everything else I think), so I am guessing that you are in an area that service was being provided in by the previous company, and RCN has no interest in upgrading the service in your area, as it doesn't make business sense. Hybrid cable modems suck... but considering everything going on with the telecom industry (they provide phone services too), and the tech sector in general, they are probably focusing on their most profitable areas right now.

      Also, I somehow doubt RCN 'refused to cancel your service'... You very likely had to run around in a billion different circles, and jump through hoops to get the service cancelled, and very likely got a CSR who is brain dead, and didn't cancel the service, but given my experiences with both RCN, AT Broadband, and a couple of other providers, they tend to be the same in that area... sometimes you have a painless experience, and sometimes not... although it does seem like RCN has had quite a few billing problems throughout its history.

      One last thing...

      RCN has promised to invest about 75 million into our area to improve their service - this was several years ago, and they have failed to take any action since making the promise.

      I am assuming thats because of the economy.. RCN had a very aggressive growth strategy until sometime late last year.. Now they are trying to get more subscribers on their current network, with minimal upgrades, so they can fund more growth..

      Of course, all of this I have gotten from different press releases, and information on RCN.. and my own personal experiences with them, but I thought I would post this anyway :)

    4. Re:Not a good company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like your problem is that you live in an area where RCN bought out the local cable co. I live in a Boston suburb where RCN came in and laid down a brand new network, competing with MediaOne (new AT). Cable TV quality is excellent, phone service is excellent, internet service is excellent. RCN is the way to go, if they laid down the local network infrastructure themselves, rather then buying it from the loser local cable companies that formerly serviced many areas. Note the RCN has no local competition in your area; usually the situation is the reverse, with RCN coming in a providing competition to the big boys like AT or Cox.

  54. Charter by without · · Score: 2, Informative
    I'm a Charter cable customer in the Worcester, MA area. I found that they have something called Small Office/Home Office service that gives a higher bandwidth- 1 Mbs download and an increase in upload speed as well, though I can't remember what it is. They also relax the EULA so that you are allowed to (legitimately) run a server on your home machine, and with it they give you a static IP address. It costs around $65/month, so it was something I could afford. I'm willing to pay a little more to get a little more.

    Oddly, they didn't advertise this service at all and I only found out about it after calling them and asking if they had such a service.

    Charter seems to be fast and reliable. The only real problem I have with them is that their customer service stinks. They're available 24/7 to not give any meaningful answers to your questions.

    1. Re:Charter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also have Charter and they seem to be getting slower and slower...

      When I first signed up, the company was known as Bresnanlink and I was getting speeds around 300kbytes/sec. Charter bought them out and the speed decreased down to 100kbytes/sec. Now I the speeds have decreased down to 20kbytes/sec.

      Their customer service is total crap. You have to wait several hours to get a person on the phone. The only thing they tell you is to restart your cable modem and your computer and if that doesn't fix it, it STILL must be your problem and you have to fill out a trouble ticket.

      I think I will be getting DSL soon if this keeps up.

  55. Ummm, comcast already offers 3.5 meg down, 384 up by Leebert · · Score: 1
    http://comcast.comcastonline.com/memberservices/Ad ditionalProducts/serviceupgrades.asp

    It costs $100/month, but it is an option. From the page:

    Speeds Up to 3.5Mbps/384Kpbs

    IP Addresses 5 Persistent IP Addresses with 6 month lease life

    Price $95/month

  56. But they block your ports by wandernotlost · · Score: 1

    All that download speed is great, but RCN also happens to block port 80 on all their cable modems. Not only that, but they do it in such a way that if someone tries to connect to your port 80, their connection just hangs forever. Anyway, they stifle the most interesting and useful feature of the Internet, that of empowering individual users to publish their own information. With RCN, you're out of luck unless you want to be stuck with static pages on their server under some URL specified by them - which, by the way, they have the power to change at any time, confusing any users of your site (see the recent domain changes of AT if you don't think this really happens).

    1. Re:But they block your ports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and that's the beauty of remapping port 80->81 prior to establishing the connection

  57. 3M in Kansas City already exists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A company called Everest has already been offering 3M in Kansas City...

    http://www.everestkc.com

  58. They offer 768Kbps, for Standard by Mr.+McD · · Score: 1

    Well being a current, and happy, RCN cable Modem customer, their uplaod speed with the standard package is 768Kbps. And I can say back up their claim that you do indeed get these upload speeds. Their network is far less stressed than ATT and I have only had 2 short outages in the 3 years I've had them. I aonly hope this 3Mbps Modem comes to Boston soon!

    1. Re:They offer 768Kbps, for Standard by battlemarch · · Score: 1

      I just wish RCN would come to my town north of Boston. The nearest RCN is two towns away. If and when they get here, I'd happily drop AT, even if it isn't at 3Mbps.

      --
      Oh, come, come, come. Without a monster or two, it's hardly a quest... merely a gaggle of friends wandering about. - Owl
    2. Re:They offer 768Kbps, for Standard by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Most cable modems run at 10Mbps, and are artificially capped to given bandwidths.

    3. Re:They offer 768Kbps, for Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also have RCN in the Boston area, and have had it for the past three years, during which time I have had maybe two or three outages, none of which lasted more than an hour (at least, that I was aware of). All in all, a great service and much better then I was expecting.

  59. San Francisco, cost of living by Geek+In+Training · · Score: 2

    I've got to move to San Francisco!

    Before you make such a spur-of-the-moment, life-changing decision, maybe you'd like to consider that the $50 a month for phat bandwidth will be a drop on the bucket next to your mortgage, and it might be a little hard to get hooked up in your cardboard box.

    "Starter homes" in the Bay Area are now close to $500,000... and a lot of those "need work."

    Just though I'd let you know!

    --
    SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a .sig, someone WILL complai
    1. Re:San Francisco, cost of living by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, plus San Francisco is like granola. What ain't flakes and fruits is nuts.

  60. Quality of service in Canada by BigASS · · Score: 1

    I'm a subscriber of the previous @Home service offered in Canada, now run by Rogers Cable. After @Home went belly up Rogers salvaged what was originally their own network before @Home moved into Canada.

    We've just got capped down to 18KB/s (144kbps) upstream from 48KB/s (384kbps) upstream. Downstream has been sliced in the same ratio as well. To add insult to injury our monthly bills have increased 5 bucks on top of it. It's not going to stop there, they're talking about raising it another 5 bucks again!

    Their reasoning for this, I was actually told by a tech support guy is, "why should we beat the competition 3 fold for the same price?". I wonder what RCN's motive to beat their competition is. Perhaps it starts with the fact that they _have_ competition.

    --

    --
    - Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
    1. Re:Quality of service in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But now 3.5M/800K dsl service is offered in Canada, Rogers will need to think twice.

    2. Re:Quality of service in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got rogers in London and I just downloaded rh 7.3 iso's at 120kbytes/sec. I think you should get your cable modem tested.

  61. I've had 3 megabit for quite some time by toast- · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here in the Toronto area, I'm able to download at a total speed of about 300kbytes/second if i want to.. (Of course, the site must be fast enough to feed that much data). I haven't given it a full stress test, but two transfers at 175k/sec at the same time is definately more than 3 megabits/second on the downstream.

    This is the Rogers "Hi Speed" service in Toronto. We were formerly with @home, but since the breakup Rogers has put in place their own infrastructure.

    I do get single transfers of 300k/sec+ the odd time..

    1. Re:I've had 3 megabit for quite some time by Flous · · Score: 2, Informative

      This sounds weird to me...

      I live in Belgium, where we have 1 Cable provider (called Telenet), and like three major DSL providers. Telenet Has a 10Mbps download limit with a maximum of 10 gigs (gigabyte that is) per month. All that for 41.95 per month, and STILL people nag about them, STILL they whine about this traffic limit. Ow, did I mention yet that traffic past 23.00 (11.00 PM) and befonre 09.00 (AM) only counts for 50%. I have 2 mailboxes of 50 Mb each, and each mailbox can have 5 aliasses. And I have 50 Megs

    2. Re:I've had 3 megabit for quite some time by mcdade · · Score: 1

      Ya.. just about the same time that Bell has offered 3mb dsl to subscribers for more money and put on the data bandwidth caps, normal lines get 5 gig up and 5 gig down a month, while the 3mb dsl you get 10gig up and 10 down...

      services should be getting faster and cheaper not more expensive!!

    3. Re:I've had 3 megabit for quite some time by Bonkers54 · · Score: 1

      Um, you obviously didn't learnt to multiply in 3rd grade. 3Mbps = 384KB/s, 175KB/s * 2 = 350KB/s, 350KB/s 384KB/s. You are slower than 3Mbps. End of story.

    4. Re:I've had 3 megabit for quite some time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3Mbps = 384KB/s in a perfect world with no netowrk overhead.... the reality is that 3Mbps is closer to 300-325 MBps so yes, he really is getting that bandwidth.

      general rule of thumb, due to network overhead, count 10 bits as a byte when going from Bits to Bytes when computing bandwidth

  62. 3Mbit? by caveat · · Score: 1

    my parents just got with the 21st century and got a cable modem from Optimum Online. i dunno what their deal is with bandwidth, but i peaked at 905.7K/sec last night, which works out to a little over 7Mbit download with the modem setup exactly as OOL told us to - no tricks. i don't know what's going on, but i can't complain.

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  63. Wow. Three whole megabits? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2

    Optimum Online in Connecticut caps theirs at 10 outbound. I've downloaded stuff at upwards of 700KB/second.

    This must be a slow news day.

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
  64. 3Mbps by Itrebax · · Score: 1

    I have been getting 3Mbps since I had cable installed about a year ago through Cox (formerly Cox@home). The reliability is pretty good, even though will go out for about 30-60 minutes about once a month and that's always bothersome.

  65. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who gives a rats butt, my modem theorectically can do 10mbps.

    disclaimer:3gig per month download limit and youre lucky if you get 100kbps!

  66. Adelphia Has 3Mbps by suwain_2 · · Score: 2
    I have Adelphia's PowerLink service. For the first six months, it was up about 50% of the time, although, to their credit, they did have to do a major overhaul of the entire town's cable system. (They took over... another company that had taken over the cable system, and had left it in a sad state of disrepair.)

    I now get 3 Megabits/sec download (being a cable modem, it, of course, varies, but I'm actually slightly over this sometimes -- I once got 3333kbps). I could understand download speed changing a lot, but what I don't get is my upload -- it's capped at 128 kbps, and I've never reached it. Sometimes in speed tests, I'm below 56kbps, other times I'm near 128 kbps. The download, though, is almost always consistent.

    I do want to mention that... a.) Adelphia is now in bankruptcy, but continuing to operate; b.) Their customer support is a wee bit lacking. I'm sure there are some very knowledgable people there, but I tend to get the totally clueless ones. Teaching a computer tech what traceroute is and how you use it is painful. (And if anyone gets Adelphia, I suggest you run your own nameserver. That's a frequent cause of failure -- it arbitrarily goes down from time to time, while my connection stays up.)

    Not too significant, but I might as well mention it: Their AUP strictly forbids running any sort of server. (They explicitly name any sort of server you could possibly think of, but also mention that the list is not all-inclusive.) However, I have a server running Apache and ssh hanging out on the web, and occasionally even use it; no one has ever said anything to me. I'm guessing it's the usual "We don't really care, but if Slashdot moves out of Exodus and onto your cable modem, we're going to kick you off," which is certainly understandable.

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    1. Re:Adelphia Has 3Mbps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Customer service a wee bit lacking? that's an understatement. I like their service,most of the time, but during January, when they were doing some network upgrades, they refused to admit that it was a real problem, and would not give you a straight answer as to when they expected the service to be up again. When I had to explain to the customer service person that just because I was running linux on a box at home (and had a job croned to check to see when the connection was up) that did not mean I was running a server, I figured it was time to give up. I told them that linux was just an OS, like windows is an OS, and a server would be a sperate piece of software that would run under linux, but I wasn't running any.... they told me that linux was a server that ran on top of windows and was used for email, web and ftp and that I was not allowed to run it. Once I figured out that they had no clue, I just told them I was running Windows and had no further problem.

      As to their TOS, They also explicitly say one compter for the internet connection, and they bind you connection to a specific MAC address, but they tech who came and hooked me up told me to download the firmware upgrade to the linksys that I already had from my old IDSL days and it would allow me to masquerade the MAC and everything would be fine. I have had a tech at my house once since then, he saw the linksys, asked me if it was presently hooked up. I told him that it was but that I had tried with directly connected to the machine who's MAC the linksys was spoofing, and he said "that's cool, I just have to ask you to directly hook up the one computer, and once I see that its working and leave, you can hook up the linksys and have fun. I asked them about blocking incoming port 80, and why other adelphia customers could see it, but the rest of the world could not, he said they block incoming port 80 at the gateway to their backbone provider (UUNet I believe) and that I should use one of the redirector services out there on the net do re-direct oprt 80 to an alternate port if I needed it.

  67. New York price gauging by Shant3030 · · Score: 1

    Living in the NY Metro area, we prob wont see this for a few years. And when we do, it probably will jack up the rates considerably because all corporations are under the assumption that NY metro customers have money coming out the wazoo. I lived in Albany for 2 years and I had premium cable, sans adult channels, and paid around $60 a month... thats including digital cable with about all the HBO's, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz, and Encore channels. If I were to get that same package on Long Island, it would cost me well over $100/month.

    --
    100% Insightful
  68. Getting 3-5Mbps in New Orleans by firebaugh_73 · · Score: 1

    I'm on Cox's network paying $49.95 and I get between 3-5Mbps on a regular basis.

  69. Can somebody explain why there are caps? by vanguard · · Score: 2

    Why would a cable modem provider have caps on their service at all? It seems to me that if the service isn't busy then somebody gets great service. If the service is busy than everybody shares whatever bandwidth is available.

    What would motivate an ISP to prevent their users from using all the bandwidth that they can provide? Why would they try to keep the service only partially utilized?

    Vanguard

    --
    That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
    1. Re:Can somebody explain why there are caps? by TBC · · Score: 1

      Because when someone is able to download at 5Mb/s one time, and then "only" at 1.5Mb/s the next time, they feel like there is a problem, they call and complain. The get mad when they are told that the speeds are subject to network congestion. From a human nature standpoint, people are much more content with consistent medium speeds than with varying high and low speeds. It sucks for the people who would understand bandwidth contention, but we're the minority....

    2. Re:Can somebody explain why there are caps? by womby · · Score: 1

      unfortunatly though it might seem pointless caps are important to maintain a reliable service for everybody. last year I had to implement a system using packetshaper (bad bad bad ui for an ok product but I wont tangent about it) the company I was working for had to move cd images between the uk and the US office and it was one mans job to do the ftp.

      all works well when its a slow day and there was plenty of time to do the transfer he would use one ftp connection and off it went using 80-90% of the network pipe.

      but if the producer was standing behind him watching the clock and bitching that it had to get there faster. he would use multiple connections to get the files over there.

      one person connected to one server transfering 4 or 5 gigs of data would take our 4meg pipe down for all the other users. no email no http nothing.

      so the IT dept got the packetshaper ... and put ftp on low priority. but the guy would just increase the number of concurent connections till saturation again. eventualy after many hours reading the instruction book I changed the config and hard caped him to 3megs outgoing ...

      long story small point ... with no caps a single user can destroy everybody elses qos. ok on a cable modem there are aggrigated contention ratios and other nonsence but 1 guy on each node can saturate there node.

      --
      **** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
  70. Well, it beats Rogers Cable by Herman+Thrust · · Score: 1

    Nice... Contrast that to Ontario, where Rogers has dropped their speed from 3 to 1.5, without even making an announcement...

  71. it's possible by botmfeedr · · Score: 1

    This is in response to someone who said it was not possible for 3Mbps down and would require a revamp of the cable network. This is false as far as ATT goes. I was able to successfully uncap my Motorola SB4100 and get 5Mbps down and 1Mbps up. Although I would not suggest it because I leanred my lesson the hard way and my cable modem has now been cancelled so I'm paying big price now for SDSL.

  72. Only 3 MBit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor people.

    I'm in Canada, and have a Shaw account. I have 1MBit upload, and 10Mbit download. I can easily download my Linux isos at 750 k/s.

  73. the beginning of VOD by kyoko21 · · Score: 1

    hmm... having an increased amount of bandwidth would certainly take us one step closer to having the necessary infrastructure for Video-on-Demand.

    1. Re:the beginning of VOD by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Which is *exactly* what the cable companies DON'T want. Let me paraphrase a quote i heard from some comcast executive 'We didn't lay down 50 billion dollars worth of cable to have our blood sucked out by streaming video sites.'

      Streaming video over the net is *competition* to their TV cable services.

    2. Re:the beginning of VOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RCN already offers VOD in the Philadelphia (read: Comcast) market as reported here.

  74. Broadband Service Chomps Ass by Gorbie · · Score: 2

    Any time I have to power cycle a piece of equipment 3 times per day so that it will perform correctly, I put it in the ass-munching category. I'd take consistant, reliable service out of my current service over 3 megabits worth of powercycling.

    They need to catch a hint allright...that it's not okay for them to provide crap service because they have a monopoly. This is why I am moving to DSL (yipee!)

  75. at&t chicago suburbs by plural · · Score: 1

    Cool news.

    Before the excite thing went down, I was getting 550K/sec down from at in the chicago suburbs.

    For the first few weeks after excite went out, I, like everyone else on at, was capped at 1.5.

    However, they seem to have removed the cap at least somewhat..I normally get anywhere from 250 - 350K/sec on really fast sites. It seems they wanted to do this quietly, but I sure don't mind!

  76. Rogers@Homie wont follow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rogers Hi-Speed Internet *cough* has done the opposite. They were at 3mbit down, 400kbit up. Last month the price went up $5 more a month, and now the cap was cut in half, though in truth its really 1/4th. The new cap is 1.5mbit down, 200kbit up for the increased price. If speed is cut, should price not reflect that? In the real world, the new caps are around 100kb/s downstream, 15kb/s upstream, which is less then their main competition, Sympatico HSE. Why offer 2-3x more for less (then sympatico) when you can match their price with half to offer. Nice move there Rogers, say bye bye to many customers. I've already migrated 13 of my clients to another ISP in the area that provides real Broadband unlike Rogers conversion from Broadband back to Baseband for more money.

  77. Comcast 3mb? by slackbits · · Score: 1

    In the days of all the bandwith chopping and caps, this is definitely a welcome trend. I hope ATT and Comcast can take a hint.

    Actually I have comcast and when the installer was putting it in I mentioned to my roommate that it was 1.5mb. The installer said it was actually 3mb. I guess they only gaurentee 1.5 and in some areas already have 3mb. Oh, and I am pretty sure it is NOT 1.5mb since I have gotten some transfers at 200KBPS+.

  78. Are there restrictions on what you can do ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you run a web server or game server and use a file sharing program like limewire without violating your agreement ?

    I'd almost consider moving up to SF from San Jose if you can !

  79. Roadrunner by llzackll · · Score: 1

    I get about 2.2mbps on roadrunner in florida.

  80. Price ranges.... by The+Creator · · Score: 1

    If the cheap line gives people all the bw in the world, nobody is going to buy the expensive one.(Compare to CPU's) If they can reach both the hi and low end markets with the same equipment(just diffirent terms of service) they can make more money. And yes, in theory capping the line is not going to save them bw. Because if someone loads a page or file, it's the same amount of data, regardles of how long it takes. And with several users that just means that the time windows(of when download occurs) are going to everlap more. So for them the same bw is neede anyway.

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  81. SpaceBalls... by mongoks · · Score: 1

    Sanders! What's going on?
    It's MegaModem. She's gone from suck to blow

  82. Re:Italy a 3rd world country?No!10mbit optical acc by TheHouseMouse · · Score: 1

    Thosa' mafia guys sure knows how to getta whadda they want, ehh? Yeah.

    --
    Only the meek get pinched. The bold survive.
  83. not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HFC is good for about 45 mbps on a clean network. i live in louisville, ky, and often achieve 3 mbps d/s during low-traffic hours. my nic is only good for 10 mbps, but i don't think that will be a problem for sometime.

  84. mine used to be 3 mbit by Juln · · Score: 1

    Back when we had a semi local cable company things were groovin'. Now, they were bought by Charter, and after a year or so they reduced everyones service to about 1.8 Mbit. So, I used to be able to down load at a combined 285 k bytes a sec or so, and now only 185 k bytes a second or so.
    Now, if they would raise my send from the measly 256 to 512 all would be forgiven.

    --
    Juln
  85. Move North by Judecca · · Score: 1

    It suprises me sometimes how far behind the US is in broadband compared to its northern neighbor.

    I got my 4Mbit cable modem around the same release time as Quakeworld in 1996. I had it hooked up to a 100MHZ 486.

    I said goodbye to compuserve that year, and have had the same ISP ever since (except for change of ownership)

    Move north!

  86. optimum online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pay $29.95/month for my cable, and it's capped at 10Mbps down and 1Mbps up. Don't be jealous.

  87. Or move to Canada... by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

    As usual, I'm going to piss off half the world here, but oh well...

    I remember the halcyon days of my youth (i.e. two months ago) when I had internet access via Shaw cable. It was only 2.5 megabits, they said, but I'd hit speeds of up to 5.2 (and my stepfather, using his G4, had hit 5.6), repeatedly, reliably, and sustainably. It was very nice. Most of my large downloads (large because then I had time to see how fast they were going) would go at around 380-420KBps, but I hit 520 very often, and, yes, 600KBps and above on several occasions.

    So if you want cheap bandwidth, move to San Fran, for sure. Or, move to Canada, and pay $40/mo for almost twice the download (which is the same package they've been offering for years, so it's not going away). Oh, and the routes rock too. 7ms and 5 hops to ftp.ca.debian.org when it was still around. Le sigh.

    --Dan

    1. Re:Or move to Canada... by kidlinux · · Score: 2

      And by $40/mo he means $43/month in Canadian currency. That's around $28 USD.
      So long as you live in Sault Ste. Marie, ON (Shaw's eastern most distribution center) or West of there, you'll get Shaw. I worked for them for a while, and was told that Shaw doesn't really care what you do with the service, or how much you use it. They have their own fibre pipe running along the Canadian National Railway. Bandwidth really doesn't cost them anything, except for the one time cost of laying the pipe, and whatever it costs to transmit data off their network. I think they're getting into VoIP soon too.
      Like the guy above said - mad speeds. The service has only improved since I subscribed.

      --
      -kidlinux.
    2. Re:Or move to Canada... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Please remeber the following factors:

      Cost of living = high
      Taxes = high (15% combined federal/provincial not counting hidden taxes or income tax)
      lack of jobs = high (8% unemployment)
      One persons connection != anothers

      Another note, rogers has started capping almost everyone @ 1.5Mbit/192Kbit. And has notified NONE of their customers.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Or move to Canada... by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

      Cost of living = high

      It really depends on where you live and what you buy, but in a lot of cases (even factoring in exchange) things are often cheaper in Canada. Burger King, last time I checked, comes out to $0.50 more (USD) for a whopper meal. A lot of other things are more expensive south of the border. The economy is, by some people's standards, 'slower' than the US's, so prices (for some things) get adjusted accordingly. As for things like rent, it depends on where you live. You can rent a house in New Westminster for $650/mo, or buy one for $120k and up. In the praries and the far east (maritimes) where jobs are less common (theoretically), houses start at $80k, and I've had four job offers in three months, including three interviews and two jobs taken. I've basically had my pick of the employers I've applied to. Not bad, if you can stand the small-town atmosphere, isolation, cold winters, and mosquitoes.

      Taxes = high (15% combined federal/provincial not counting hidden taxes or income tax)

      I love it when people quote without indicating they have any idea what they're talking about. In BC, the sales taxes come out to 14.5%. In Saskatchewan, 13%. In Alberta, there is no provincial tax, so it's 7%. Income tax and federal tax are higher, but then you also don't have to pay (or pay as much) for health care, education (my tuition next year is a 'staggering' $4000 CDN, which is expensive). In fairness though, I think it comes out to 15% in Ontario, but you don't have to live there. BC is nice too, and they've recently slashed income tax.

      lack of jobs = high (8% unemployment)

      7.5% in June actually, down from 7.7% in May. I read that during my break today thanks to AvantGo. These guys rule.

      One persons connection != anothers

      Check www.DSLreports.com and listen to what people have to say. People in the Surrey area, which was closer to metropolitan Vancouver than I was when I lived in BC, were getting faster tranfer rates than I was. I figure there had to be something wrong with my setup at home that I wasn't getting what they were (some guys have hit 680 KB/s on numerous occasions).

      Another note, rogers has started capping almost everyone @ 1.5Mbit/192Kbit. And has notified NONE of their customers.

      This is the same Rogers whose video stores do not share accounts even within the same city, and do not honour their 'VIP packages' that you can get with your cable bill. Rogers has their hands in dozens of pies, and only one, the cable company, is making any money. Of course they're capping people, they don't own their own national data pipeline and have to pay for their bandwidth. Shaw, on the other hand, has no such restrictions, and could care less.

      Ontario got shafted by switching from Shaw to Rogers. BC residents have never been happier. Either way, I'd never recommend moving to Ontario anyway. Too polluted, crowded, and busy. Move to Vancouver.

      --Dan

    4. Re:Or move to Canada... by egrulps · · Score: 1

      I'm going to have to agree there. Shaw has done nothing by improve the service. They cleared out a lot of overusage in various areas around the Lower Mainland by dropping terralinks left right and centre.

      And yeah, Vancouver is a great city to live in. Suburbs provide cheap rent/mortages, we have the best beer on earth here, and the best "greenery" as well.

      --

      Live to Learn
      Learn to Lie
      Lie to Live

  88. FTP server commection limit by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 2

    What ftpd daemon are/were you using? ProFTPD can limit the number of connections per host (I set my limit to 2 so people could use a bwoser to see what's on the server & an FTP client to do the download).

  89. I have RCN in the Boston area by Purple_Walrus · · Score: 1

    And they rule! Whenever we drive by RCN trucks we yell "RCN RULES!"... I think we just kinda scare them though...

    --
    ------
    Sig
    1. Re:I have RCN in the Boston area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Score: -1, Never Been Laid)

  90. cox.net in the south is pretty good by io333 · · Score: 1

    I don't really get it. Here in Louisiana, with Cox, before the @Home crash/burn/switchover, I was uncapped (down) and several times pulled over 500 kb/sec, steady, for several hours. Yes that's right and I'm not making it up. This was with a multisource downloading program. now, since the switchover from @Home, I'm capped at 300kb/sec down. The price has always been $35/mo.

    U/L has always been capped at 30 kb/sec up, but I'm not running a server, so it doesn't bother me. So what's the big deal?

    Perhaps one of the reasons it works here is that this state is uh... one of the "less technologically advanced" (ha ha ha ha heee hee hee ha ha), and there might not be that many folks in my neighborhood that even know what broadband is or could understand the concept if I explained it to them -- which leaves all the b/w for me!

  91. Coming to Twin Cities by Icculus · · Score: 1

    I talked to a ATT guy last week to transfer my cable internet from my Roseville apt to my new address in Lilydale and he mentioned they are planning on rolling out 3Mbps downstream service soon. The bad part is it will run $90 monthly instead of the $45-50 it is now. He didn't think there would be an associated upstream bump either.

  92. The penalty for sprawl??? by sterno · · Score: 2

    It occurs to me that perhaps one of the biggest problems for rapid deployment of broadband services in the US is that our population centers are, for the most part, very spread out. As a broadband provider, you have to run a hell of a lot more cable, repeaters, etc, to connect the same number of customers as you might in a more densely populated area. I know this is definitely true of Japan, though I don't know how the population is spread out in Sweeden.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:The penalty for sprawl??? by DiscoBiscuit · · Score: 1

      Population is pretty dense here in the UK, but we still lag way behind the rest of Europe for BB connections. The main issue seems to be BT (who once had the monopoly in the UK) being very slow to let companies in a deregulated market have access to DSL via their exchanges. I live in a cabled area, which tends to be very competive when compared to DSL. Large parts of the UK don't have cable though.

      In my area, we're pretty lucky, we all have fibre to the doorstep via cable, as the co-ax they put down a decade or so ago started to rot, and rather than replace it with more co-ax they replaced with fibre, making my humble backwater town, at the time, the most advanced metropolitan area network in the world for a short period.

      Also, population spread in Sweden is very thin, yet they have probably the best broadband in Europe.

  93. Re:The technology is there... by Kizeh · · Score: 1

    Before capping bandwidth and hideously oversubscribing Time Warner provided me with a 5 Mbps cable modem connection in the Tampa Bay area, as measured from downloading a RedHat ISO image from a university FTP server. Those were the days... In any event, cable modem technology supports a lot higher speeds than what users are currently getting.

  94. Yeah, it's really hard to find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This page is really hard to find, being as it's only linked to twice on the front page of comcastonline.com, and it takes two clicks from comcast.net, the first of which being the very hard to guess 'Broadband Products' link.

    learn to use the fucking web, you sole-sucking bum.

  95. 3Mbps is fine but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    before @home went belly up I would consistently get in excess of 4Mbps at NO extra charge. Of course now that Comcast has taken over I'm lucky if I see the advertised 1.5Mbps.

    1. Re:3Mbps is fine but..... by kevinqtipreedy · · Score: 1

      i feel your pain. with att@home i used to get over a megaBYTE a second to a few major unniversities. thats 8megabit/s, so i was sad when im now capped at 1.5megabit/s.

  96. This is news? Try OOL. by op00to · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the NYC Area, Cablevisions Optimum Online has been providing 10, yes, TEN megabit downlink speeds and one megabit uplink speeds. I can download from my computer at work (Rutgers University) at over 1,000 Kilo*BYTES* a second. Suck it, RCN. CABLEVISION RULES.

  97. RCN in Hunterdon, New Jersey by ph1nn · · Score: 0

    RCN SUX here...
    I was on their original beta test list for "cable modems" about 5 years ago when they told me it wouldnt work becuase i have a long distance dialup (1way) to their POP.
    Now years and years later, after years of promises we still have no digital 2way cable.
    RCN SUX here. Now (in the past 6 months) I use Sprint FastConnect and have 1.5Mbits down and 256kbits up... wish i could get faster and cheaper cable (altho DSL great) but ill take what i can get.
    I wish i had RCN from CA ;)

  98. Used to have it. by james_orr · · Score: 1

    You know, I used to have 3 Mbit bandwidth when it was still AT@home.

    After they dropped @home, it was cut down to 1.5. Other than being slightly annoyed that I'm paying the same amount for less bandwidth, I don't really miss it.

    I can still stream any video I want at the highest settings. Sure, it takes me a little longer to download the latest Redhat distribution or whatever, but usually I don't even get the full 1.5 out of that anyway!

    A little more upload speed would be nice so I could stream my mp3s to work with mod_mp3 without having to use lame to cut down the bitrates so far. But mostly 128K is fine for home use, and it's certainly a LOT faster than a dialup connection gives.

  99. I Have 10Mbps/1.5Mbps by prock307 · · Score: 0

    I have Optimum Online cable modem in CT, and I get 10Mbps download and 1.5Mbps upload for $35/month. Yes I have tested it and that is what I really do get. I have not run into fees for excessive use yet either. But I wouldn't suggest moving to CT to get fast broadband unless you want to get your ass taxed off...

    1. Re:I Have 10Mbps/1.5Mbps by micronix1 · · Score: 1

      I live in NYC and I have the same deal, only I pay more because I dont have a premium cable tv package. For $50/m i get around 6mbit down and 900kbit up. I'm fine with the downstream, but it would be nice if my upstream was a bit higher. Most of the areas around where I live dont support optonline, so I'm one of the lucky ones.

    2. Re:I Have 10Mbps/1.5Mbps by prock307 · · Score: 0

      I hope optonline doesn't join in on the shenanagins of the other Cable ISPs......

  100. Well, not in my city with Adelphia by antdude · · Score: 2

    We're still not DOCSIS, and we only go up to like 1 Mb/sec max these days (even with @Home before it died). During peak hours, maybe 10KB/sec! Type in 91745 for http://www.dslreports.com/archive/adelphia.net (ignore the first few fastest speeds because they are not from City of Industry) and cringe :(.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  101. bandwidth restrictions by micronix1 · · Score: 1

    "In the days of all the bandwith chopping and caps, this is definitely a welcome trend" I'm very curious as to why optonline provides such high speeds and no limits with all these other companies over the US going crazy with limiting bandwidth usage, capping speeds, and even going as far as monitoring transfers. I'd hate to see the day when optopnline joins the trend.

  102. Now if you were in Tokyo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ADSL up to 12MBit/s.
    Cable up to 10MBit/s.
    Fiber to the Home FTTH up to 100Mbit.
    PHS Wireless up tp 128Kbps.
    3G Wireless up to 384kbps.
    Wi-fi cafe/train stations etc..

    I love clicking on Quicktime trailers and see a clip downloaded in a flash :p

  103. I have 3mbps on cox's cable internet by rammerhammer · · Score: 1

    In Louisiana when cox broke away from excite@home they gave us a 3mbps downstream and upgraded our crappy 150kbps upstream to 340kbps. Still crappy upload but better.

    1. Re:I have 3mbps on cox's cable internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cox is nice, I have been with them like 5 years now and they have done nothing but lower the price. I am paying $30 a month, and I have 3mbit down and 256kbit up. It used to be ~8mbit at certain times back in the day though, and the upstream was around 1mbit.

    2. Re:I have 3mbps on cox's cable internet by mlg1981 · · Score: 1

      where in louisna are you im on the new orleans westbank speed is ok i get close to those speed sometimes but osmetimes not i may be movieng baout 2 miles away to a house which has never had catv sreve so the reconnect will be more pricey any ideas? i find thta cox tech support is limited and most techs are rude and unpolite at times that you have to call back to find a tech that cares about your problem

  104. Maybe they found a way to limit it higher up? by TeddyR · · Score: 1

    Could the ISP has found a way to limit the bandwidh at a higher level?

    Most of the bottleneck is NOT in the local system, but at the border and regional routers.

    If they did find a way to limit it at the regional level and not the modem itself this would exaplin this move...

    Cap the modem at 3mb for local transfers and network games within the region.

    Allow local users to access p2p connections from the regional network at 3mbs

    use a cache [I am very much pro cacheing, BUT only when it is optional]

    If using a cache server, then make access to it unrestricted by the measures above.

    --

    --
    Time is on my side
  105. Realistic solutions vs. ideal solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What people are all so pissed about in terms of bandwidth is that they're not getting the bandwidth advertised. So I offer the solutions below:

    Change the advertising to reflect the actual bandwidth delivered; Good for the consumer but looks bad for the first company to start such advertising

    Change the bandwidth to reflect the advertising; Good for the consumer but too much work for the ISP for them to consider it

    Let the monopolies stagnate and charge whatever they want for whatever they're willing to parcel out; Bad for the consumer, ultimately bad for the marketplace but requires the least amount of honesty and effort

    As you can see, "Good for the consumer"="Not gonna happen".

  106. I agree, you may be stupid. by Erris · · Score: 2
    Incidentally, I'm in the first category (Use it responsibly to get faster downloads of the data that you actually want), but I'm beginning to feel like I've been pretty stupid.

    Yes, downloading shit that you don't want is stupid. I am outraged by trolls like you who consider getting content you want,"leaching", and throwing BS like "unsutainable" around. Loosers who set up ftp robots to download massive quantities of mass produced junk like Britany Spears, Warez, Movies that can be had at the local video store for $3 piss me off. Why downoad software that you will never freaking use, especially cracked backdoored M$ based crap that will burn you? Cable companies who find themselves taxed by such "hoggs" should be able to figure things out and cut the line. Don't confuse the issue and tell people to set up robots to get things they don't want, simply because others are doing it. That would be stupid and it would flood the world with useless trafic.

    What most cable companies are doing is tax everyone in a ruinious attempt to make more money. The only cable service here is through Cox. I don't recomend it to the average user as is costs far too much for what they want to get out of the web and they push windblows. See how it works? Both approaches go to zero.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  107. Broadband in Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi, I'm writing this while sitting at my Sun box hooked up to a 100mbps connection which leads to a.. yes.. to a ethernet hub, holding 3 other boxes. One of them has a 56kbps modem which feeds me with an internet connection. Now go figure how fast broadband gets rolled out down here in Israel. I bet you haven't seen a country like that. Oh, well, except Russia, maybe. I'm looking forward to the end of July when I'll be moving to the US, where I'll be able to get broadband. At last. While all my friends (and just all those folks on IRC) have already got DSL/cable installed. The year is 2002 and I'm still using a dialup. Doesn't it suck?

  108. advice please! (OT) by lingqi · · Score: 1

    I am moving to Japan -- Saitama prefecture as well (Kumagaya most likely -- wait, is kumagaya in Gunma pref?) -- any advice on getting connected over there? which company to call, what kind to hoop to jump through, etc.

    thanks in advance.

    if i(we) get modded off-topic, you can write to
    qiling *at* charlie _dot_ cns +dot+ iit ^dot^ edu

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

  109. p.s. by lingqi · · Score: 1

    no wonder there are SO MANY japanese porn sites...

    and speaking of which... it's like 6AM over there, on a saturday... i know that 8Mb DSL is nice and all -- but browsing at 6AM on a saturday just seem a litte... i dunno... overkill

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

  110. It's about time! by AndyMcL · · Score: 0

    When I lived in Japan (1995 time frame)the connection choices and rates were pretty lame. I think that for most of the country they still are. You are living in Tokyo so you have more choices. I believe that most people are still using slow dial up that you have to pay every minute for plus the monthly charge. I think that a lot of people just e-mail through their phones. Lots of short messages.

    Just my 2 cents. I don't think that Japan is way far ahead of the US in terms of broadband. South Korea may be pretty ahead though. I have heard that Canada also has some pretty good services as well.

    Andy

  111. @HOME by styopa · · Score: 2

    I live in Boulder, CO and get @HOME. My connection ranges from 1 Mb to 5 Mb. Yes I have seen 5 Mb sustained connections on my Cable modem. It is never a single connection, but when you have several downloads all going 100+ kB a second it adds up real quick. I haven't even done anything illegal. Of course, the highest I have seen on my windows partition is 1 Mb.

    I hear all of this complaining but I have never seen any of the problems that everyone seems to talk about. When Excite@Home went under I was down for all of 2 days, then it went back up no problems.

    Maybe I am just lucky.

    --
    Disclamer - Opinion of Person
  112. 3.2 Mbps (Adelphia) by sir99 · · Score: 1

    I sometimes manage 3.2 Mbit with Adelphia (west PA). I suspect I could get even better speeds if I wasn't at the end of the line (rural area). The catch is that I'm limited to a paltry 2.5GB per month. I don't know if they enforce it, but it does annoy me every month.

    --
    The ocean parts and the meteors come down
    Laid out in amber, baby.
  113. Re:Ummm, comcast already offers 3.5 meg down, 384 by cball2k · · Score: 0

    ...and it is a lie, I and a freind tried it free of charge after we went back to the regular speed, since it never got any faster, and at times would not work at all. Comcast (aka coNcast) are a joke, check dslreports.com for revues from the masses and you will see they are one of the lowest rated if not the lowest rated service. now if they could offer this providers speeds, and charge the same price as the pro package, and it WORKED, I might stay with them, but till then, I'll change to a dsl line, coughcoughcomcastsuckscoughcough...

    --
    karma, hah...
  114. uhhh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mine is 3.0 megabit too and i only pay $30 a month, northern va cox communications

  115. In Japan, we use 8 MB broadband at home. by shanx24 · · Score: 1

    Go figure. Korea and Japan have residential lines of 1.5 MB to 8 MB (the latter is most popular due to negligible cost differentials).

    -S.

    --
    As I said, I don't repeat myself.
  116. 3MBit Hmppf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Tokyo the default bandwidth for household ADSL connections are 8MBit. They are now being increased to 12MBit as default. In many new houses people get their own Optic Fiber connection...

  117. Astound Broadband by askewview · · Score: 1

    Anyone in the San Fan Bay area heard of Astound Broadband. I know they will provide a 3Mb down 256Kb up cable modem at like 64.95 before package discounts that are possible if you get phone and cable service through them. I am using their service out of the Saint Cloud Minnesota area and absolutley love it.

  118. 3 megabit modems + Rogers@Home by Megumi_Slashbot · · Score: 0

    mmm... more bandwidth. But wait! Cable Internet service (at least in Ottawa, Canada) is notorious for its' sketchiness in operating consistently: a prime reason why I've switched to DSL.

    --
    :)
  119. Re:Nice... yet sad! Ahem, Japan?? by Zeio · · Score: 1


    Yeah well... The Japanese economy is sad. Your future is uncertain; you are likely to be unemployed. The Japanese cost of living makes San Francisco look cheap (even New York) - $30 is probably a far greater percentage of your disposable income than mine. And judging on the last time there was an earthquake, your government acted completely defunct. Taxes are high and Japan is going through a cultural crisis. And most Japanese work on Saturday - but get less done (your GDP is lower ($36,200 USA vs. Japan $24,900) and we work 5 days a week). Your country lends money to countries who get better economic ratings than you. Japan's Economy: Now Rated Below Botswana Monday, July 8, 2002.

    You know, there is a lot more to life than DSL. Unlike Japan, we have a *huge* country and a gigantic and fascinatingly well working infrastructure (in part due to Japanese Americans, Japanese engineering and equipment, credit is most certainly due).

    You know, there are central offices here in the US that are 100s of miles from certain customers. In Japan, there is barely a square mile left that is undeveloped, so suffice to say, it should be rather easy to implement high speed internet cheaply. And speaking on environments, your fishermen are repeatedly caught killing near-extinct whale species, kill seals for their penises which are considered a delicacy, and have no renewable resources left on your Island of Japan. Looks like Nabunaga's ambition went a tad too far.

    Think. The USA is not a poster child for how things should be run, but socialist tendencies (like DIRT! CHEAP! INTERNET! FOR! EVERYONE!) seem to far further from the ideal we all try to work towards.

    US/Japan infrastructure:
    US Telephones 194 million (1997) / Japan Telephones - 60.381 million (1997)
    US Telephones cellular: 69.209 million (1998) / Japan Telephones - cellular: 63.88 million (2000)
    US Radio stations: AM 4,762, FM 5,542 (1998) / Japan Radio stations: AM 190, FM 88 (1999)
    US Highways: total: 6,370,031 km / Japan Highways: total: 1,152,207 km
    US Waterways: 41,009 km / Japan Waterways: 1,770 km
    US Airports - with paved runways: total: 5,174 / Japan Airports - with paved runways: total: 142
    US Internet Service Providers (ISPs): 7,800 (2000 est.) / Japan ISPS 73 (2000)
    US INTERNET USERS Internet users: 148 million (2000) / JAPAN INTERNET USERS Internet users: 27.06 million (2000)

    So, I think the US has a slight idea about infrastructure, and how to provide every opportunity to do well for yourself and your business.. And most of the figures, even when divided by 2.1 or so to account for the population discrepancy, well, leaves Japan in the dust.
    US Population: 278,058,881 (July 2001 est.) / Japan Population: 126,771,662 (July 2001 est.)

    Go check out more interesting country facts here.

    Quotes:

    Japan's Ledger

    By comparison, Japan's ledger sheet is not so simple or impressive. Japan's $4.2 trillion economy may be slowly shrugging off its third recession in a decade, but there are still fundamental issues.

    Japan's total debt to GDP is triple the American level. That is the highest any major industrialized country has faced in the last half century.

    Japan's economy shrunk by 1.3 percent last year. Meanwhile, the average age has crept up to 41, the highest in the world.

    Japan has $5 trillion in primary government debt, $3.7 trillion of which is bonds.

    Japanese companies continue to eliminate jobs, helping push the unemployment rate to a near-record 5.4 percent in May. With their jobs in jeopardy, Japanese are spending less on cars, homes and other expensive items.

    Thirteen percent of Japan's general expenditures go to social security payments and a whopping 20 percent to debt service.


    --
    Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.