Slashdot Mirror
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."
So you can hit your level cap even faster?
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.
Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.
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.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
i'm at 10-15 now and going down to 5 once i cancel cable and go a la carte cable internet. 3-5 megabits is enough to stream netflix and amazon.
a lot cheaper to let steam update at night than to pay for super fast internet too
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?
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.
Amazing what a little competition can do. It was never about them being unable to bring people these speeds, or it being cost prohibitive...they just don't want to spend the fucking money until they're losing more customers than they're signing up in a given quarter. I've had techs from my ISP, Charter Communications, basically tell me that my local node is way oversaturated due to this being a very densely populated area, and that the main hardware is complete crap, but that corporate isn't going to upgrade until the amount they're spending on service calls exceeds the cost of upgrading the node. You know it's fucked up when the company's own fucking techs are exasperated enough to start telling customers shit like that...
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.
Viola competition.
If there's one thing this country needs to put ISPs in check, it's more viola competitions. You could probably clog the tubes with all of that music. That'll show 'em.
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.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
What legal purpose would 300 Mbps to the household serve for most people? I am a FIOS customer, but I have it provisioned at the minimum bandwidth for cost reasons. Nevertheless, I can work from home, my wife and kid can do Netflix (two different tvs) all at the same time, and I can torrent the latest version of CentOS in less time than it takes to hunt up a disc to burn it to. These monstrous bandwidths are, for an overwhelming percentage of the population (or even an overwhelming percentage of geeks) only for bragging rights. Not to actually use. It's just a faster way to slam up against Comcast throttling.
I was a charter customer of FIOS. What it buys me is (1) investing in a higher tech medium which I still believe is the wave of the future (fiber to the home) and (2) (this is important) I don't have to deal with Comcast customer support.
And... I have to add (3) it's fun to watch the Comcast monthly door-to-door salesperson go all wonky when we tell them we're sticking with FIOS. Although, I haven't seen him since I reported him for yelling at my wife the last time.
Ahh, Comcast. If any company deserved to by purchased and dismantled, it would be you.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.