backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by wempa.. on Apr 29 at 12:47 PM

Cablevision also doubles bandwidth of free Wi-Fi offering

Power internet users almost always seem to crave higher download speeds. The faster things can be downloaded from the internet, the faster the content can be enjoyed by consumers. Internet speeds in the U.S. are commonly much slower than speeds offered in other countries, but some service providers are working to significantly increase the speeds available to consumers in America.

Cablevision has announced that it will be debuting a new super-fast internet access plan for its customers in some areas. The service will offer enough bandwidth to download a full-length HD movie in less than 10 minutes. The service will offer peak download speeds of up to 101 Mbps and upload speeds of up to 15Mbps.

Cablevision told Reuters that the goal of new service was to allow it to better compete with the fast offerings from Verizon's FiOS service. The downside to such a fast internet connection is that the plan is expensive. Reuters reports that the 101 Mbps offering will cost nearly $100 per month. However, that price makes it cheaper than Comcast's 50 Mbps offering that costs $139 per month and fast offerings from other providers.

Reuters reports that Cablevision plans to roll the service out to its customers starting May 11. The new plan will replace the company's current top offering featuring downloads speeds of 15 Mbps for about $50 per month.

Todd Mitchell, an analyst from Kaufman Brothers, told Reuters, "Right now the real demand for 50 to 100 megabits is pretty limited. But over the next two to three years, the number of video applications we all use will grow exponentially so it will become a necessary level of service."

A bigger question in many minds is will consumers be willing or able to pay $100 per month for internet access during one of the worst economic periods in many years. Other analysts say that cable operators are walking a fine line with super-fast internet offerings. Cable companies risk damaging their core video offerings by providing customers with too much bandwidth according to some analysts.

Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett said, "The cable operators are trying to walk a fine line. They don't want to provide so much bandwidth that they foster the means to bypass their core service."

Cablevision also announced that it would be doubling the speed of its wireless Internet connection to 3Mbps using Wi-Fi. The company offers this service for free to consumers in certain locations.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

101?
By TheFace on 4/28/2009 11:20:30 AM , Rating: 2
Cross promotion with disney maybe? Why 101, and not just 100? 100 too little? Why not 110? Bizarre numbers always beg the question.




RE: 101?
By Doormat on 4/28/2009 11:23:53 AM , Rating: 4
I would assume its so they can keep the claim of fastest residential ISP in America. Verizon has been testing 100Mb/s over FIOS and will deploy it this year.


RE: 101?
By threepac3 on 4/28/2009 12:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
Its time for Verizon FIOS to open the flood gates I would say.


RE: 101?
By Oregonian2 on 4/28/2009 4:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
Well, in theory, new FiOS installs using G-PON could certainly provide faster speeds than the link to the computer on the "inside" of things. The full 2.4Gbps of download traffic is sent to every house in the group (32 I think is typical for fios g-pon even though I think it's maximum could be 64). They could bump up the maximum as high as full 2.4Gbps if it weren't for the statistical multiplexing downside (and that the ethernet connection on the user's side couldn't go that fast).

Also minor problem of what the central office would do with all that traffic from an entire area that tried to go that fast simultaneously. :-)

Even the country's backbones might get bent into a pretzel. :-)


RE: 101?
By Oregonian2 on 4/28/2009 4:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. - The "old" B-PON that my FiOS uses has ONT's that connect with just fast-ethernet (100 Mbps), so w/o hardware upgrades, that'd be our max, practically speaking.


RE: 101?
By Hiawa23 on 4/28/2009 2:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
I have Brighthouse cable here in Central Florida & my connection is 7MEGS for $34.95/month, they also offer 15MEGS for $10 more, but I don't understand, why are they not offering more if I keep hearing that 50 or even 100MEGS is possible. Anyone know?


RE: 101?
By murphyslabrat on 4/28/2009 3:35:34 PM , Rating: 2
They are possible, but ISP's cannot offer the same exorbitant level of service to everyone, or else they wouldn't be able to feed it all. Instead of complaints about slow plans, they would have complaints about plans not going as fast as promised. Therefore, they need to balance the two alternatives.

One of the ways they do that is by offering larger plans, but at a huge cost. Unfortunately, not everyone has the infrastructure to support those kinds of plans, or they don't think that there are significant demographic incentives to offer a return on their investment in advertising and equipment.

Though, I think that 15mb plan for $45/month is pretty good. Here in Kenosha, WI, we only have Time Warner, and they charge $45/month for 10Mb/1Mb connections.


RE: 101?
By Bateluer on 4/28/2009 11:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
Its market speak.


RE: 101?
By AmazighQ on 4/28/2009 11:51:25 AM , Rating: 2
the second one stands for: all for 1 and 1 for me!
a credo for the greedy (semi-regulated) US ISP's


RE: 101?
By joex444 on 4/28/2009 3:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
The really funny part is when people try to use their 101MBps connection over 802.11g. Man, they're gonna have some explaining to do when everyone is capped at 54Mbps or less (given that utilization of WiFi is rarely over 50%).

Even better is that 101Mbps > 100BaseT. Even using a traditional wired router should not get you the 101Mbps, since wired rarely peaks above 85-90% utilization, so everyone would be capped ta 85-90Mbps.

Only those with GbE can use this service. And you need a GbE based router to share it. Luckily for those of us who are technologically capable could build a Linux router with a pair of GbE cards (or simply a board with 2 / 4 GbE ports) and get this up and running no problem.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is one reason we don't see much 50Mbps+ service being offered. Yes, corporate greed is an obvious culprit. But the ISP is obviously employing someone intelligent, and they realize theres a lot of customer complaints from offering services beyond the specs of your average user. So, to prevent customer turnover for "bad service" they decide to offer slow enough speeds that nobody will run into problems. Even over WiFi, its a safe bet you won't get 25Mbps service, and if you have anyone using 802.11b...


RE: 101?
By bodar on 4/28/2009 3:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
You raise a very good point, but if someone's willing to pony up $100/month for this service it's a safe bet they're not still running Wireless B. Plus they, could get a Wireless N router with a gigabit switch for under $100 anyway. It's nothing to complain about, really. If I want 3G speed, I'll have to upgrade my cell phone. Them's the breaks. I just hope they tell people this.


RE: 101?
By Oregonian2 on 4/28/2009 4:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think the "regular" 'G' rating of 54 Mbps is a bidirectional spec (27 mbps in each direction). Even with only a couple feet spacing, measurements we've taken in the past max out that or slower (in each direction). Plus if one thinks about company marketing, how would one EXPECT them to specify things? :-)


whatever
By MadMan007 on 4/28/2009 11:07:54 AM , Rating: 3
Screw their 'core service.' Their core service should be providing whatever content the customers want and how they want it.




RE: whatever
By Doormat on 4/28/2009 11:27:00 AM , Rating: 5
It would be better for cable to cannibalize their own cable TV product than to allow telecos come in with fiber to the home and cannibalize it for them.

But I doubt they have the foresight to figure that out.


RE: whatever
By MadMan007 on 4/28/2009 11:58:06 AM , Rating: 3
By content I should really say service, meaning if people want fast connections provide it, more likely people will want unlimited bandwidth rather than extreme speed.


Bigger question is
By vapore0n on 4/28/2009 11:11:51 AM , Rating: 2
Will there be download caps?




RE: Bigger question is
By Doormat on 4/28/2009 11:21:47 AM , Rating: 5
From what I've read elsewhere, no transfer cap.

This is what bothers me, someone should call the head of Cablevision and the head of TWC and Comcast in front of a congressional hearing. If Calbevision can do it, what is keeping those incompetent twits at TWC and Comcast from doing the same thing? Its not like Cablevision has magic coax and magic fiber that allows their transfer speeds to be greater than everyone elses. Its the same commodity hardware from Cisco or Motorola.


RE: Bigger question is
By rcc on 4/29/2009 11:28:34 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting perspective... skewed as heck, but interesting.

Are you under some misapprehension that an ISP is required by law to provide the fastest service technology will allow? If so, I assure you, you are wrong. As with all these services, when the companies think it will make money or give them a marketing edge they will implement it.

In short, your want does not confer obligation on anyone's part to meet it.

However, I'd be the first to stand up and cheer if I had a 100Mbps connection. : )


RE: Bigger question is
By aharris on 4/28/09, Rating: 0
cheap internet
By interface2008 on 4/28/2009 3:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
I would gladly pay $100 for 100mbit internet!!! Here in South Africa we pay about $70 for 4mbit with 3gb cap.




RE: cheap internet
By Samus on 4/28/2009 4:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
3gb cap? seriously? you couldn't even download the new windows 7 build :(


RE: cheap internet
By icanhascpu on 4/29/2009 1:51:30 AM , Rating: 3
Wow that sucks. Except Id love to have that.

I have 24kbps up and down with a monthly cap of 7GB (becuse thats as much as I could ever possibly download if my net was on fulltime 24/7 full speed ahead)

22$


They Need Competition
By Exedore on 4/28/2009 11:11:38 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
They don't want to provide so much bandwidth that they foster the means to bypass their core service.


That is the problem right there. We should have competition for Internet service in all areas, preferably from a company that doesn't have this conflict of interest in the services that it offers. A pure Internet provider would be nice.




Go Cablevision
By Maxfli81 on 4/29/2009 2:02:06 AM , Rating: 2
Stuff like this is why Cablevision Optimum Online is rated number 1 in performance and customer satisfaction consistently year after year.




If I were a...
By horadrum on 4/29/2009 8:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure if I were a Time Warner exec, I'd have a problem with someone undercutting my prices and offering incredible boosts in speeds. Even on a small scale, this has the potential to expand to other cities across the nation. Then I'd be forced to cut deeply into my profits in order to keep customers from leaving a sinking ship. Stop the kitchen fire now, prevent a forest fire later.

However, I'm not an Time Warner exec, so this is crap. So I can't wait till there's a Greenlight in Albany NY. Basic digital TV and basic Roadrunner cable cost me $115/mo and my apartment complex doesn't allow Verizon or other services even if I wanted them.




...
By Motoman on 4/29/2009 12:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
...we keep hearing about the awesome internet service provided in other countries around the world for low amounts of money.

I'll feel sorry for our ISPs when they illustrate for us why here in the USA we are incapable of doing what everyone else is capable of doing.




just a hunch...
By inperfectdarkness on 4/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: just a hunch...
By wempa on 4/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: just a hunch...
By afkrotch on 4/28/2009 2:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm thinking majority of users would be fine with 3-5 Mbps for $20 a month. There's always others that want to have a much higher bandwith and as such, they should have higher speeds, but at a higher cost.

I'd prefer something like $10 a month for every 5 Mbps you want.

5 mbps = $10
10 mbps = $20
15 mbps = $30

So on and so forth.


RE: just a hunch...
By mfed3 on 4/28/2009 5:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
you guys are just deprived and have no idea what a good cable company is like.

i have cablevision in morris county nj and had to deal with comcast for 4 years when i went to college. cablevision completely blows comcast out of the water by leaps and bounds.

i went to villanova university near philly, and had to deal with their terrible capped speeds of 6mbps / 512kbps.

cablevision offers a MINIMUM of 15mbps / 2mbps for $30 a month and 30 mbps / 5 mbps for $9.99 more per month.

I gladly pay cablevision for my 30mbps connection and use a cisco router with the connection to get the full bandwidth that i pay for.

once you experience that type of speed and service you will never say that your shitty little 6mbps comcast that CAPS BIT TORRENT AND OTHER PORTS SUCH AS 80 / 25 is good enough.

by the way, your attempt to compare comcast to microsoft and tell them to be more like nintendo?????? proves that you are a complete idiot.


RE: just a hunch...
By Alexstarfire on 4/28/2009 7:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
That might be great for you, but you are obviously a very small part of this country. Comcast and TWC own the vast majority of the ISP market in the US. While comparing them to Sony and Microsoft isn't very accurate, it does not make them idiots. Sony, Microsoft, and Apple (not that Apple has a large market share though) overcharge (if you really care just substitute expensive in place of overcharge) for their products and/or have little innovation in them. I'm guessing he's talking more along the OS line for Microsoft as well.

Anyway, his point is that they don't try to compete in price while Nintendo does. He's also comparing "innovation" to "consumer friendly" which is not very accurate either, but I understood what he meant. In reality there isn't much innovation to be had in the ISP market. They could be far more consumer friendly and give us what we want though or at least specify that it's not possible. All we want is unlimited bandwidth for a cheap price. Speed does matter, but I don't think anyone is arguing that is has to be like 50+ Mbps for $20 a month. That'd be great if we could get it that cheap, but I don't think it's very realistic.

I can't believe he got rated down for his rather nonchalant post while your obvious rant stays neutral. Guess it hasn't been long enough yet.


RE: just a hunch...
By inperfectdarkness on 4/28/2009 8:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
i'm glad someone else gets it. that's pretty much the nail on the head (guess my allusions leave something to be desired).

while there are places where you can get inexpensive high-speed access in the USA--the majority of the USA is expected to pay something like $30/month for 1.5Mbps or $50 for 5Mbps. these are also subject to caps.

TWC & comcast could both stand to 1/2 their price points & eliminate caps. even if neither one offered 100Mbps options--these two actions alone would springboard them to much, much larger market-shares, as well entice many more new customers to their services.

my point was simply that TWC & comcast are too focused on their existing user-base, rather than trying to tap into new consumer-bases. were they to adopt less astronomical pricing--they would surely add significant numbers from dial-up, dsl, and others (even non-existing ISP users).


RE: just a hunch...
By winterspan on 4/29/2009 12:44:25 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, Im actually surprised by some of the recent moves of cable cos like this 100mbps deal uncapped and even Comcast's regular caps being a healthy 250GB. Comparatively, Time Warner is a compete rip-off and their 40GB cap limit they were trialing in ludicrous.

Like you bring up, the primary problem here is the lack of competition. the regional bells are dying and DSL can't keep up, and other solutions available in some areas like satellite, fixed wireless, mobile broadband, etc are slow, expensive, and limited.

And since most places in the USA have only ONE regional cable company, you end up with a one-company monopoly for broadband. And you can see how bad these companies milk their customer base by looking at the few regions where a real competitor like Verizon's FIOS Fiber optic service is available. You'll generally see marketed speeds at 2-5X faster and 15-30% cheaper than in regions where FIOS isn't available.

All of this was caused by poor government regulation that catered to big telecom companies and essentially BLOCKED competition in the space. At this point in time, I think we need a national fiber-optic broadband infrastructure that is built by taxpayer money and then leased out the multiple broadband providers that all compete for our service. I believe thats the only way we'll see healthy competition among multiple providers of cheap, highly-available next-generation broadband.


RE: just a hunch...
By wempa on 4/29/2009 12:46:09 PM , Rating: 2
The area I live in just got FIOS and I'm seriously considering it. There are too many trees in my area for DirectTV or Dish. The only reason I haven't already done it is because Comcast "behaves" better in this area because of the competition. The leasing of government owned fiber optic lines is a great idea. It would force competition and the quality of service would definitely go up.


RE: just a hunch...
By wempa on 4/29/2009 12:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
You might want to know all the facts before posting and looking like an idiot. I used to live in central NJ and had Cablevision/Optimum for several years. I agree that they were excellent. However, I've had Comcast for a few years now (first in south NJ and now in PA). I haven't had any issues with them, except for having to resolve an issue where they thought I didn't return some cable boxes. Sure, the 250GB cap is worse than unlimited, but I think it's a pretty generous limit. Also, people have different experiences in different areas. I have friends in certain areas of NJ who have nothing but complaints about Optimum Online.


RE: just a hunch...
By inperfectdarkness on 4/28/2009 6:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
not exactly sure how this got down-rated. i'd appreciate some specific counterpoints to my arguments; because i feel i've spoken rather accurately.


RE: just a hunch...
By MrSmurf on 4/28/2009 7:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
It might be because you called them idiots... just a guess though!


RE: just a hunch...
By Alexstarfire on 4/28/2009 7:34:34 PM , Rating: 2
IDK, but I was wondering why he got downrated too. I didn't see anything that was worth being downrated for. Same goes for the other guy.


RE: just a hunch...
By shin0bi272 on 4/29/2009 12:27:43 AM , Rating: 2
you posted on an article that says theres a company offering 100mb download rate with no caps, that you think most americans want 10mb download and no cap. If I could have rated you down any further I would have. If you want to post comments like that you should post them on the TWC is capping bandwidth articles. I for one dont download a ton but I always want faster internet speeds even if I dont use 100% of my bandwidth it would be nice to know I have the extra speed. Sort of like driving a car that can go 180mph and only driving it 75mph. You know you can go faster if you want or need to but you dont need to all the time... and for that ability I am willing to pay extra. In the car example you would of course not have speed limits (ala broadband caps) but you would be paying more for the car than a standard sedan that tops out at 100 or so.

Your post was to argue for slower internet and thus saying that you think most people in america would rather be driving geo metros with 3 cylinder engines at a top speed of 85mph and have no choice of speed over that though they have no speed limit. When if youve driven on any major highway you know americans want choice and no limits. Ye olde "dont fence me in" attitude.

Plus I downloaded a couple of game demos and uploaded some music (32kb, 24hrs a day for 30 days) and I transferred 105gb in a month... almost triple TWC's proposed cap and it took a month to transfer that much data over their slow ass 10mb "turbo" connection.

Lastly its the logical progression for things to get smaller and faster and you are saying no we need to say bigger and slower. I'll bet you voted for obama too didnt you?


RE: just a hunch...
By Alexstarfire on 4/29/2009 5:46:35 AM , Rating: 2
No, that was not his post at all. You totally don't understand what he wrote. He was saying that even if this 101 Mbps service wasn't available everywhere, or even possible everywhere, that we would rather have 10 Mbps connections with no caps that to have these crappy 6-15 Mbps connections with 40-250 GB caps.

While your analogy makes some sense, you can't just take out speed limits to make your analogy true. We have speed limits so that people dont' crash as much and that when they do they have a much higher chance of survival. Broadband caps are in place because the people in charge got lazy and pumped more money into ads than they did into upgrading the infrastructure to keep it up-to-date.


RE: just a hunch...
By inperfectdarkness on 4/29/2009 6:27:06 AM , Rating: 2
totally misread everything & jumped to your own conclusion.

i'm not arguing against 100Mbps offerings--i'm arguing that to reduce the cost to consumers & raise the # of consumers...cable companies need to offer cheaper non-capped offerings at lower tiers.

your argument is like saying that ati/nvidia should only fund their infrastructure via $500 graphics cards.

do you really expect anyone to actually believe that?


RE: just a hunch...
By wempa on 4/29/2009 12:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
My initial response got down-rated, too. I'm a bit puzzled by that one.


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki