Print 80 comment(s) - last by tastyratz.. on Aug 25 at 10:46 AM

High speed service comes with a high pricetag

Verizon's FiOS internet service has been very popular in the United States. The fiber-optic network's reliability and fast speeds have attracted over 3.1 million subscribers, and continues to be a major competitive threat to cable-based Internet Service Providers.

In response, many of those ISPs are either deploying or consider new speed tiers made available by DOCSIS 3.0 cable modems. These new modems allow for multiple channel bonding, and can theoretically achieve hundreds of megabits downstream.

Cablevision and Comcast are already making DOCSIS 3.0 services available to several major markets, and DOCSIS 3.0 cable modems are also available for purchase.

Canada's most populous city will now have access to these fast speeds as well. Rogers Cable Communications is launching its new "Ultimate Internet" tier in several phases across the Greater Toronto Area, which has a population of over 5.5 million people. Phase 2 neighborhoods will see the new service on September 18.

Rogers promises downstream speeds of 50 Mbps and upstream speeds of 2 Mbps for $149.99 a month. Unfortunately, the new service comes with a 175GB monthly usage cap, which could theoretically by reached in less than 8 hours at full speed. Customers will also be required to purchase a combination router and wireless-N gateway for $200, since many older routers appear to have problems with the new DOCSIS 3.0 cable modems.

Several Canadian ISPs such as Videotron and Cogeco have also launched DOCSIS 3.0 service in smaller cities.

"DOCSIS 3 is a critical last-mile technology that allows cable companies to more than double their Internet speeds and to compete with fibre-optic delivery systems," said Lawrence Surtees, Vice-President of Communications Research at IDC Canada Ltd.

"Customers will also benefit from the deployment of DOCSIS 3.0 because it enables Rogers Cable to enhance the allowances of their Internet service tiers for no extra charge to customers."

As a first step, Rogers will boost the download speed for its Extreme Plus tier to 25Mbps from 18Mbps, along with an increased usage cap of 125GB per month.

Comments     Threshold

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

By siberus on 8/20/2009 11:54:48 AM , Rating: 3
Lately it feels like isp competition has gotten a little stagnant here in toronto. So hopefully something like this will get the other players to get off there behinds and put something out thats intresting at a fair price.

RE: Competition
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2009 12:30:25 PM , Rating: 5
This is why we need to get rid of the mandated monopolies here in the US. With them repealed, Verizon can roll out FiOS everywhere, not just where there isn't a competitor that sues to maintain their monopoly. Which will in turn force cable providers to adopt DOCSIS 3.0 or fiber.

Competition drives innovation and lower prices.

RE: Competition
By Tsuwamono on 8/20/2009 12:34:58 PM , Rating: 5
which is what we are fighting for in Canada at the moment.

So far the site has been up for a week and its already been on the news once and has over 1500 signatures.

RE: Competition
By dice1111 on 8/21/2009 10:08:45 AM , Rating: 2
3158 signatures now, after I added mine.

Thank you for the link!

RE: Competition
By Tsuwamono on 8/21/2009 10:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
its been growing by almost 1000 per day. its only been up for like 3-4 days max.

RE: Competition
By Xavier434 on 8/20/2009 1:28:05 PM , Rating: 4
I agree but it is also going to be more complicated than that. These days, individual home owners associations and rental communities are including TV and/or internet service as apart of their rent/HOA fees. Granted, they often give those contracts to the lowest bidder but that only assists with the price. It forces people to pay for the service whether they want it or not and that is the problem.

Unless states or counties everywhere create laws prohibiting the rental communities and HOAs from making these contracts then the people will still be left with little to no choice in a lot of places.

RE: Competition
By Tsuwamono on 8/20/2009 1:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't even seen one homeowners association here in Canada.

RE: Competition
By gucio69 on 8/21/2009 10:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
You don't even realize how lucky you are.

RE: Competition
By Tsuwamono on 8/22/2009 6:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
oh i do, i've seen them... I'm SOO happy i don't have to deal with that bull. lol

RE: Competition
By Yawgm0th on 8/20/2009 2:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
I've never agreed with you more. +6

RE: Competition
By darkpuppet on 8/20/2009 12:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
Bell had better get their act together... I can't get more than 7Mb currently, and the only thing keeping me there is my e-mail account.. which I'm tempted to start transitioning off of.

RE: Competition
By Tsuwamono on 8/20/2009 12:55:40 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Competition
By gmyx on 8/20/2009 1:34:34 PM , Rating: 4
Thanks to the CRTC, it's Bell disguised. Bell has successfully forced independent DSL ISPs to lower caps and higher rates.

RE: Competition
By Tsuwamono on 8/20/2009 2:53:48 PM , Rating: 3
still better then bell.

No throttling

Good customer service

twice the speed/twice the cap with MLPP

Teksavvy also has tier 3 plans which im sure do not include bell.

Plus their network itself is better.

RE: Competition
By Hoser McMoose on 8/20/2009 4:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
I've got TekSavvy and it's throttled all to crap care of Bell.

They do have great service and everything on the TekSavvy-side of the network is excellent. Unfortunately they are essentially required to go through Bell for last-mile service and getting from the various Bell DSLAMs to TekSavvy's network. Bell decided to "help" TekSavvy manage their network but slamming throttling boxes between the DSLAMs and TekSavvy's routers.

For the time being at least you can get around this with MLPPP, however I suspect it's only a matter of time before Bell throttles those as well.

RE: Competition
By Tsuwamono on 8/21/2009 12:56:06 AM , Rating: 3
SLPP 4$ per month man. gets you around throttling. not sure why you didnt just tell teksavvy you use torrents. they SUGGESTED it to me.

RE: Competition
By PARANOID365 on 8/24/2009 3:06:27 AM , Rating: 2
Where would a guy find this SLPP in Canada??

RE: Competition
By VaultDweller on 8/21/2009 8:51:01 AM , Rating: 2
I think I read that the MLPPP functionality on TekSavvy is going to be nixed by a recent CRTC ruling (the same one that forces TekSavvy to use Bell-mandated caps and usage-based billing charges). I didn't investigate fully to verify that, though, as I'm not in Ontario.

RE: Competition
By Tsuwamono on 8/21/2009 10:48:21 AM , Rating: 2
untrue. They are going to go after it yes but the CRTC hasn't ruled on that yet.

And its only MLPP that the CRTC is going after not the SLPP.

You can have regular internet and use SLPP to get around their throttling. MLPP is the doubling of lines. it both gets over the throttling and doubles your speeds and caps as you'll have two accounts.

RE: Competition
By eddieroolz on 8/20/2009 1:41:54 PM , Rating: 3
Damn the Torontonians get it so well...don't forget about Vancouver, guys!

Upload Speeds
By Xavier434 on 8/20/2009 11:44:39 AM , Rating: 2
I have yet to see a single DOCSIS 3.0 plan which comes close to competing with Verizon FIOS's upload speeds in their plans. Not that they do not or cannot exist. I don't know the actual limitations both technologically or fiscally when it comes to upload speeds and DOCSIS 3.0.

RE: Upload Speeds
By Tsuwamono on 8/20/2009 12:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't matter, if your using p2p your capped at 30kb/s no matter how fast your net is..

You can thank the CRTC for that one. I have yet to find an ISP who doesn't throttle or isn't throttled themselves by the company the rent their networks from.

Hurray for the Anti-Competitive CRTC...

RE: Upload Speeds
By Xavier434 on 8/20/2009 1:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
I get upload speeds right now over 150kb/s using p2p through Comcast who we all know throttles p2p traffic.

RE: Upload Speeds
By Tsuwamono on 8/20/2009 1:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure about Comcast but here with Bell, Rogers, Cogeco and Shaw they limit download of p2p at 30kb/s but I'm not sure what their limit is on upload cause right now im downloading at 30kb./s and uploading at 80kb.s which is my current limit until my MLPPP kicks in.

RE: Upload Speeds
By oab on 8/20/2009 1:43:28 PM , Rating: 1
Rogers only limits upload speeds, not downloads.

However, with Rogers, force on encryption in uTorrent, choose port 1720 and goodbye throttles.

RE: Upload Speeds
By omnicronx on 8/20/2009 2:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
Thats not true, both bell and rogers throttle torrent downloads at certain points of the day.

You are right about encryption though :)

RE: Upload Speeds
By Tsuwamono on 8/20/2009 2:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
actually you are wrong. Both bell and Rogers employ DPI which inspects all encrypted traffic.

Sweet if you have a VPN eh?

RE: Upload Speeds
By xdrol on 8/23/2009 12:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
which inspects all encrypted traffic


RE: Upload Speeds
By Tsuwamono on 8/23/2009 1:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
yup. Quite gay indeed.

RE: Upload Speeds
By GreenEnvt on 8/20/2009 4:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
Um, I'm on Cogeco in niagara region, im on the standard 14meg/1meg plan, and I regularly get over 300 KB/s (bytes not bits) using utorrent with encryption on, havent tried with it off.

This is in the middle of the evening..

60 gig cap sucks, but speeds are fine.

RE: Upload Speeds
By GreenEnvt on 8/21/2009 8:20:14 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and I do see over a 1000KB/s occasionally as well in uTorrent, on well seeded linux distros.

RE: Upload Speeds
By Yawgm0th on 8/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Upload Speeds
By JKflipflop98 on 8/21/2009 6:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
What? I don't have the "extreme" package at all. . .

25Mbps down
8.5Mbps up
No cap
$40 a month

I've been extremely happy with comcast's service for the last 5 years now.

RE: Upload Speeds
By omnicronx on 8/20/2009 2:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares, there are many ways to get past this. In fact torrent apps like Azurus automatically turn on encryption when it realizes you are on the rogers network. I get no slowdowns and my downloads/uploads are fast.

RE: Upload Speeds
By Tsuwamono on 8/21/2009 12:58:03 AM , Rating: 2
DPI stops that. Im encrypted AND using UDP instead of TCP and I'm still getting throttled.

Bandwidth Caps are Retarded
By HrilL on 8/20/2009 12:49:31 PM , Rating: 3
I've use over 125GB of bandwidth in a few days on a 10Mb/s line let alone 50Mb/s. My highest usage was 1.4TB in a month. These caps are far too low. If you want to do anything in HD then you're going to go over that cap in no time at all.

The fact that ISPs claim caps are there so everyone can have a good internet experience. Those claims are completely baseless. How is bandwidth limited if everyone can have 50Mb/s download speeds? As a network admin this doesn't make sense. If you have limited bandwidth you limit connection speed not that amount of data a user transfers. A data cap doesn't solve this problem what so ever because if every user used their connection to the max then you might see congestion but having a cap doesn't solve this problem because they could all do this at the start of a month before they would be close to reaching their cap.

Caps are noting more than to stifle competition from internet services that would compete with these companies On demand and cable offerings. If only people in the government could see through all the lobby BS and end this practice before it gets more out of hand then it already is.

RE: Bandwidth Caps are Retarded
By Tsuwamono on 8/20/2009 12:57:50 PM , Rating: 2
Welcome to Canada my friend.

Home of the CRTC where big business comes first and consumers get a rock hard cack in the ass.

RE: Bandwidth Caps are Retarded
By Spivonious on 8/20/2009 2:18:29 PM , Rating: 1
I am very curious what you are legally downloading that could possibly use up 1.4TB in a month.

RE: Bandwidth Caps are Retarded
By HrilL on 8/20/2009 6:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I'm concerned my usage is none of your business. Its not my ISPs business either.

If I send something in the mail its not the post offices business to know whats in my package. They supply a service for me to get a package from one place to another.

An ISP supplies a service that gets my data from one place to another and what I'm sending or receiving is none of their damn business. That is why we have safe harbors for them. If they want to know what I am doing. Then they can go ahead and lose their safe harbors as well.

But really I bet probably 200GB was what you would consider "legal" traffic. With the internet being international it shouldn't be bound to one countries laws when those same laws are not agreed to by all parties taking part on the internet.

RE: Bandwidth Caps are Retarded
By JediJeb on 8/21/2009 10:42:24 AM , Rating: 2
If I send something in the mail its not the post offices business to know whats in my package. They supply a service for me to get a package from one place to another.

I would agree on the ISP issue but this statement isn't really true. If you send letters or packages through the mail in an attempt to defraud someone you can be convicted of mail fraud which is a felony. Also if they detect any illegal substance such as drugs or explosives being sent by someone not authorized do to so you will be in very big trouble. The postal service is not a don't ask don't tell service.

RE: Bandwidth Caps are Retarded
By HrilL on 8/21/2009 12:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yes if they detect but they are not actively looking for those kinds of things. They don't open each package and see what is inside. A lot of ISPs are doing that btw.

RE: Bandwidth Caps are Retarded
By Tsuwamono on 8/21/2009 1:01:47 AM , Rating: 2
I LEGALLY download movies and music from and used to from

Welcome to Canada

RE: Bandwidth Caps are Retarded
By Spivonious on 8/21/2009 10:14:59 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know what world you're living in, but Canada has copyright laws very similar to the U.S. Just because the RIAA/MPAA can't go after you doesn't make it legal.

RE: Bandwidth Caps are Retarded
By Tsuwamono on 8/21/2009 10:51:28 AM , Rating: 2
Here it is legal to have or download. Its ILLEGAL to distribute for profit.

Welcome to foreign country's copyright laws 101

RE: Bandwidth Caps are Retarded
By HrilL on 8/21/2009 6:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
That's the way our copy write laws were supposed to be too but for some reason the corporations got to take over and bend them to their liking.

RE: Bandwidth Caps are Retarded
By jediknight on 8/22/2009 1:12:32 AM , Rating: 2
Legally? No, you don't. Not in Canada.

Don't get it
By djc208 on 8/20/2009 12:01:57 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think these companies get the concept here. The people willing to pony up the money for this top tier service are going to be pushing or exceeding their download cap. Everyone else won't care enough to justify the extra money.

If you're going to toss this out as the "ultimate" tier then you need to either set the cap MUCH higher or remove it.

In a year we'll have stories about how no one is using these new services because of some crap excuse like cell phone data plans or the internet isn't fast enough to take advantage of thier service.

RE: Don't get it
By Motoman on 8/20/2009 12:32:05 PM , Rating: 4
Yup. High speed internet access with a cap on it is worthless. If all you do is email and surf the web, you not only aren't worried about the cap...but you don't need anything better than maybe 256k service either.

Anyone who feels they "need" this kind of high speed service is likely going to be someone who downloads lots of content, and/or streams lots of content, and who is going to be very ill-served by the cap.

Hence, it is a product that appeals properly to no one.

RE: Don't get it
By Tsuwamono on 8/20/2009 12:39:10 PM , Rating: 4
Problem is Canada is going through a period right now where there is no competition and the people are getting really pissed off about it.

The CRTC which is supposed to look out for consumer rights is granting monopolies and anti-competitive policies to companies which is allowing them to drop the cap to 50GB for all DSL.

I run DSL, 12mbps 400GB cap but soon it will be 100-120GB cap for the same price. I'm not even on one of the big players but because they own the network that Canadian governmnet built and the CRTC is allowing them to control it however they want I'm basicly boned.

I can keep my service or switch to Cable which is just as bad except slower and lower cap for the same price.

RE: Don't get it
By StevoLincolnite on 8/20/2009 3:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
I only have access to ADSL 2+ Annex M via the Agile DSLAM and Telstra Resold Ports, For $140 a month I'm paying for 25gb of on-peak downloada, and 45gb of off-peak downloads. (All Consumer grade ADSL connections in Australia have a capped download limit).

However you talk about lack of competition, here we have a monopoly on our infrastructure/back haul/exchanges/copper (All owned by Telstra), For instance Telstra was claiming they offered back-haul to Tasmania for a good price (Ask any other 2nd or third-tier ISP and they will tell you other wise), Unfortunately it wasn't at a good price.
It was far to expensive so it kept the majority of Australian ISP's from installing Digital subscriber line access multiplexer's into the POTS telephone exchanges in Tasmania, so it's probably a very similar situation to what Canada is experiencing.

Fast forward and then you have another company ready to light up a cable to compete with Telstra, as soon as the cable was lit-up, dozens of ISP's started rolling out broadband options to Tasmania, and Telstra dropped it's prices significantly.

The issue we have here though is we have very limited capacity going from Australia to the United States, which is where most of our content comes from, and because of that, data is expensive.
Canada shouldn't have that issue because you live next door and it would be relatively cheap to transfer Data, or build additional links rather cheaply.

Soon we will loose our Monopoly, for a Government owned Open-access Fiber Network with symmetrical 100mbps+ speeds to the majority of Aussies, but I doubt we will have massively increased download limits thanks to limited over-seas capacity.

RE: Don't get it
By RubberJohnny on 8/21/2009 12:00:28 AM , Rating: 2
The issue we have here though is we have very limited capacity going from Australia to the United States

Not since this was completed

By bradmshannon on 8/20/2009 11:35:58 AM , Rating: 2
...pile of crap...

RE: Worthless...
By Lord 666 on 8/20/2009 11:55:05 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, DOCIS 3.0 is a stop loss attempt versus the fiber products. Comcast is testing their new fiber to prem product in several markets, but they better hurry up as I see people getting FiOS installed daily where I live.

Just moved two towns from where I was for years and thus moved from Comcast County to FiOS. The purchased 25 download /15mb upload performance actually is under-rated with observed data rates faster. The only thing I miss about Comcast was their voice product; strongly prefer their unified voicemail to email instead of the antiquated POTS vm of FiOS. The free on-demand movies Comcast was also nice with Verizon nickel and diming for everything. Yet the HD quality of FiOS far exceeds Comcast HD.

My next project is configuring FiOS with a ASA5505.

RE: Worthless...
By heffeque on 8/20/2009 2:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
Nos so much... in France they have 100/1 Mbps with DOCSIS 3.0 + HDTV + free landline calls to all Europe and the USA for 32 euros (check out Noos Numericable). Oh, and no bandwidth cap.
And in Madrid Ono has 50/3 Mbps with DOCSIS 3.0 + free landline calls to all Spain for 65 euros. Also no bandwidth cap.

Probably in other countries other cable companies have good offers too.

RE: Worthless...
By Yawgm0th on 8/20/2009 2:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
France they have 100/1 Mbps
Ewww. I'd rather have my 50/10 Comcast connection for twice as much money. For anything other than web browsing or USENET access, I would be getting drastically worse service.

...I'm not supposed to talk about USENET, am I?

High download/low upload services are fairly easy to offer for an ISP. It puts the burden on other ISP's to actually provide high upload bandwidth. How many sites is one realistically going to find that offer greater than 50mbps upload? I'd wager most are run off connections slower than that, and almost all will restrict individual visitors to much lower data rates than that. The only real use for a connection that fast is file download services such as... Yeah.

RE: Worthless...
By heffeque on 8/20/2009 3:16:36 PM , Rating: 1
The 1 Mbps upload is pretty shitty, yes, but still... you've got a really decent download, HDTV and free landline calls to all Europe and the US... for 32 euros! That's pretty friggin' cheap!

RE: Worthless...
By Yawgm0th on 8/20/2009 2:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, DOCIS 3.0 is a stop loss attempt versus the fiber products.
Disagreed. Maximum data rate of DOCSIS 3.0 connections after overhead is 304/108. It will be five to ten years before there is serious demand for faster home Internet than that -- this coming from a high-bandwidth user who completely saturates his 50/10 connection. I'm not saying I couldn't use a connection like that, but the ISP infrastructure side is not fast enough to support the masses actually utilizing connections this fast, and it's just not necessary for 95% of home users.

RE: Worthless...
By michaelklachko on 8/20/2009 6:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
Please let me know if you're going to implement any QoS for voice and video in your ASA box, and if that's helping.
I will play with it over the weekeend.

New Router?
By Yawgm0th on 8/20/2009 2:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
Customers will also be required to purchase a combination router and wireless-N gateway for $200, since many older routers appear to have problems with the new DOCSIS 3.0 cable modems.
Please elaborate, because that doesn't make sense. What part of a Cable modem could be possibly cause problems with a SOHO NAT gateway? A modem converts the interface and provides DHCP information to a router -- from the router's standpoint, nothing has changed, not even the link speed to the modem.

Does Rogers do something special on the modem side? I've not heard of any problems with older routers and Comcast DOCSIS 3.0 modems, including my own four-year old Netgear.

Also, $200? Why? Even in Canadian money with Canadian taxes, that's ridiculous. A good 802.11n router/WAP is $100 USD or less. Does Rogers require customers purchase this?

RE: New Router?
By michaelklachko on 8/20/2009 7:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
That information is just plain wrong.
Rogers website clearly gives you a choice between wireless-N gateway for $200 and a Scientific Atlanta modem for $100.

Not only that, but you can also use an older modem, as DOCSIS 3.0 is backward compatible. Of course, you are not going to get the advertised speeds, so they will try to convince you to upgrade.

RE: New Router?
By tastyratz on 8/21/2009 11:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
older routers just simply cant handle the speed. For example, a linksys wrt54gl can only process about 30 megabits a second on the wan port before pegging the cpu to 100%. When you need faster internet you just need meatier hardware - and at those speeds its going to be a 400mhz+ router to remain stable. lots of routers aren't designed for that kind of speed and traffic so pegging them @ 100% can actually overheat them and cause stability issues.

RE: New Router?
By michaelklachko on 8/22/2009 3:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
I'm wondering how those tiny home routers can even handle 30 Mbps. Especially if you're allowed to configure some ACLs and QoS on them.
Comparing to Cisco routers throughput, this is pretty impressive.
I think 30 meg starts somewhere around 1800 series. I'd kinda expect more from them than from some $50 Linksys box

RE: New Router?
By tastyratz on 8/25/2009 10:46:24 AM , Rating: 2
30 megs raw
throw some ssl in, vpn, etc. encryption - torrents, qos... The thing will nosedive. All of the above just requires raw muscle processing power. What you get with professional line Cisco boxes is more stability, support, scalability, and manageability. Priority focus in corporate applications

Not one source
By amanojaku on 8/20/2009 11:56:54 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Not one source
By Tsuwamono on 8/20/2009 12:43:20 PM , Rating: 2

no point in bitching if you don't do anything about it right?

RE: Not one source
By Hoser McMoose on 8/20/2009 4:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yes unfortunately the biggest problem with this whole deal is that you have to go through Rogers and their intentionally poor customer service (I've known some people that did service for Rogers and they're basically prevented from doing much of ANYTHING that might actually help customers) and their horribly broken billing system.

I'm not sure how Rogers has managed to get by for so many years with a billing system that constantly screws up. I once even had a case where their own web portal correctly showed that I had paid the bill but the billing department couldn't track the payment down!

I suppose the main way that they've survived is because Bell is their only real competitor in many markets, and Bell is no better.

We MUST eliminate the ridiculous "protectionist" laws in Canada that ban non-Canadians from competing in telecommunications. These laws do nothing but drive up price and drive down service.

RE: Not one source
By Tsuwamono on 8/21/2009 1:03:45 AM , Rating: 2
*cough* sign the petition then...

I just wish...
By JediJeb on 8/20/2009 2:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone here complaining about how their High Speed internet connections are not good, I just wish Bell South would finally run DSL the last 3 miles out to my house. I would be very happy with even crappy DSL to replace my dialup with.

RE: I just wish...
By HrilL on 8/20/2009 2:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
Look into iDSL its not the greatest but it doesn't have the distance limitations of ADSL. Speakeasy offers it everywhere pretty much. Tops out at 144Kb/s so its about twice as fast as you're getting with dial up. Doesn't tie the phone line up and its always on. Or there is satellite with bad latencies but good speeds. So if you want bandwidth get that if you want decent latency you've got to suffer with lower bandwidth.

RE: I just wish...
By JediJeb on 8/21/2009 11:13:32 AM , Rating: 2
Just checked into iDSL, seems the lines around here are a mixture of fiber and copper and for iDSL to work they would need a special iDSL DSLAM at the fiber to copper interface which BellSouth hasn't upgraded yet. This is also why I can't get ADSL because about 2 miles from my house is where the lines switch from digital to analog and if they were to put an ADSL DSLAM there I could get DSL from BellSouth, but when asking a friend who works for them about it he just said "Good Luck" because they have no plans to upgrade anything outside of town.

That is the problem with rural areas, the telcos just dont care. Also to get deceint satellite service would cost about $70 per month and the latiency would be killer on gaming.

RE: I just wish...
By HrilL on 8/21/2009 12:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
damn sorry to hear about your pain.

The only other option would be to get a wireless connection. It can go 2 miles but you'd need almost line of sight and someone on the edge of town that will let you install antennas on their house or out building and they'd need good internet as well. Record distance for wifi is 230 miles at like 5Mb/s speeds.

By unplug on 8/20/2009 11:46:08 AM , Rating: 4
...F uuuuuuu

By anonymo on 8/21/2009 8:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
SECONDED! I can't tell you how much I agree with this sentiment.

Still a monopoly
By rpgman1 on 8/20/2009 1:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
We don't have many choices when it comes to broadband. Remember the Adelphia scandal? The family members who own Adelphia spent our money on luxuries. Our government doesn't have much control over how to control prices, as they let the companies charge how much they want to consumers. Japan, S. Korea, and the EU let their government have more control over the broadband market by encouraging competition and use its own money to improve the technology.

The US doesn't have the money to improve broadband technology due to wasting money on 2 wars, stimulus package, and health care reform. It is a huge country and the rural areas are suffering the most from it. Atlanta finally has wireless Internet, but the prices are still somewhat high ($45/month for 3Mbps down/256kbps up). We're moving in the right direction, but they're still many obstacles that must be overcome before we get affordable broadband for the US.

RE: Still a monopoly
By Tsuwamono on 8/20/2009 1:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
USA isn't the only ones suffering. Canada is just as bad or worse.

We have regulation with the PURPOSE of improving competition but the CRTC is corrupt and useless now. All they care about is Bell and Rogers bottom line.

175GB? That's it?
By nitrous9200 on 8/21/2009 12:47:50 AM , Rating: 2
I burned through 140GB by seeding torrents for two days. Not that I usually use that much, but 175GB is nothing, and of course the upload speeds even on Docsis 3.0 are crap.
I've got FiOS 20/20 here. It's awesome.

RE: 175GB? That's it?
By Tsuwamono on 8/21/2009 10:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
unfortunately we can't get FiOS here. Thanks for the comparison though.

Whats The point?
By Harsh3090416 on 8/20/2009 4:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
What's the point of having an extremely high speed internet and then cap it with 175gb?? do we really need that speed if we are only going to browse websites? even if we do not download stuff internet is really becoming bandwidth hungry for example HD movie trailers, hulu, etc etc. i know most of us don't even go near that amount of bandwidth but one of my friend gets to like 200GB just by watching hulu and HD movies online.

By on 8/22/2009 11:37:44 AM , Rating: 2

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32
lv, coach, chane bag $35
COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30
christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13
edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25
Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24
AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive

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