Print 61 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Apr 9 at 9:49 PM

The Twin Cities are the lucky guinea pigs for Comcast's new high-speed internet

Verizon's FiOS fiber broadband connection is currently the only option for United States Internet surfers to wander about the world wide web while downloading content at up to 50 Mbps and uploading data at up to 20 Mbps. However, Verizon's FiOS service is limited to a few areas at this time, even though roll-out is being performed slowly but surely.

Recently, Comcast also announced plans to increase the maximum bandwidth of its broadband service to 50 Mbps download and 5 Mbps upload bandwidth to compete with Verizon.

Currently, Comcast is running its broadband service aalong the DOCSIS 2.0 protocol, or the second generation of the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specifications. This protocol tops out with a maximum downstream bandwidth of 42.88 Mbps while the maximum upstream bandwidth tops out at 30.72 Mbps.

For Comcast to increase its bandwidth, it will have to begin using DOCSIS 3.0 compliant hardware. The initial DOCSIS 3.0 specs will utilize four channels over cable; which allows the compatible hardware to serve twice the amount of data per second than DOCSIS 2.0's dual channel design.

Through the 4-channel design, DOCSIS 3.0 compliant hardware will allow a maximum of 170 Mbps and 123 Mbps downstream and upstream bandwidth respectively. To achieve this higher bandwidth, Comcast must upgrade its back-end infrastructure to to hardware complaint with DOCSIS 3.0 and must also provide upgrades to customers' leased modems or offer new hardware that is capable of supporting DOCSIS 3.0.

The high-bandwidth options from Comcast are in trial in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota but Comcast states it will begin mass rollout once the design has been finalized and ready for use over its nationwide infrastructure, which Comcast's president of marketing and product development states may be by 2010.

Meanwhile, Verizon has brought its fiber-based broadband connection to a number of markets in the U.S. If Comcast goes through with these speed increases, we may hopefully see some long-awaited price wars in the broadband industry.

Pricing for the 50/20 Mbps download/upload package is stated around $150 and is only planned for the residential market. Business owners may have the option for a higher-bandwidth package in the future, however, no pricing information has been made available at this time.

Comments     Threshold

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

By isorfir on 4/3/2008 4:39:13 PM , Rating: 4
With speeds like those, I could have read this article at least twice as fast as I just did.

RE: Nice
By stburke on 4/3/2008 4:41:59 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, it doesn't help with your reading speed

RE: Nice
By KristopherKubicki on 4/3/2008 8:47:41 PM , Rating: 3
You've apparently never seen the Comcastic commercials before... :)

RE: Nice
By SLEEPER5555 on 4/4/2008 3:31:04 AM , Rating: 2
yea the ones where they say

"it's craptastic!"

RE: Nice
By therealnickdanger on 4/3/2008 4:43:26 PM , Rating: 3
So funny because it's so true.

I would be much more impressed if these companies took greater strides to combat latency (ping).

RE: Nice
By Souka on 4/3/2008 4:53:13 PM , Rating: 5
well this could help with ping.

On congested networks, packets are delayed resulting in ping.

By having a overall higher throughput capability, you're less likely to have congestion along the datapath, resulting in better pings.

Now... if you're already getting 10-25ms ping... don't expect much, but users that often experience higher pings during the peak hours may see some relief.

My $.02

RE: Nice
By therealnickdanger on 4/3/2008 5:00:55 PM , Rating: 1
Good point. I'm typically under 30 in most games, so it's not like I've got a problem, but I'd just like to see a big breakthrough someday...

RE: Nice
By Ananke on 4/3/2008 5:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds so promising, just DTech forgot to mension pricing /see Reuters/, which is whoping $179 :). Really thrilling service, eventually they will upgrade the regular service pricing too :) if they can. I hope ONE DAY Verizon be able to deliver FiOS here, in the Silicon Valley. Can you believe, in the heart of digital industry, only providers are Comcast /cable/ and ATT dsl /which also saw recent price upgrade :)/. This is what I call oligopoly, it is almost as worse as at the Soviet Union time ago :)
Viva la corporate democratic spirit..../sarcastic/

RE: Nice
By epsilonparadox on 4/3/2008 6:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
If you clicked on the link, you'd see that it was a $150/month offering not $180. I agree with you with FIOS tho. FIOS offers a similar service of 30Mbps down/15Mbps up for $160/month which IMO is a better deal. I wish I didn't have to deal with the wannabe FIOS in Uverse but its a lot better that Road Runner.

RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 4/4/2008 1:50:36 AM , Rating: 2
How is being slower and more expensive a better deal?

RE: Nice
By JSK on 4/4/2008 2:43:47 AM , Rating: 3
Some people value uploads a lot more than downloads.

Being a heavy bittorrent user I would much rather have the FIOS deal for $10 more.

Maybe that is his reasoning.

RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 4/4/2008 8:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
Since when is a 15Mbps upload bigger than a 20Mbps upload though? FIOS was 30Mbps/15Mbps for $160 and this new service is supposed to be 50Mbps/20Mbps for $150. It beats FIOS in every respect according to the specs and pricing.

RE: Nice
By SandmanWN on 4/4/2008 8:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
unless youve been completely oblivious to what comcast has been doing recently. if you actually used that 50mb for more than a few moments you would get throttled to 2mb. not to mention spending all that money on a 50" television and HD cable only to get degraded crappy signal for all that money you just spent making it look worse than an up converted dvd.

sounds like a superior product to me. [/sarcasm]

RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 4/5/2008 11:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
Do you even read what you type? Just spouting off crap doesn't prove your point. I can't really comment on any throttling that may or may not occur on a 50Mb line from Comcast as I don't have speeds anywhere near that. I do know that my 6Mb line doesn't get throttled though. BitTorrent is messed up obviously, but if I max out my line downloading a game demo or something off a website, it stays that way the whole time. In fact, I can usually go faster than a 6Mb should allow. I should technically only be able to get 768KBps, but that doesn't include overhead, and I can top out over 800KBps. Actually, for the most part I don't even get that low when I'm downloading stuff off the internet. Thanks to "PowerBoost" I'm usually getting stuff at over 1MBps. Granted that's only for like the first 10 MB or something, but unless I'm downloading a game patch or demo I rarely exceed the file size limit for "PowerBoost."

And what did I ever mention about TV service? I personally don't have an HDTV, and probably won't even have one by the time this service is available, even if it comes out after the projected 2010 date. I wouldn't even dream of getting Comcast for TV service, let alone HD TV service. I'd actually prefer to have DirectTV service as they have better DVRs than our current service, Dish Network. I'm guessing it's that way simply because of patents or something, as there is no reason for the Dish DVR to not do everything the DirectTV DVR does.

Anyways, I think what Comcast is doing to BitTorrent and P2P clients sucks and would gladly switch services if we could, but it's either Comcast or dial-up for us. The choice is obvious. Anyways, since this new service is coming out in 2010 or later it's quite irrelevant. By then they shouldn't be restricting BitTorrent anymore. Or, at least that's what they say.

RE: Nice
By SandmanWN on 4/6/2008 2:14:00 AM , Rating: 2
i love it. you dont have the service yet you feel perfectly justified in telling someone else that you 'think' one or the other should be better.

i dont need to spout off crap, im experiencing it first hand. I hit some magical total download number 2 months ago and now Im getting constantly monitored by a circuit from one of their core routers thats beating away at my firewall. Ive gotten threatening telephone calls from comcast reps threatening to drop my service. now with the recent TV signal reductions the overly expensive HD I pay a butt load of money for looks crappier than an up converted DVD.

Dont get me started on this powerboost crap. Its the same garbage that the telephone companies were pushing before they went the way of the dinosaur. Its a crappy cache program thats a lame attempt to make people think things are faster when the truth is they've been sitting on their duffs. Now that competition is here suddenly they've revived the race. Supposedly on their word we should have been at 100Mb by next year. Where are we now? Most people do good to get a 6Mb service outside of any major city. Now they are talking this 50Mb crap, pff. They'll do decent to get 25Mb in just a handful of cities by then.

Comcast needs to stop bad mouthing the FCC and start upgrading their worthless network. And why are you even remotely trying to defend these people? You have some sort of monetary backing that would cause you to defend a company that would terminate service to people whos only form of high speed internet is cable and they get terminated and left with nothing because they actually used the bandwidth that they signed up and paid good money for? WTF...

RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 4/6/2008 4:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I was going purely off of specs and pricing. I obviously can't go off of experience since the 50Mb service from Comcast isn't out yet, so I guess it's just more crap from you since you obviously couldn't have had it either. Sucks that you have a download cap, but I've never hit one and I've downloaded well over 100GB some months. I couldn't say exactly since I don't usually keep track. I'd say it got close to 200GB if not over.

As for "PowerBoost," how is it going be be in a cache? I highly doubt they cache EVERYTHING you know. I know that sometimes it does that depending on what I get. It's usually the things that I redownload that make it seem obvious, like when a 20MB file finished instantly. I know it's not my browser since I have the cache set to only a few MB. On most files though it seems obvious that it works like it should. Even if it is cached, which is doubtful, it sure isn't caching it on any computer in this house. If it's caching it to the modem then whatever, still means faster DLs for me which equates to a shorter wait.

I think you're just pissed at Comcast cause they screwed you over. Hell, I would be to.

RE: Nice
By SandmanWN on 4/7/2008 10:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
Reading specs? Check the fine print. "up to", dependent on time of day and network traffic, unspecified caps...

The point of cache isn't to hold everything. If you had an inkling or insight here you might have a clue. Network caching is designed to capture the mostly common items in cache boxes around the network for quick access. The software on your local machine is nothing more than local cache that bloats your system and eats resources, hence yoru 20MB instantly being downloaded. Its more bloat ware. You can accomplish the same thing by adjusting the cache on your web browser and getting a real download client. Get a clue moron.

RE: Nice
By inperfectdarkness on 4/4/2008 8:53:49 AM , Rating: 1
fuck paying over $100/month. 15Mbps with FIOS costs $50/month. THAT'S where comcast needs to start aiming. give me a better value--and something actually availble to me in my area (heh, imagine that, fios...); and i'll buy it straight up.

it's like video cards...sure there's a $600 flagship card--but most buyers are looking in the $150-$250 range. i guarantee i'll be the first to hop on board of faster comcast service when i can. i've had it with AT&T; and verizion is determined never to bring FIOS to my area. i just REALLY can't stand to share a lousy 1.5 Mbps with the other 4 dozen homes in my neighborhood.

RE: Nice
By fuser197 on 4/3/2008 6:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
This would help if you rent movies or watching streaming videos.

RE: Nice
By Gul Westfale on 4/3/2008 9:33:28 PM , Rating: 1
in montreal we are already getting speeds like these from videotron (although i am on their 10mb pipe myself). the problem here is that they simply don't give you enough data allowance to use it. for example, my limit (monthly) is 20Gb (with a lowercase, that's right); so even though i can fileshare with the best of them actually doing that would cost me a fortune in extra fees. and for anything else the high speed is useless, you get the same latency on a 2mb pipe which is just as good for streaming video or gaming.

RE: Nice
By Chadder007 on 4/4/2008 11:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
I would rather have a LOWER PRICE, the speed I have now is just fine.

Upgrades are awsome but,
By MGSsancho on 4/3/2008 4:39:54 PM , Rating: 4
I understand Comcast is testing this in Twin Falls. Anyone know if Twin Falls is suffering from lower quality HD channels, throttled internet or anything of that nature. I know it has happened else ware but if Comcast is installing Bigger pipes then they have no excuse to degrade your service.

RE: Upgrades are awsome but,
By SandmanWN on 4/3/2008 4:50:20 PM , Rating: 3
Most likely they created a list of the top 15% of users in those two cities that actually used the full bandwidth they paid good money for and disconnected their internet service.

Free upgrade for all the other users that use 1/10 of what they paid for.

RE: Upgrades are awsome but,
By TimTheEnchanter25 on 4/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Upgrades are awsome but,
By RDO CA on 4/3/2008 5:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
The cable co won't drop the analog channels at least TW as they say that they have too many cust that just have a old set connected without a box and if they cut off them they would loose alot or have to give them a box. I have 4 sets and 1 is a crt straight out of the wall with no box and I have been told it will work with no change. The analog uses up aprox 3/5 of the band width but what they are doing is going to SDV (switched digital Videoo)and just send out a channel in any node where a customer is requesting it and that way they can have many more channels than they would have bandwidth for.

RE: Upgrades are awsome but,
By RjBass on 4/3/2008 6:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
Where are you located at? TW here in Kansas City is saying the same thing, they are even advertising that people who have rabbit ears don't need to get a digital converter box if the switch to basic cable for $10/month. They are going to continue to send out a basic tier analog feed for several years to come still.

By theapparition on 4/3/2008 9:52:56 PM , Rating: 3
The problem with the HD channels is from the massive bandwidth that Analog channels eat up. I had a tech this fall tell me that they will be able to add a lot more HD channels after the DTV transistion (Feb 2009). He said that for every analog station they drop, they can either add 5 HD or 10 Digital channels.

Wrong.......don't fall for the tech's misinformation.
The ATSC spec defines HD channels to use the exact same 6MHz bandwidth as existing analog channels (NTSC). 720p and 1080i just fit into a 6MHz bandwidth with acceptable compression. 1080p has to be compressed more.

So, to further clarify, if they really shove 5 HD channels in the same space allocated for analog, that means they are compressing the signal 5X more than "acceptable". Your already seeing reports here on DT that detail how certain areas are getting affected with high levels of artifacts and poor resolution.
For proper rebroadcast of HD channels, they can fit 1 HD station for every 1 analog channel eliminated. No more. For 480p digital signals, they can fit approx 3:1 ratio.

Anything more than that, and it's no longer (at least in my opinion) acceptable HD signals. However, give how Comcast just plain sucks........I wouldn't put it past them.

Even with DOCSIS 3.0, they have no chance of keeping up with FIOS. Verizon already has plans to upgrade to 100mbps/20mbps if necessary.

RE: Upgrades are awsome but,
By HueyD on 4/4/2008 8:46:46 AM , Rating: 2

This article states that this service is also Fiber optic. And I heard that Comcast is actually the largest operator of fiber optic networks in the US.

WOW! That's expensive
By d1nn0 on 4/3/2008 5:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
Here in Montreal the local cable provider Videotron already offers 50 Mbps since last year.
And it's half cheaper -
* Download speed of 50 Mbps and upload speed of 1 Mbps
* More than 7 times faster than high-speed Internet (7 Mbps)
* Monthly data transfer capacity of 50 GB combined (upload and download)

The monthly limit of 50 GB is annoying but if you need more - go for the 10 Mbps package (100 GB monthly combined transfer).

RE: WOW! That's expensive
By lagitup on 4/3/2008 7:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
And here I was getting ready to play games AND download pr0n at the SAME TIME!!! And then it hit me. Montreal is in canada. Just another demonstration of how craptastic broadband in the USA is. (quest "1.5mb/s" @ $35/month x.x my ping is *never* below 60, generally around 100 )= )

RE: WOW! That's expensive
By MrDiSante on 4/3/2008 7:24:26 PM , Rating: 2
... Take a look at broadband in Toronto (Canada) - Rogers (the cable company) has been throttling bittorent for years and is now starting to throttle encrypted traffic. Bell (DSL) and smaller companies which lease Bell's lines used to have decent bittorent until Bell announced that it would be throttling not only bittorent on their lines, but on the lines that it leases to other companies as well.
Furthermore, Bell offers a maximum of 16mbps for 90$ for 1/2 of Toronto. The rest have to take 7mpbs for 50$. Rogers offers a maximum of 18 mbps for 100$. Both are capped at ~100 gigs. Also, please note that Toronto is the biggest city in Canada, with the greatest population density.

RE: WOW! That's expensive
By Hieyeck on 4/3/2008 10:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
And now, Rogers is placing hard caps on bandwidth - anything over the alotted bandwidth and you're paying for it. At the top speed, it's $1.25 per gig; my rate (the 2nd package) $1.50, and it just keeps going up from there. for their cheapest package, it's $5 per gig over.

Hello Teksavvy and multilink PPP.

RE: WOW! That's expensive
By mikefarinha on 4/4/2008 10:49:48 AM , Rating: 2
Just another demonstration of how craptastic broadband in the USA is.

Hey I live in Northern California(Sacramento area) and am paying for 10Mb/10Mb FiOS from a local company called Surewest. It's $65/month after the first year contract deal. I've had it for the past 4 years now, great stuff!

RE: WOW! That's expensive
By 3v1lkr0w on 4/4/2008 6:00:25 AM , Rating: 2
80 dollars a month for 50 Mbps and it has a cap??? WTF!!! We need to catch up to Japan, I was living in Japan for 3 years and had fiber internet for 69 dollars a month, then got it upgraded to Gig Fiber for 80 dollars a month, with no cap. We really need to stop playing this game of catch up so slowly...

By lobadobadingdong on 4/6/2008 12:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
2 words

Population Density

RE: WOW! That's expensive
By FITCamaro on 4/4/2008 7:42:15 AM , Rating: 1
Yes but if you need upload speed, FiOS is way better. Upload is really what you're paying for. Could they offer packages that stress the download more than the upload though? Of course.

I really hope to move to an area that has FiOS in the next few years. I'll be happy with the standard 15-20Mbps down and 1-2Mbps up.

The Target Keeps Moving?
By jpeyton on 4/3/2008 6:53:51 PM , Rating: 4
First it's 100Mbps by 2008, now it's 50Mbps by 2010.

Translation: Comcast might see average speeds across their entire network hit 25Mbps by 2011, for a bargain price of $79.99 per month*

*2-year contract required for promotional rate. Promotional rate applied for the first 6 months. Regular rate of $109.99 per month will be applied for the remaining 18 months. Taxes and fees not included.

RE: The Target Keeps Moving?
By KristopherKubicki on 4/3/2008 8:49:26 PM , Rating: 3
** And you have to get Triple Play to quality, with low phone rates starting at $29.99 per month and basic cable packages starting at $69.99.

RE: The Target Keeps Moving?
By eetnoyer on 4/4/2008 7:41:11 AM , Rating: 3
That's assuming the phone service is available in your area. We've been told repeatedly that it's not where we live. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it just a VOIP service? If so, the only reason for not making it available anywhere they have cable/internet service.....anti-competitive agreement with Verizon? It must be nice operating in government sponsored monopolies. You get to treat your customers like crap and bill them excessively while making minimal improvements to your services.

Inside information
By We Healthy on 4/4/2008 12:25:40 AM , Rating: 2
I happened to know someone who works for Comcast and knew this prior to this article(like 5 months prior). Woohoo for gloating. I wisely advised my parents to veer from Fios and wait for this.

RE: Inside information
By sweetsauce on 4/4/2008 1:12:43 AM , Rating: 2
You must have stock in comcast or something. Discouraging your parents from getting FIOS is not something to gloat about. If anything it makes me think you hate your parents.

RE: Inside information
By Samus on 4/4/2008 1:22:15 AM , Rating: 2
Why would you advise your parents to 'veer from FIOS?'

FIOS is less than 1/3 price, nearly as fast, and most importantly, available now. It also doesn't have a download limit, but if they're like my parents, that won't matter ;)

The rest of us...
By marsbound2024 on 4/4/2008 2:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
I now speak for a minority, but I live in rural America and am limited to my 1.5mbps DSL connection. My neighbors a few hours down apparently can't even get DSL...only dialup or satellite--god forbid. I'd like to see the death of dialup by 2010, but I guess it's too much to ask for. ISPs really should offer DSL to more people in more places. Sure, its less populated and therefore less revenue, but at least make it available even if at a bit higher cost.

RE: The rest of us...
By Tripp1717 on 4/4/2008 9:03:41 AM , Rating: 2
Hey all, i live in Connecticut and i use cable. Not comcast but rather Optimum Online. I currently pay 40 bucks a month and I get 30mb/s download and 4 upload and have had it for a few years now. I pay 10 bucks more and get Optimim Onlkine Boost. The difference is that regular Optimum gets 15mb/s download and 2mb/s up load and is priced at 30 bucks a month. I hate it when i hear that the USA sucks at broadband, granted in MOST of the USA it does, but not the Tri State area. Optium is available in CT, NJ, NY, and Long Island. I also get there phone package for 20 bucks a month and it includes free long distance anywhere in USA/Canada/Peurto Rico. Anyone living in the tri state should look to see if you can get optimum online.

RE: The rest of us...
By marsbound2024 on 4/4/2008 3:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
Where I live, I have to pay around $50 a month just to get my 1.5mbps down and 512kb up. Too expensive, but I surely cannot return to dialup.

How does this compete with FIOS?
By LumbergTech on 4/3/2008 6:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
How much does fios charge for this speed? 150 dollars a month?

I thought that they provided like 25mb download and 5 meg up for roughly the same price as comcast gives for 8 down and some upload that i cant remember

By phil126 on 4/3/2008 6:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
I have FIOS in Syracuse NY. My contract is 20Mbps/10Mbps for $39 a month. It is great.

By Crystalysis on 4/4/2008 2:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
Just imagine what it would be like... in RAID 0.



RE: Wow
By EricMartello on 4/9/2008 9:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine if you could get a 10 comcast "shotgun" cable modems then connect all those connections at once! You'd have like 1000 Gbps or something.... :D

By RamarC on 4/3/2008 5:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
it'll be like having a car that can do 180mph, but it slows to 55mph if you drive more than 50 miles.

That's great and all
By Chaotic42 on 4/3/2008 6:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad they're increasing speed, now let's lower price and increase coverage. If I could get say 8Mbps service for $20/mo, that would be awesome.

Also, living in southern Mississippi, broadband coverage is pretty bad. I live in a decent sized city now, so I have Charter cable internet, but I'm looking for a nice house with some land and once you get about a mile out of town the coverage just stops.

I'm excited
By Yawgm0th on 4/3/2008 6:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a dissatisfied Twin Cities Comcast user, but I'm still excited for the upgrade. Contrary to the article, this is not in competition with FIOS (at least not directly; no doubt it will be in other areas) since FIOS is not available in MN.

Charter, Quest, Speakeasy and a few others offer high-speed Internet services in the Twin Cities, but none offer anywhere near the bandwidth Comcast does for even remotely reasonable prices. Once it's available, this $150 line + cable + phone still costs less than a 6/2 line from Speakeasy, which is the fastest service I've found outside of Comcast. And despite Comcast's poor customer service and periodic -- but inevitable -- service outages, the bandwidth has always been the advertised amount on the dot (or better) for me. Even during peak hours I get my 8mbits, and the idea of an affordable 50mbit service is extremely exciting if they keep this up.

I just wish Verizon, AT&T, or a new player would get the Twin Cities some FTTH or FTTN goodness to force Comcast to either beef up customer service or cut down prices to beat the competition. Until then, I'll stick with the Devil I know and be happy once I get my 50mbit connection.

In my dreams
By brandonicus on 4/3/2008 7:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
I pay a local ISP $50/month for my Ultra High Speed (that's actually what they advertised) 2Mb down and 512Kb up. Also the ISP thinks it's a great idea to block dozens of my ports from inbound requests(the jerks).

It is the only choice I have though, apart from ATT dsl which is considerably slower where I live (Oklahoma).

I'm happy to see that America is finally seeing multiple High Speed Internet(by that I mean 50Mb up) Providers, competition is always great...however I am not at all excited considering it will hit my region in perhaps 10 years(I'm very cynical)... :(

What's the point?
By MrTeal on 4/3/2008 8:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, there might be the occasional user who could use the 50Mbps down speed without without torrent traffic, but probably not that many. The majority of people that 50 Mbps would appeal to are just the users that comcast is pissing off by their attempts to shape traffic.

By nstott on 4/3/2008 8:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
In an effort to foster great envy:

Here in Korea, I have a (theoretical) 100 Mbps fiber optic Internet connection that costs the outrageous price of $25 a month, all covered within my company's $50 a month communications allowance for foreign employees. Should I also mention the $20 a month digital cable, $16 a month which is covered by the company?

Got Samsung? ;)

P.S. Don't feel to bad. There are enough other things that suck in Korea to make up for it...

By josebl on 4/3/2008 9:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
Blu-ray's data rate is 54 Mbps. HDV is around 25 Mbps and seems like a decent data rate for viewing. On paper this kind of connection would make online delivery of high quality video possible.

Unfortunately two aspects of the price kill this for me, and I assume most.

1) I could buy, or rent, a lot of blu-ray disks each month for $150. 100GB caps on down/uploads seems pretty stingy at that speed.

2) Price will drop, but will people adopt withou content? Will distributors offer HD downloads without an existing customer base?

In other words, what’s the incentive for at home use? I can’t see spending more than $50/month for internet access no matter the speed.

By dijuremo on 4/3/2008 9:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
We have had our DOCSIS 2.0 cable modems for a long time already and we are currently at around 16mbps down and 768kbps up if we pay comcast the $10/month premium. Who cares about DOCSIS 3.0 at this point if comcast does not even use up the full capacity of our DOCSIS 2.0 modems.

Instead of promising crap, they should go ahead and bump up our speeds with the existing hardware to at least get closer to FIOS.

I love hows speed is going up
By Staples on 4/4/2008 9:32:13 AM , Rating: 2
But I just want a lower bill. I pay $47 a month for 7Mbps internet. This is the same marketing that cell phone carriers do. The lowest viable mobile plan was $40 a month 10 years ago and even though you get more minutes now, their plans still start at $40 a month. This seems to be happening with cable internet too. I'd rather save $10 a month over what I am paying than for the speed to be boosted another 3Mbps.

By jcherrybon on 4/4/2008 1:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
Comcast seems to struggle with the current allocation of bandwidth. This is part of why they were filtering out p2p traffic. Increasing the bandwidth to their customers doesn't mean their back end can handle it.

I remember when they first rolled out this service in my area about 8 years ago (or so), it was awesome. I routinely saw download speeds around 8-10mbit even though my connection was supposed to be slower than that. Now I supposedly have even more bandwidth to my house but my downloads are way, way slower than before. I'm lucky to see 2-3mbit at any time of day/week, from high bandwidth download sites.

If they don't make substantial upgrades to their backend bandwidth, additional bandwidth to the users will only cause more congestion than before. Wait until you have tons of bittorrent kiddies all trying to download their l337 warez at 50mbit/s each.

The netflix omen
By nismotigerwvu on 4/4/2008 3:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
When I read this the flash ad (I'm in the research lab and not on my own pc so I can't use AB) for netflix really got me thinking. Comcast could totally own the HD digital distrobution Market with a service like this. Getting users on PC's as well as thier set top digital boxes could make for quite the Bluray competitor (or supplementer). Seems like a crap-ton of profit to be had, and able to send blockbuster the way of the dodo

By Soldier38 on 4/3/08, Rating: 0
"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki