how-to block ads
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
 IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
2 edits | Comcast vs. Cablevision caps said by thewilmerx:Comcast CTO Tony Werner tells the Times. "Just because someone consumes more data doesn’t mean they drive more cost." I'd like Mr. Werner to answer why the "Extreme 50" Comcast Docsis 3.0 tier (50 Mbps up/10 Mbps down) is capped at 250 GB total usage and costs $139.95/month while Cablevision fastest Docsis 3.0 tier will be uncapped at speeds of 101 Mbps up/15 Mbps down for $99.95/month.
»Cablevision: 101Mbps For $99.95
Is Comcast's Docsis 3.0 architecture different than Cablevision's? How is Cablevision able to offer this kind of speed uncapped while Comcast cannot do the same?
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
|  netcoolPremium
join:2008-11-05
Englewood, CO
kudos:11
2 edits | Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps said by IPPlanMan:Is Comcast's Docsis 3.0 architecture different than Cablevision's? How is Cablevision able to offer this kind of speed uncapped while Comcast cannot do the same? I believe Cablevision has smaller node sizes which allow them to offer higher speed tiers without as much risk to overloading the available upstream/downstream channels. I think they are the only MSO to offer an uncapped connection (30 mb down or so) on DOCSIS 2.0 CMTS. | |
| | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps said by netcool:I believe Cablevision has smaller node sizes which allow them to offer higher speed tiers without as much risk to overloading the available upstream/downstream channels. I think they are the only MSO to offer an uncapped connection (30 mb down or so) on DOCSIS 2.0 CMTS. How did this happen? Isn't Comcast the one with all the money and size (read: economies of scale)?
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
| | | netcoolPremium
join:2008-11-05
Englewood, CO
kudos:11
2 edits | Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps said by IPPlanMan:How did this happen? Isn't Comcast the one with all the money and size (read: economies of scale)? CV has a much smaller footprint and has far fewer fiber nodes to worry about. I don't think economies of scale really applies here since you can't go out and just "buy" more nodes. And simply doing more of them does not drag down the costs. I suppose you could get a discount on fiber... | |
| | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| said by IPPlanMan:How did this happen? Isn't Comcast the one with all the money and size (read: economies of scale)? Look at Cablevision's service area:
Small geographical spread, high population density. | |
| | | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps Are you saying that it's easier for Cablevision to upgrade its network because of the smaller service area?
Take Comcast: They upgrade a specific market (i.e. San Francisco Bay Area) to Docsis 3.0 and there's still a 250 GB cap. As you can see, no change from what exists now in pre-3.0 markets.
Why isn't there a cap for Cablevision's service area, irrespective of its size?
If anything, Comcast should more easily be able to upgrade specific markets because of its buying power due to its size. I'd figure that the market-specific costs for Cablevision to do the same thing would be higher overall.
Lastly, Comcast does its caps on a "national scale", meaning that every specific market has a cap- the same cap... Cablevision has no caps in the specific markets that it serves... Footprint has nothing to do with it.
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
| | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps said by IPPlanMan:Are you saying that it's easier for Cablevision to upgrade its network because of the smaller service area? Yep, that's what I'm saying.
said by IPPlanMan:Take Comcast: They upgrade a specific market (i.e. San Francisco Bay Area) to Docsis 3.0 and there's still a 250 GB cap. As you can see, no change from what exists now in pre-3.0 markets. The 250GB cap only comes in place as a number to give out when being contacted by abuse. They contact the top 1,000 users out of 15 million every month for "abuse", and they need to give a number for what constitutes "too much".
said by IPPlanMan:Why isn't there a cap for Cablevision's service area, irrespective of its size? Cablevision has instituted several bandwidth management solutions over the years, which generally involve rate limiting heavy network users.
»Capping Discussion Here Only
»Capping Discussion Here Only - Part 2
»Capping Discussion Here Only - Part 3
»Capping Discussion Here Only - Part 4
»Capping Discussion Here Only - Part 5
»Capping Discussion Here Only - Part 6
»Capping Discussion Here Only - Part 7
Every DOCSIS environment is shared and oversubscribed; that's why you can get a multi-mbps connection at home for less than $100. As long as you're not impacting other people, technically there is nothing wrong with individual subscribers using as much as they want.
The problem is people have no way to discern when they are affecting others.
said by IPPlanMan:If anything, Comcast should more easily be able to upgrade specific markets because of its buying power due to its size. I'd figure that the market-specific costs for Cablevision to do the same thing would be higher overall. In some cases Comcast's size works against them, largely because they have grown considerably through acquisition. With a smaller homogeneous design like that of Cablevision's network it is easier to implement upgrades because the network all has a common set of design standards and build practices.
Take a network like Comcast's where they inherent whatever design practices and vendor choices the company they takeover made, in some cases it might be necessary to do a significant amount of rework just to meet base standards before upgrades can be made.
said by IPPlanMan:Lastly, Comcast does its caps on a "national scale", meaning that every specific market has a cap- the same cap... Cablevision has no caps in the specific markets that it serves... Footprint has nothing to do with it. Implementing caps per market would be a waste of effort. 250GB is more than 99+% of their subscriber base uses, which gives them a point of reference when dealing with heavy users on the network that have unrealistic expectations of what can be done on shared infrastructure.
That said, the need for abuse intervention should be diminishing with the rollout of the new traffic management system that addresses the real problem of point-in-time saturation and prioritization. They should also be able to use the data from the traffic management system to determine which users are having their priority dropped most frequently, which would be a better indication of impact on the network than a flat monthly GB utilization number. | |
| | | | | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps That post was completely great, from top top to bottom, I just wanted to repost your last paragraph...
said by espaeth:That said, the need for abuse intervention should be diminishing with the rollout of the new traffic management system that addresses the real problem of point-in-time saturation and prioritization. They should also be able to use the data from the traffic management system to determine which users are having their priority dropped most frequently, which would be a better indication of impact on the network than a flat monthly GB utilization number. ... and underline it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
| | | | | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
2 edits | While you made some interesting points in your post, you didn't address my argument that specific market for specific market, nothing's changed in Comcast's newest Docsis 3.0 markets. Comcast's fastest Docsis 3.0 service is 50/10/139.95 per month and the 250 GB "Cap" is still in effect, while Cablevision's Docsis 3.0 service is faster, uncapped, and cheaper. (101/15/99.95 per month)
When it comes down to a specific upgraded Docsis 3.0 market, I'm not sure why Comcast's size has something to do with it.... I'm also not sure why a homogeneous design or common build practice has something to do with it either.
The design standard and build practice in this case is a specific market that's been upgraded to Docsis 3.0. Cablevision has upgraded it's specific NY-area markets to have uncapped 101/15 service.... and compare that to a Specific Comcast market like the San Francisco Bay Area that's been upgraded to Docsis 3.0 where there's a cap, the service costs more, and it's half the speed.
Are you suggesting that Comcast's 250 GB cap will remain in effect until the entire system is upgraded to Docsis 3.0?
Lastly, do Cablevision's internet users have unrealistic expectations of what can be done on shared infrastructure, or is it just Comcast's users?
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
| | | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps said by IPPlanMan:While you made some interesting points in your post, you didn't address my argument that specific market for specific market, nothing's changed in Comcast's newest Docsis 3.0 markets. I think you are implying the cap has a relation to the infrastructure capacity, which I don't believe it does. I earnestly believe they picked a large value that 99% of people wouldn't hit so that most folks wouldn't worry about it, yet it still provides a published number to prevent the Florida legal snafu from occurring again.
said by IPPlanMan:Comcast's fastest Docsis 3.0 service is 50/10/139.95 per month and the 250 GB "Cap" is still in effect, while Cablevision's Docsis 3.0 service is faster, uncapped, and cheaper. (101/15/99.95 per month) Different company, different overhead, different infrastructure, different service markets.
That said:
•It's difficult to hit speeds over 20-30mbps with Internet latency. I documented all the tweaks I had to make on 50mbps cable service here: »Adjusting TCP stack for 50mbps - CentOS Linux
Most of the tuning is server-side changes, and it's a pretty safe bet most servers on the Internet won't be configured for optimal network performance because the tweaks deviate from default TCP stack configs.
• 101mbps out of 152mbps shared (38mbps x 4) means that only 1 person has the potential to hit 101mbps at a time. It is physically impossible for 2 people to simultaneously drive a 101mbps connection to full line rate on a shared 152mbps DOCSIS 3.0 downstream channel group.
said by IPPlanMan:When it comes down to a specific upgraded Docsis 3.0 market, I'm not sure why Comcast's size has something to do with it.... I'm also not sure why a homogeneous design or common build practice has something to do with it either. You said:
said by IPPlanMan:How did this happen? Isn't Comcast the one with all the money and size (read: economies of scale)? In order to have economies of scale you need to have commonality in implementation. If Comcast were using only CMTS hardware from Vendor C, then economies of scale would apply because they would be purchasing larger quantities hardware from a single vendor and hence be able to arrange a better discount. With a fragmented infrastructure, they have to buy hardware from CMTS Vendors A, B, and C -- meaning their buy quantities are never large enough from any single vendor to gain a huge price advantage.
The separate plant designs also means that configurations and implementation plans must be made unique to each market deployed. Instead of having one blueprint for frequency mapping on the RF plant, maintaining different maps from each market increases complexity which cancels most benefits of any type of consolidated engineering.
said by IPPlanMan:Are you suggesting that Comcast's 250 GB cap will remain in effect until the entire system is upgraded to Docsis 3.0? I suspect Comcast will keep a published cap to allow them to legally deal with heavy users on the network, but I believe it will be enforced to the same degree as Cox' HSI caps.
said by IPPlanMan:Lastly, do Cablevision's internet users have unrealistic expectations of what can be done on shared infrastructure, or is it just Comcast's users? I think it's a fractional percentage of all broadband customers that have unrealistic expectations. Capacity isn't unlimited, and the vast majority of subscribers all use their connection most in the 3pm - 11pm timeframe every day. During that 8-hour time frame, each 27mbps upstream channel (shared between 125 people on average on Comcast's network) can upload a combined total of no more than 97.2GB, and each 38mbps downstream channel (shared between 250 people on Comcast's network) can deliver no more than 136.8GB. If that were divided equally among the subscribers, that would mean each individual subscriber would get less than 1GB/day uploads and less than 1GB/day downloads during peak time.
The reality is that each subscriber connection is shared (not dedicated), and the infrastructure isn't really unlimited. | |
| | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps said by espaeth:I think it's a fractional percentage of all broadband customers that have unrealistic expectations I think it is a small percentage of customers that are aware of what they have purchased vs. what they can use. As in any market, a small percentage of customers are educated and most are technologically illiterate.
How many customers that purchase a car actually have any idea of how to measure their acceleration, horse power of the engine they have purchased and even mileage ?
That mentality is what has driven companies to stretch the numbers published with impunity and then turn around and call as "unrealistic expectations" when customers actually expect to use what they have paid for.
Your example of peak usage does not to anything to address the situation of those customers that schedule their downloads at night to minimize the impact and still get threatening calls and get booted of the network. the CC roaming averages do not distinguish between peak usage and average usage on the network.
The line I have purchased could deliver 1800 GB/month. Being able to use only 250 GB represents only 13.8% of that. Is it an unrealistic expectation to use it only 13.8% or better ? On whose side ?
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
| | | | | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
1 edit | Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps said by sturmvogel:said by espaeth:I think it's a fractional percentage of all broadband customers that have unrealistic expectations I think it is a small percentage of customers that are aware of what they have purchased vs. what they can use. As in any market, a small percentage of customers are educated and most are technologically illiterate. I think the marketing tries hard to keep the consumer in the dark. -- even deceived. For example, the "fiber" messages.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps How about the Powerboost ads ? I still would like to see that guy run over by the jet powered car. | |
| | | | | | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| said by funchords:I think the marketing tries hard to keep the consumer in the dark. -- even deceived. For example, the "fiber" messages. I don't disagree with that statement -- broadband providers have definitely pushed the boundaries of advertising "unlimited" service.
The problem is that nearly every player in the broadband space is doing this. In this thread alone we're already talking about how OOL's ridiculous overprovisioning is "better" than Comcast's because it's a bigger number, regardless of how realistic it is you will actually see that rate. Just head over to the OOL forum and search on "boost slow" and "oversold node" and you'll see people have had intermittent issues obtaining 30/5 speeds -- I have my doubts it's going to get better with their Ultra service. | |
|
| | | | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| said by sturmvogel:I think it is a small percentage of customers that are aware of what they have purchased vs. what they can use. As in any market, a small percentage of customers are educated and most are technologically illiterate. I'm not sure there is a 1:1 correlation between utilization and technical literacy. A vast many of the folks posting in this forum seems rather tech savvy, and their usage is often well below the 250GB cap.
said by sturmvogel:That mentality is what has driven companies to stretch the numbers published with impunity and then turn around and call as "unrealistic expectations" when customers actually expect to use what they have paid for. The line I have purchased could deliver 1800 GB/month. Being able to use only 250 GB represents only 13.8% of that. Is it an unrealistic expectation to use it only 13.8% or better ? On whose side ? Therein lies the discrepancy -- many of the "advanced" users who are driving the bandwidth demand have no realistic basis for what they are paying for.
If you were to go and get dedicated 6mbps service, you'd spend well over $1000/mo to get 4 x T1 Inverse Mux ATM with Internet service tied to it, but the upside is you could drive the connection at 100% both directions 24x7 and nobody would say anything about. That's the difference of dedicated bandwidth.
DOCSIS networks have gone through several iterations, starting out with as many as 2000 modems per downstream channel in the beginning, to now averaging 250 modems per downstream channel. Still, even if every modem was subscribed to 6 mbps service on the channel, that's still nearly 40:1 oversubscription. (1500mbps subbed into 38mpbs channel, ignoring overhead) It's that oversubscription which allows the pricing to be the $42.95 the average subscriber pays today.
The service can only be unlimited if nobody actually uses it as if it were a truly unlimited connection. While that seems like critical fault in logic, somehow it works out for 99+% of the customer base.
said by sturmvogel:Your example of peak usage does not to anything to address the situation of those customers that schedule their downloads at night to minimize the impact and still get threatening calls and get booted of the network. the CC roaming averages do not distinguish between peak usage and average usage on the network. Agreed, which is why straight monthly GB numbers are a poor indicator of impact to the network. The problem is that a network operator needs some method to indicate to a subscriber a metric on which to base their utilization.
Based on the reports here, the first question people ask when being contacted by abuse is "ok, how much can I use?" I'm sure they'd love to respond with "well, we'd like you to keep your 95th percentile utilization below 1mbps," but measured percentile utilization is a foreign concept to pretty much everyone outside of network operations/engineering departments. I have friends who operate Internet hosting facilities that still have to explain the concept to most of their new customers when they get their first bill.
The monthly GB numbers are a compromise to get to a value that is universally understood, at the expense of not taking into account heavy users who move their transfers off hours. | |
| | | | | | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps said by espaeth:That mentality is what has driven companies to stretch the numbers published with impunity and then turn around and call as "unrealistic expectations" when customers actually expect to use what they have paid for. Oh, it's the customer's fault for believing the bullcrap.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
| | | | | | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps said by funchords:Oh, it's the customer's fault for believing the bullcrap. For as long as people have been selling things, there have been people stretching the truth, if not completely deceiving consumers. That's why phrases like "Caveat Emptor" are still as valid today as they always were. The information is out there for consumers to research the claims made by network operators, and some responsibility still falls on the consumer to know what it is they are buying.
I'm not saying this is desired or right; it's just simply the way the world works. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps said by espaeth:I'm not saying this is desired or right; it's just simply the way the world works. Yeah, maybe that is what Phillip Morris thought about those pesky warnings on cigarette packaging. Good that other people thought otherwise.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
1 edit | Locked Subtopic - stop here, please ~sorto' said by funchords:Oh, it's the customer's fault for believing the bullcrap. Hehehe, good one !
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps said by EG:"Hehehe, Good one" = Your opinion. *HehHehHeh, not such a good one* = My opinion.   No offense intended to Robb !  Yeah, I forgot, for some CC advertisements are maybe Gospel level. Pastafarians have a competing religion
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | espaeth,
The cost of a T line has little to do with bandwidth cost and more to do with market costs and SLA's. In fact few businesses even use them anymore except in areas that are outside of typical metro areas. We have a 15mbit symmetrical for around 800 a month that comes over copper, and we were offered a 20/20 over fiber for about 2K a month. These are with SLA's. I guess what i'm saying is that I dont think throwing around costs for T1/T3's and using them as a baseline for true bandwith costs are applicable anymore.
At the 40:1 6mbit model we could resell our connection at breakeven for about 10 dollars a month (assuming my math is correct). I cant imagine that comcasts bandwith costs are anywhere near as expensive as ours. | |
| | | | | | | | | |  koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:19 | Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps said by delusion ftl :
... In fact few businesses even use them anymore except in areas that are outside of typical metro areas. ... What? DS1 and DS3s are still heavily used all over the country. At my workplace we've around 50 DS3s, with the underlying T1s channelised. What're they used for? Voice (but that doesn't really matter does it, given you can use data or voice over a channelised T1). These come directly from the two big telco carriers in the US.
AFAIK, this is still how most of the telco industry works, so I'm not quite sure why you'd think that businesses don't use T1/T3s any more.
I'm not even going to touch the "well it's all about SLAs" argument, because I've enough personal experience with all sorts of ISPs and transports to indicate that an SLA generally means jack squat unless the company providing the service actually adheres to it. It's pretty incredible how some companies will weasel their way out of adherence to their own SLAs (it happens quite often). And the bigger the company, the more difficult it is to get them to own up to the responsibility.
As espaeth  said: I'm not saying this is desired or right; it's just simply the way the world works.  | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps said by koitsu:said by delusion ftl :
... In fact few businesses even use them anymore except in areas that are outside of typical metro areas. ... What? DS1 and DS3s are still heavily used all over the country. At my workplace we've around 50 DS3s, with the underlying T1s channelised. What're they used for? Voice (but that doesn't really matter does it, given you can use data or voice over a channelised T1). These come directly from the two big telco carriers in the US. AFAIK, this is still how most of the telco industry works, so I'm not quite sure why you'd think that businesses don't use T1/T3s any more. It's not that businesses dont use them anymore, it's that there are so many newer better options in most metro markets that unless you're stuck in your ways and happy overpaying you can usually get cheaper faster connections.
Since we were offered 20/20 with SLA for about 2K, do you pay more than 4K-5K a month for your DS3's? If so then you may want to consider looking at alternatives. I do understand that if you are doing a lot of voice channels that DS3's from the telco are probably the way to go, but more and more companies are using enterprise class voip as well. All i'm saying is that there is a trend, cheap plentiful bandwidth is all over the place even with SLA's (and i agree SLA's are only marginally useful). And as such any entity that keeps saying they are running out of bandwidth is suspicious. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| said by delusion ftl :
The cost of a T line has little to do with bandwidth cost and more to do with market costs and SLA's. In fact few businesses even use them anymore except in areas that are outside of typical metro areas. We have a 15mbit symmetrical for around 800 a month that comes over copper, and we were offered a 20/20 over fiber for about 2K a month. Even with those numbers, you're looking at between $50-$100 per megabit. Yes, there are a variety of access methods -- however the options you cited are not necessarily available everywhere.
The underlying point I was getting at is that bandwidth on a small scale really isn't as cheap as the front page articles here would lead you to believe. There is a vast difference in cost between a single GigE interface, and 100 * 10mbps interfaces. Even though they technically provide the same bandwidth, the hardware and management of 100 interfaces is more expensive.
said by delusion ftl :
At the 40:1 6mbit model we could resell our connection at breakeven for about 10 dollars a month (assuming my math is correct). I cant imagine that comcasts bandwith costs are anywhere near as expensive as ours. Sure, but in order to resell it you'd need to have circuits to your subscribers' homes which would add cost, you'd have to manage IP address allocations, invoice the customers for the service, provide support for the connections, pay for network engineering time to maintain the infrastructure, etc.
There is a ton of overhead in providing ISP services even when you factor in just the human capital costs of all the network engineers, computer services admins (to manage DNS/DHCP, email, portal, web hosting, etc), call center support reps, data-specific field techs, etc.
Don't get me wrong, they make a profit on the service, but it's not the ridiculous 1000% - 1500% margins that get bandied about on the front page of this site. | |
|
| | said by IPPlanMan:said by thewilmerx:Comcast CTO Tony Werner tells the Times. "Just because someone consumes more data doesn’t mean they drive more cost." I'd like Mr. Werner to answer why the "Extreme 50" Comcast Docsis 3.0 tier (50 Mbps up/10 Mbps down) is capped at 250 GB total usage and costs $139.95/month while Cablevision fastest Docsis 3.0 tier will be uncapped at speeds of 101 Mbps up/15 Mbps down for $99.95/month. » Cablevision: 101Mbps For $99.95Is Comcast's Docsis 3.0 architecture different than Cablevision's? How is Cablevision able to offer this kind of speed uncapped while Comcast cannot do the same? Greed as far as CC is concerned and protecting their video services (in my opinion).
Cablevision has to compete heavily with FiOS, also, CC has a huge captive market (no choices, not even DSL).
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
| | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps I agree with the "Video Services" protection.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when FiOs arrives in Washington D.C.
Verizon's building it right now....
May 1st has come and gone... Still no Bandwidth Meter | |
| | | | | Re: Comcast vs. Cablevision caps said by IPPlanMan:May 1st has come and gone... Still no Bandwidth Meter "Coming Real Soon Now (tm)".
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
| |
|
