Comcast Launches Superfast Internet To Fight FiOS

jfruh writes "Comcast customers who dream of superfast download speeds drooled when they heard the company would be offering 305 Mbps service. There's only one catch: the high speeds are only available in markets where the cable giant is going head-to-head with Verizon's FiOS service. It seems that competition really does improve service quality when it comes to ISPs."

Comments

Yeah, right...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you can hit your level cap even faster?

Re:Yeah, right...

[magarity]

They are hoping anyone who makes enough to afford the $300/mo isn't sitting at home using it often enough to hit the cap.

Re:Yeah, right...

[bigkahunah]

Write off's only save you whatever you would have paid in taxes on that money. You've still spent the money. It's not like write off's magically pay for themselves. Given the fact that business lines are significantly more expensive and the fact that you can write off a consumer line there's not really a point.

And my car gets 60 MPG going downhill

[sacdelta]

So you get 305 Mbps during the 15 minutes out of the day when they aren't throttling. What is it the rest of the time? Speeds should have to be reported as average access speed not peak potential.

Re:And my car gets 60 MPG going downhill

[Desler]

Not that I like Comcast but how exactly do you expect Comcast to do that when the average speed is highly dependent on the ever changing network utilization? The only thing they can really guarantee is peak rate and the bare minimum.

Re:And my car gets 60 MPG going downhill

[Anonymous Coward]

How do power and water companies do it? They key is to not oversell your product by such a huge margin, but in the BS numbers game that ISPs play, that's simply not an option.

Re:And my car gets 60 MPG going downhill

[Anonymous Coward]

Is is just me, or are we all a little sick of people saying "Because ..." and then adding adding a stupid statement that they don't believe, thinking this actually supports or even proves an unstated position which they're too cool to actually articulate. This is lazy internet hipster sophistry, and it's been done to death, people. At least back in 1999 it was amusing, but it's never been rhetorically useful. If you have a point, state it. If think you actually have a proof by contradiction, then lose the irony and show your work! Jesus Effing Christmas, people...

Re:And my car gets 60 MPG going downhill

[Catbeller]

Or you can spend money on water pipes instead of football stadiums or CEO stock options and pay. There is no "shortage" of power, water, or internet capacity. There is simply an incentive not to build or maintain infrastructure, because when scarcity occurs, you can raise prices. Scare = expensive. Come on Enron was ten years ago, you all still remember. They throttled power and raised prices to make lots and lots and LOTS of money. It was a scam. There was enough power.

And in rare cases, such as a small town in the middle of nowhere, or an area in a drought, there really isn't enough water. Too many people, unsustainable landscape. Those people should move. Canada is full of water. The world's population lives next to free water. Go where the water is. Droughts will increase in severity, and we aren't going to see the end of those.

But internet? The cost of the "pipes" and "water" is tiny, and shrinking constantly. There is no incentive to build past an optimum scarcity/profit intersection. They want to raise prices. And we, being free market fundamentalists, believe their lies. Hell, THEY believe their own lies.

Re:And my car gets 60 MPG going downhill

[Catbeller]

Yes. After a few years, they were as reliable as they are now. They were not operated by financialists trying to game the system by pretending they had to short your water supply because, well, just because gobbledygook yak yak yak. They built the damned pipes and people got enough water. Same with power.

They did what they did because they were regulated monopolies that were required to plough profits back into their infrastructure instead of being free to drain those profits into outside ventures and their managers' pockets. It is a fact, QED, an open in-your-face fact, that regulated monopolies work, and worked well for over a century. What has changed is the worldwide adoption of free market fundamentalism and the idea that markets provide optimum price. They do not, because business people, unlike electrons or game sprites, are aware of the system they play in and cheat like motherfuckers.

One step further

[Sarten-X]

Competition not only improves quality, but it's the only reason this is being deployed at all. Providers' repeated claims that they should be allowed to merge because they'd innovate anyway is now demonstrated yet again to be utter bullshit.

Re:One step further

[Sarten-X]

Nonsense. Comcast will happily point out that there's a handful of dial-up ISPs you can use if you get an acoustic coupler for your AT&T cell phone, so they're not a monopoly at all...

Re:One step further

[Kjella]

As long as they actually compete in the same space, delivering to the same customers. If you just slice up a big monopoly you only get a bunch of mini-monopolies, it really doesn't make much of a difference. My impression is that with exclusivity agreements most people in the US live in some form of mini-monopoly or mini-duopoly even if they're with a small ISP..

Of course

[nine-times]

I don't think anyone doubted that competition between ISPs improves service. The question is more about whether there is *enough* competition, or even whether there could ever be enough.

Right now, in most places, there's a duopoly if you're lucky. Where I live, in NYC, I have no real choice. It's basically Time Warner Cable or dial-up. In order to have a robust market, I'd say you need at least 5 real ISPs going head-to-head, but you would never be able to get 5 different companies to lay down 5 different and independent infrastructures in my neighborhood.

So it makes sense that Comcast isn't even bothering to roll this out except where they're competing with FIOS. So, absent competition, what do we do?

While giving other markets the shaft

[sa666_666]

Of course this is only available where it absolutely needs to be; where they're being hammered from competition. Meanwhile, other markets are left to be price-gouged as long as possible. This only proves that they have the ability to upgrade the network, they just won't until they're dragged kicking and screaming. Of course many businesses have that attitude, but it isn't often so obviously apparent as in this case.

Marginal Returns

[organgtool]

At this point, I feel that internet speed is more than fast enough for most of my purposes. My FIOS subscription was just upgraded from 15 Mbps to 75 Mbps without any additional cost, but I would have preferred to stay at 15 Mbps at a reduced price. Unfortunately, the sales person claims that they only offer speed upgrades for the same price, but there is no option for paying less. For those that want the extra speed, I think it's great that options like this are available (at least in limited markets), but for those who don't need the speed it would be nice to have a more reasonably priced option. It's funny how telecommunications seems to be the one sector where improvements in technology never result in cheaper prices. I guess that's what happens when companies are granted local monopolies.

Re:Fastest to the finish line

[ewieling]

Because people don't want 5 different ISPs with 5 different lines going down their street. Local infrastructure for telecom, cable, water, electricity, gas, etc is a "natural monopoly". I don't care if the government or a private company owns/manages the wires in the ground, but the one company I do NOT want managing the wires in the ground is my ISP. I want a company with no incentive whatsoever to give preferential treatment to one ISP over another.