Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comcast Offers 50 Mbps Residential Speeds

kdawson posted about 6 years ago | from the time-for-fios-leapfrog dept.

Networking 332

An anonymous reader notes that Comcast is offering a new 50-Mbps / 6-Mbps package for residential customers for $150, starting in Minneapolis-St. Paul and extending nationwide by mid-2010. The new service will use the DOCSIS 3.0 standard, which is nearing ratification. We've recently discussed Comcast's BitTorrent throttling and promise to quit it, and their low-quality 'HD' programming. How attractive will $150 for 50 Mbps be compared to Verizon's FiOS offerings?

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


WoW (5, Insightful)

Ariastis (797888) | about 6 years ago | (#22951364)

50 mbps, throttled, copied to the NSA, squeezed on the same cable as too many HD channels.

Where do I send my 150$ again?

Re:WoW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22951432)

No kidding, not to mention everything you do is more likely to get flagged "illegal".

Re:WoW (5, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 6 years ago | (#22951646)

One of the most amusing quotes from the article:

"A decade ago we couldn't even conceive of ... YouTube," Google Inc.'s video-sharing service, said Greg Butz, Comcast's vice president for marketing and product development.

Oh my goodness! Not YouTube! Never mind services like iTunes, Amazon Unboxed, and XBox Movies which provide legal, multi-GB movie files that will happily chew through your bandwidth cap in no time flat. The real concern at hand is... YouTube.

Executives always have a way of cracking me up. :-)

Re:WoW (4, Insightful)

sammy baby (14909) | about 6 years ago | (#22951736)

Not that I'm privy to their bandwidth statistics, but I'd be willing to wager that YouTube gets more traffic from Comcast customers than Amazon Unboxed and XBox Movies put together. Almost certainly more than iTMS by itself, too.

Not a very large wager, mind. ;)

Re:WoW (5, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | about 6 years ago | (#22951436)

You also forgot, it's also probably not 50mbps.

They sell the "8meg" tier here but the pipe to the headend cant handle the 8meg so if you do any speed tests OUTSIDE their reccomended you never get more than 4.4-5.

Re:WoW (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | about 6 years ago | (#22951656)

To add to this, I think it will be a while before most people will see the benefits of having a 50/6 connection over something slightly slower, say 15/5, which is cheaper and usually comes with better offerings.

Append that to Comcast's already-shaky reputation as an internet and cable provider, and I think that Verizon still has a better odds of attracting more fiber-optic broadband converts. Plus, Verizon offers television service with their fast internet plans; so far as I know, Comcast doesn't.

Re:WoW (3, Funny)

rashire (1222070) | about 6 years ago | (#22951876)

Lets not forget the news that came out not long ago that verizon was testing 100 mbps connections on its employees.

Re:WoW (5, Funny)

NormalVisual (565491) | about 6 years ago | (#22952026)

Yeah, but I hear that they're going to be stopping those soon. Something about problems with infections of the skin around the RJ-45 connectors or something like that.

Re:WoW (1)

segin (883667) | about 6 years ago | (#22952006)

Verizon's FiOS is now available in symmerical bandwidth offerings. In my area, you can get a 15/15 or 20/20 connection. I personally don't care for download over 5~6MBps, since I don't have any money leftover for "legitimate" download services, and most people using BitTorrent has .5 up, not to mention that you usually get about 10 seeds, and half of them only give you about 100Kbits up (about 10KB/s), you don't get anything downloaded faster than 200KB/s (~3Mbps). What you really want is a good upload pipe so that you can upload all those movies you rent from NetFlix/BlockBuster, so that others mustn't feel the failings of other moronic ISPs who think a half-megabit to 2 megabits is all one will *ever* need. Period.

Re:WoW (1)

toleraen (831634) | about 6 years ago | (#22951750)

I guess I never had any problems with Comcast's speeds, at least in Hudson anyway. Had the 8Mb there, and regularly got pretty close (~7.3Mb usually). Charter, on the other hand...

Re:WoW (3, Informative)

spydum (828400) | about 6 years ago | (#22951832)

Open multiple streams. That speed limitation is based on a single tcp session, which is almost entirely latency and MTU size induced (remember that formula? if not, google it). Hasn't anyone been paying attention? Why do you think you get such awesome bit torrent speeds? It's MANY tcp sessions, all streaming at once (rarely do you see a single stream over the net pushing more than 1-2Mbit/sec).

Re:WoW (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 6 years ago | (#22951884)

Conversely I have 9meg from Cox, and I actually get close to those speeds.

It is PFM that a company delivers on what they're selling you!

Re:WoW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22951504)

That's nothing. Here in Richmond, Indiana Comcast recently took over the cable from Insight and the service wend from good to horrible almost overnight. I can barely use the phone service Comcast provides. Hell, there are even times people get a busy signal when trying to call me depite the fact the phone is still on the hook. I am planning on switching to Parallax, a local company for DSL and Vonage for my phone service.

Comcast can go suck a lemon for all I care.

Time for Municipal Fiber to the Home. (1)

Erris (531066) | about 6 years ago | (#22951748)

I wonder what these clowns think about municipal fiber to the home, like Lafayette, Louisiana is rolling out... Oh yeah, they hate it. Too bad for them. Municipal services, water, electricity and so on have always been cheaper and better than what nation scale companies can provide.

Tell me, Mr. Slashdotter... (5, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 6 years ago | (#22951366)

What good is 50Mbps... If you are unable to P2P?

Re:Tell me, Mr. Slashdotter... (2, Insightful)

daskro (973768) | about 6 years ago | (#22951470)

While I can't speak for every city Comcast provide service for, the business class service never suffered from the p2p doom and gloom that has been touted for months on end. I would suspect that Comcast would treat this $150.00 a month service as a business class line.

Re:Tell me, Mr. Slashdotter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22951840)

While I can't speak for every city Comcast provide service for, the business class service never suffered from the p2p doom and gloom that has been touted for months on end. I would suspect that Comcast would treat this $150.00 a month service as a business class line.
As a current Comcast customer, I think they would treat it as an additional $100/month profit from most of their customers.

Re:Tell me, Mr. Slashdotter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22952018)

nah TFA has 150.00 for residential and 199.00 for business class.

How attractive compared to FIOs? (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#22951368)

You know, as much as I would love Natalie Portman, I would settle for Natasha Henstridge if she's all I could get in my neighborhood.

In other words, if you live in an area not covered by FIOS, it's as attractive as you're going to get, buddy.

Re:How attractive compared to FIOs? (5, Informative)

BoberFett (127537) | about 6 years ago | (#22951716)

I wish I could get FIOS in Minneapolis, but I doubt it's going to happen any time soon. I cancelled Comcast for being such a crappy ISP a couple years ago and went with 1.5M/768K DSL. It's slower, but the service is far better.

At any rate, I'm not going back to Comcast even if they offer me 150/50. They're a horrible company to deal with.

Re:How attractive compared to FIOs? (1)

Stripe7 (571267) | about 6 years ago | (#22951980)

However FIOS is looking more attractive to me as it becomes available here because of Comcast fiddling with bandwidth and lowering the HD quality of their channels. I prefer to get what I pay for, in particular bandwidth and HD programming, not a % of the bandwidth I pay for and badly degraded HD programming.

What about FiOS? (1)

ubergamer1337 (912210) | about 6 years ago | (#22951370)

It would be helpful to know how fast FiOS is, and how much it costs, to make a worthwile comparison.

Re:What about FiOS? (4, Informative)

jandrese (485) | about 6 years ago | (#22951554)

In the DC Area I'm able to get a 30/5 FiOS package for I think $65/month now (it used to be $55, but they jacked the prices up a couple of months ago). Most areas are stuck with 5/2 service though last I heard. The good news is that I get all of that bandwidth as far as I can tell, the bad news is that it still uses PPPoE for some reason.

Re:What about FiOS? (4, Informative)

samkass (174571) | about 6 years ago | (#22951634)

I have 20 down, 5 up internet; flat-rate domestic phone service; and basic tv (with a dozen or so HD channels) for $105/mo. It's extremely reliable and fast. The HD channels appear better than Comcast but still overcompressed on some channels. The telephone is no better or worse than anyone else-- it's just there.

The biggest downside is that the television is not TiVo compatible. That alone has me considering switching back to Comcast for television, but they can pry my FiOS internet service out of my cold, dead fingers.

Re:What about FiOS? (1)

nwf (25607) | about 6 years ago | (#22951882)

I have outside of Philadelphia, and we get 15/2 as part of the triple pay for $100/mo including unlimited phone and more channels that Comcast is offering for much more. Although it almost doesn't matter, since Comcast in my area is pathetic and their support is the worst I've ever seen from any company. They actually seemed happy I left so they didn't actually have to fix their network.

Re:What about FiOS? (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | about 6 years ago | (#22951928)

50/20 service is available in my area at $90/mo. Add their FiOS TV service and it's $138/mo. (annual contracts)


caps? (5, Interesting)

Neil Watson (60859) | about 6 years ago | (#22951374)

And the monthly GB limits are?

Re:caps? (1)

snl2587 (1177409) | about 6 years ago | (#22951476)

For $150, there had better be none. And they'd better give me a butler and a diamond-studded modem.

Re:caps? (3, Funny)

Fx.Dr (915071) | about 6 years ago | (#22951510)

Knowing Comcasts' customer service, they'll send a leather studded butler and no modem instead. Just sayin'.

Burst vs Sustained Speed (5, Insightful)

ChuBie (945413) | about 6 years ago | (#22951378)

Forget advertising about a new 50 Mbps speed that you may only see 5 of during peak times. I want to see a company advertise their guaranteed speeds for that class of service along with the peak you might hit at 4am.

Re:Burst vs Sustained Speed (4, Interesting)

thanatos_x (1086171) | about 6 years ago | (#22951522)

That's going against the general notion of the packet switching, and quite difficult/expensive for the company to do (especially from an advertising standpoint.)

Perhaps a good compromise would be disclosing the total bandwidth available for a given street/town/etc and the number of users. Also average speeds during peak hours would be useful, or in general an explicit policy on bandwidth usage- you get X gb /time period, or you get X gb /month at 50 Mbps before you get moved down to lower priority (bandwidth is capped unless there is low usage.)

Re:Burst vs Sustained Speed (1)

interiot (50685) | about 6 years ago | (#22951680)

Long before that happens though, customers will collect their own information and post it online.

If there was a program that kept track of when you max out your upstream or downstream, and tried to characterize what might be triggering any throttling, that'd be very useful information to post online.

Then, if you could set up a DOCSIS sniffer [paperlined.org] and collect similar data from everyone in your neighborhood, you'd have heaps of useful data.

Re:Burst vs Sustained Speed (4, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | about 6 years ago | (#22951778)

I'm sorry, NOT! If Comcast built their network correctly to begin with, the infrastructure COULD handle specific bandwidth requirements that could in turn be advertised correctly.

The advertised vs. actual problem occurs when the architecture of the network is itself sloppy, and relies on end users never testing their bandwidth at the same time. Generally, this works, but is NOT good for guaranteed QoS.

If every neighborhood WAN/Ring was set up with 2x the required network feeding it you would get reduced speed during an outage and guaranteed bandwidth possibilities. The problem is that requires upgrades, and we know that won't happen till some pork toting politicians says the county/state will pay for it.

Current and previous network designs were vamped up analog cable tv networks (read as router jammed in outdoor cabinet somewhere in the neighborhood) the cable companies went into the network business with less than suitable design and staff and winged it. The public is now happy to have the less than optimal service that was offered rather than demanding 'you can hear a pin drop' quality.

50Mbps is what I would equate to high end, but I'm willing to bet that the QoS is NO better than dialup, just faster most of the time. If the QoS was better, they'd advertise it.

What this means is that the cheapest upgrade to crap old equipment came with a huge bandwidth increase by default. They could give you a QoS guaranteed 15Mb/3Mb and setup the network to produce that... but nope, not happening. It 'SOUNDS' so much better to say **50Mbps**

It's nothing but marketing droid bs.

Re:Burst vs Sustained Speed (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | about 6 years ago | (#22952038)

I'm sorry, NOT! If Comcast built their network correctly to begin with, the infrastructure COULD handle specific bandwidth requirements that could in turn be advertised correctly.
And what happens when the source of the slow-down is external to your ISP's infrastructure? This, I think, is the real problem with "guaranteeing" connection speeds.

You might be able to guarantee YOUR network, but Joe Shmoe isn't going to understand the difference when his favorite website gets slashdotted and takes forever to load. Then the lawyers come out.

The only solution is to put that little * next to the speed on the advert and not actually guarantee anything.

Re:Burst vs Sustained Speed (2, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | about 6 years ago | (#22951670)

AT&T will do that for you right now.

's called buying a T1 or a T3 or even a OC48 if you want the bandwidth.

you gotta pay for it.

Re:Burst vs Sustained Speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22952054)

I can't speak for Comcast's service, but my FiOS 20/20mbps does indeed give me 20mbps both down an up. You just need to be connected to services that can cope. Try a popular torrent rather than one of those crap web based "speed tests".

just dont use it (1)

pablo_max (626328) | about 6 years ago | (#22951380)

thats a lot of speed. Just don't bother using it to download..at least it will make those XP/Vista updates quicker ;)

Fine print (5, Funny)

Hyppy (74366) | about 6 years ago | (#22951410)


fine print -
*: for only the first 10 seconds of any sustained transaction. Additional fees and restrictions apply. Bandwidth advertised will be dropped to dial-up speeds when used for any protocol not essential to the viewing of a common web page.

Re:Fine print (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | about 6 years ago | (#22951496)

dropped to dial-up speeds when used for any protocol not essential to the viewing of a common web page.

Anyone feel like trying to write Apache to run over BitTorrent for serving web pages? :D

offtopic: the new design (3, Insightful)

doti (966971) | about 6 years ago | (#22951418)

Nice, and the new reply system is great, but I think there's too much vertical space wasted by the gray "Replay to This" and "Parent" buttons.

Re:offtopic: the new design (3, Insightful)

EMeta (860558) | about 6 years ago | (#22951576)

Agreed. Need option to change it back. When it was just text it looked a lot more like I was working while reading /.

Re:offtopic: the new design (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | about 6 years ago | (#22952100)

As we are supposed to speak about Comcast, I remembered Azureus bittorrent client. ;)

It has "Use fancy tabs" setting in advanced mode. Slashdot may have "Use Fancy buttons" which thousands of geeks will disable.

Re:offtopic: the new design (4, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | about 6 years ago | (#22951622)

It's the whitespace between the comment and the buttons that does it. Put the following in your user stylesheet:

.commentBody {
padding-bottom: 0 !important;

Agreed, give me text please (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 6 years ago | (#22951720)

For a mostly-text medium like /., "Best viewed with any browser" should be the name of the game. All functionality should be available using vintage browsers with no add-ons, no scripting, no etc.

Well, maybe not the ancient NetScape browsers posted a few days ago, but anything much newer than that.

Re:offtopic: the new design (1)

Racemaniac (1099281) | about 6 years ago | (#22951740)

i'm just happy that the dynamic view works with opera again, it didn't work for a while, now i tried to enable it again, and it works nicely again :)

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22951426)

I'm sure I'll get a few ADD suffering detractors on this comment but...

The price is ludicrous and 50/6 asymmetry is too. When are things going to settle down an 10/10 for ~$30/month?

Sure....50Mbps? (1)

BigAssRat (724675) | about 6 years ago | (#22951428)

I can't get over 4Mbps on my "6Mbps" connection as it is. Now they are going to try offering 50? Right.

Does it include Throttling? (1)

MrSteveSD (801820) | about 6 years ago | (#22951450)

Virgin Media are always trying to push their high-speed service, but they all include throttling after you have downloaded any significant amount of data. If you buy a TV show from ITunes and download it, you will suddenly find your speed switched right down.

You assume there will be a choice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22951456)

The odds that this and FiOS will be available in the same areas are slim to none. Both companies will make deals to prevent competition, just like they always have.

Not very if there is a monthly throughput cap (5, Insightful)

Tsu-na-mi (88576) | about 6 years ago | (#22951526)

How attractive will $150 for 50 Mbps be compared to Verizon's FiOS offerings?

50Mb sounds nice, but if they cut you off after 100GB per month for "excessive traffic", what good is it?

Re:Not very if there is a monthly throughput cap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22951666)

Maybe they have an "unlimited" option? :-)

Re:Not very if there is a monthly throughput cap (1)

street struttin' (1249972) | about 6 years ago | (#22951724)

50Mb sounds nice, but if they cut you off after 100GB per month for "excessive traffic", what good is it?
No kidding. If they are going to throttle you after you do any major data pulls, what good is it? They could offer a bajillion MBps, but if they cut you off as soon as you try to use it, who cares? Might as well stick with whatever is cheapest...

Re:Not very if there is a monthly throughput cap (1)

bcwright (871193) | about 6 years ago | (#22951816)

There actually may be some amount of demand for a high "burst" speed even if the total amount of bandwidth is capped, at least if you're talking about business class service - depending on the exact numbers involved, of course. If you're running a server, there are times when you want to have that high burst rate (for example, serving up video) but the amount of traffic on your site doesn't warrant paying for having no limits on bandwidth other than what's implicit in the hardware specs. Of course, if this is a "residential-only" service and you can't run a server on it, all of this is a moot point. :-)

Why is there no intermidate speed and price? (1)

Starteck81 (917280) | about 6 years ago | (#22951964)

What I find more interesting is that they skipped any intermediary options in pricing and bandwidth. For example FIOS has a 5 by 2 for 40 dollars , 15 by 2 for 50 dollars and a 30 by 30(I think) for 180 dollars. Why the hell didn't Comcast offer a reasonably price intermediate speed on the order of 15Mbps up and 2Mbps down like Verizon did?

It seems very stupid to me but on the other hand what else would you expect from a company that uses it's own name as an adjective?

Verizon FiOS won't cover all of Verizon territory (3, Informative)

bcwright (871193) | about 6 years ago | (#22951578)

I live in fairly large metropolitan area (> 1 million) which is served by Verizon, however because most of the rest of the state is served by another provider our little island is treated by Verizon as one of their "ugly stepchildren." It appears unlikely that we'll get FiOS from Verizon before 2020, if then. (That's not a misprint BTW). In addition, there are lots of places that aren't even served by Verizon for local phone service. Given that Verizon is not interested in our money, if Comcast can provide that kind of service here I think they may well get a lot of subscribers.

Re:Verizon FiOS won't cover all of Verizon territo (1)

imstanny (722685) | about 6 years ago | (#22951846)

I live in fairly large metropolitan area (> 1 million) which is served by Verizon, however because most of the rest of the state is served by another provider our little island is treated by Verizon as one of their "ugly stepchildren." It appears unlikely that we'll get FiOS from Verizon before 2020, if then.
If I read that 2 days ago, I would've beleived you. I live in a suburban area which has always been slow in adopting broadband. Cable companies kept promising "within the next year" for mroe than half a decade. I ended up upgrading to DSL, then Cable. I've been checking availability of Verizon Fios for about a year now, with a similar message. However, I decided to check yesterday and it is available!

Not sure about national deployment, but Verizon definately beat my expectations. It's a huge project and they seem to be systematically achieving their goal.

Also, a problem with optical cables has been that they have to be kept straight to sustain signal strength. This obstical has recently been eliminated by Corning, so deployment in major cities (where there are apartment buildings, and lots of 'turns' for optical cables to make) is now practical for verizon to undertake.

Besides, by 2010-2011 Verizon will be deploying 4G wireless network so you'll get the high bandwidth one way or another...

What about AT&T? (1)

singingjim1 (1070652) | about 6 years ago | (#22951602)

I'll never see Verizon here in Florida since AT&T is the big dog here. They haven't even announced anything about next generation DSL here yet, so Comcast is the only game in town for real high-speed internet. Speaking of which, I downloaded a Quicktime update the other day and peaked at 1500 kbps with an average speed over 1000 kbps for the 23 MB download which took a few seconds to complete. Bash them all you want, but ya gotta love that speed boost for downloads. I'm not sure how it works with bandwidth and streaming, but you can definitely see a real increase in download speeds. Pirates might whine about limits on downloading their music and movies, but legitimate downloads scream. And I HATE Comcast and their crappy HDTV service, but they are the shit when it comes to broadband, at least in my area.

Avoiding FIOS markets (1)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | about 6 years ago | (#22951610)

FIOS is cheaper. FIOS doesn't throttle the shit out of your uploads. I expect Comcast will avoid taking this product to markets where FIOS is available.

Re:Avoiding FIOS markets (3, Insightful)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 6 years ago | (#22951704)

FIOS is cheaper. FIOS doesn't throttle the shit out of your uploads. I expect Comcast will avoid taking this product to markets where FIOS is available.
they don't throttle you YET! gotta remember during this how time fcc been on comcast case verizon was one companies backing comcast's side.

Half the speed, twice the price. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22951616)

What a deal!

Can I run a server? (5, Interesting)

jc42 (318812) | about 6 years ago | (#22951628)

Among my questions about Internet service is whether I'm permitted to run my own servers. I have a site (with several domain names) on which I provide net space for a small collection of friends and relatives. Nothing terribly commercial, except marginally for a couple of local bands. But keeping such things on a personal machine can be a good idea. That way you don't run afoul of the ISPs' penchant for claiming ownership of any files that you put on the "hosted" web site that they so conveniently provide for you. This is especially important for the bands, who would be rather upset if they found out that their ISP had claimed their MP3s and was selling them or using them in ads.

Right now, I have a DSL account through speakeasy, whose TOS promise that I can do all of this, and they won't take it away from me. The other ISPs hereabouts either flatly forbid home servers or "reserve the right" to change their permissions without notice. And they won't sell commercial service to a "home" customer. So FIOS et al would eliminate such family-and-friends services, as well as risking my friends' bands' control of their own recordings.

Anyone know of general solutions to this sort of problem? Not just for me, but for all the other geeks either doing or thinking of something similar? Is there a way we can put our own stuff online, and guarantee that the ISP can't take it away from us and use it for their own commercial purposes?

It's a trap! (1)

77Punker (673758) | about 6 years ago | (#22951800)

Well, just sign up for their hosting service! I'm sure it's all part of a wonderful bundle that makes everything so cheap.

Re:Can I run a server? (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 6 years ago | (#22951828)

upgrade to a business connection which probley cost a bit more that is about the only option

Re:Can I run a server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22951936)

If you get a DBA or incorporation, you can be a business customer, I believe-- even if your "office" is quite humble.

But business packages are directed toward business budgets. I hope you've got one.

Re:Can I run a server? (1)

MarcoG42 (1087205) | about 6 years ago | (#22951992)

I live in Brooklyn, NY and my ISP (Cablevision) offers a 30/5 service that allows you to run your own server from home. Now, I'm not entirely sure if my IP is static. I never read anywhere that it was, so I assume I have a dynamic IP, but I know for a fact that my IP hasn't changed since January. I host 4 domains, among other things, from my own rig and the speed is impressive. Cablevision even has some online tools to help you host from home, though they're geared more towards beginners.

So buy hosting from somebody. (2, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about 6 years ago | (#22952108)

Commercial web hosting is so cheap that there's no reason to do it on a home machine. Don't get it from your ISP; there are hundreds of competing web hosting companies. You can get quite decent capabilities for under $10/month.

Re:Can I run a server? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 6 years ago | (#22952110)

Sign up for a hosting service. A server is better off in a data center than sitting on your desk anyways. I'm looking at Server Beach myself so I can have a reliable server set up for my email and just to fool around with. For under $100 a month, they'll rent you what is, for an individual or very small business, a pretty nice box, with a decent internet connection that has a clearly defined (and reasonable) transfer limit, and you can do what want with that box as long as it doesn't start trying to hack other boxes in the center or become a spambot. They don't even get to have account on it.

Verizon gives you cap free Usenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22951678)

That is a big deciding factor for me. Their service is sub premium, but they have enough completeness and retention to download dvds and binaries 24/7 if you desire.

Comcast gives you 2 gig a month Usenet, and even if you pay extra for a premium feed, you still have to worry about a cap.

50Mbps untill... (5, Insightful)

downix (84795) | about 6 years ago | (#22951728)

I can imagine the comments now

"Wow, 50Mbps, let me try something"
second later
"Hey, it just slowed down to 40Mbps"
second later
"what the, it slowed to 12Mbps"
one more second
"Hey, it's at 28.8Kbps!"

While back at the Comcast HQ
"Gentlemen, the beauty of the system is that it is only 50Mbps until someone actually uses. Any use of the pipeline for such bandwidth gobbling activities such as web browsing or email will be immediately countered with our new bandwidth load balancing software, reducing the available bandwidth in order to keep our profits up..."

Re:50Mbps untill... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22952034)

I will continue to sign up for the lowest possible speed (currently 768Kbps in my area, been upgraded twice in 3 years). Why? Not simply because it costs less, but because you actually get what you pay for. My downloads may only be 90KB/s, but on the other hand, they are ALWAYS 90KB/s. It seems the ISP only plays the bandwidth games with their "premium" services -- the measly 768Kb connection isn't worth the bother.

All the better, I say. If you don't need the bandwidth, this is the smart way to go.

Sustainable Speed and Usability (1)

jpdzahr (1260592) | about 6 years ago | (#22951754)

If an ISP can not deliver Sustainable Speed and Usability then there is no value to the service other than net trollers. So if during peak time you lose speed and you can't serve up Web pages then it's simply a service for AOLers http://www.findthebestlawyers.com/ [findthebestlawyers.com]

DOCSIS 3.0 (3, Interesting)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | about 6 years ago | (#22951780)

The new service will use the DOCSIS 3.0 standard, which is nearing ratification.

So does that mean they'll be providing IPv6 connectivity?

They throttle more than P2P (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22951814)

Although its not widely publicized they have also been found to throttle Lotus Notes and iChat sessions (making them unusable after a minute or so) among other things - probably many more other things. There's alot more going on under the covers than just an assault on Bit Torrent. I VPN to work (which is one of the only ways around their throttling at this point - VPN) so its speed is fine.

But it begs the question, what good is this supposed speed you buy when Comcast doesn't actually let you use it? This is deceptive advertising at its best on Comcast's part. Their internet packages are more expensive than DSL typically and could be justified because they were "faster", but their not really, because you don't get to use that speed. I'm in the process of migrating to DSL because of Comcast's deception and denying they've been doing this. Net neutrality needs some more poster children like Comcast. ;-)

Already available elsewhere... (4, Interesting)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | about 6 years ago | (#22951906)

You can already get this level of speed almost anywhere in quebec (canada) for about $100/month. It doesn't seem to go this fast unless you're doing something p2p... but if comcast throttles p2p - what is the point?

Pointless (1)

davolfman (1245316) | about 6 years ago | (#22951978)

Bittorent is actually pretty much the only application I have ever seen to approach using the kind of bandwidth already available. The increased upload speed could probably be useful though.

DOCSIS 3.0 warning (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | about 6 years ago | (#22952016)

DOCSIS 3.0 has very sophisticated Quality Of Service (can read as unbreakable capping) technology built in. If you think it will be easy to hack, believe me nothing on DOCSIS is easy. Saying as a person who had to throw away his Motorola SB3100 because ISP rejected to update its firmware.

I tried 2 weeks before giving up and it was supposed to be easier than others since (archaic) modem had built in software upgrade option from DOCSIS 1.0 to 1.1.

We are speaking about a ISP sent RESET signal to their customers even if they download Linux ISO images or licensed/paid movies.

How attractive, you ask? (1)

lullabud (679893) | about 6 years ago | (#22952048)

Which ever one comes to San Francisco first is going to be a hell of a lot more attractive to me. I was trying to get FIOS here but couldn't because Verizon has no land service in this area. Comcast does... I think I know which one is more attractive now. To me anyway...

Srsly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22952062)

You guys always talk shit about Comcast, but do you actually use it?

Their network management philosophy is atrocious, but...

I ALWAYS get at least my rated speed. Always.

Additional speeds (2, Funny)

esocid (946821) | about 6 years ago | (#22952066)

From DSL reports [dslreports.com]

Comcast says customers on their 6Mbps tier will see upstream speed bumps to 1Mbps at no cost, while 8Mbps downstream customers will see their upstream speeds bumped to 2Mbps. That may actually be the more exciting news for customers eager for more upstream bandwidth.
That is meaningless since no one ever gets anywhere near the supposed bandwidth, but hey maybe you'll be able to get close to that previous allotment.

Compared to FiOS (1)

Kohath (38547) | about 6 years ago | (#22952092)

How attractive will $150 for 50 Mbps be compared to Verizon's FiOS offerings?

Well, I live in the Minneapolis area. FiOS is not available here. So I'd say Comcast has the advantage.

Tinfoil hat time (1)

antonymous (828776) | about 6 years ago | (#22952140)

So Comcast offers ultra-fast speeds at a ridiculous price. Rich p2p pirates purchase this service, get tracked, and get sued.

This could also lead to "harder" GB caps at lower tiers, encouraging users to bump up to a more expensive service.

While I think better last-mile speeds are important, I can't see many "residential" customers willing to pay $100 more per month for increased bandwidth - if you really need that much, you probably already have a business account. There just aren't existing net applications which gain significant performance advantages at these speeds (though I'm sure they're coming).

Comcast throttle alot more than bit torrent (1)

sasparillascott (1267058) | about 6 years ago | (#22952144)

Although it hasn't been publicised greatly, Comcast throttles alot more than bit torrent. Lotus Notes gets throttled as do iChat (640x480 video conference) sessions (making them unusable after about a minute). You have to set iChat to restrict itself to 3x dial up speed to work. Comcast is probably throttling alot more than this in reality. VPN is about the only way around their throttles. What good are their "High" speeds (how they justify their more expensive prices compared to DSL) when you can't use them? BTW they've denied they've been doing this the whole time. They're definitely the perfect poster child for Net Neutrality. Comcast customers, its time to take your money elsewhere.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account