Possible reason why comcast lowered bandwidth!

vic451 · Post by **vic451** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 10:41 am

Well you see to give us users more bandwidth they can either upgrade the fiber or give up a few channels . You see that the way cable broadband works . What our modems run on is essentially an unused cable channel . Just like there are some channels reserved for pay per view orders . You see both of those cost money . Give up a channel, thats one less space for another premium channel to raise the ole cable bill . Also fiber is expensive . So they do the best thing that concast can do and they cut our bandwidth . They now have more room for more channels . Also for every upload channel they cut thats one more pay per view channel . So remember when you start seein 500 pay perview channels and hbo 24 ,That used to be you broadband speed .Also fyi the only reason telcos don't give us a better faster dsl alternative is because of the slow telco rollout . Not all areas are even equipped with dslam yet . Also fyi the technology that supports dslx was created for them to offer cable service through the phone lines . Course the eventual implementation if a telco chose to offer cable would cut into the data stream . They would have to use vdsl wich can offer up to 52,000 kbps . The big word with dsl is dedidcated . You have a dedicated line to the headend not like the shared cable medium . Even adsl offers 6,000 kbps . The truth is the future of broadband may lie in dsl . With new technologys quickly advancing the way we use it . They have already moved a prototype dslam up the pole . What i have stated here is as i said not even nearly fully realized , but even now it's only slowed or stopped by corporations . If the fed would fund a broadband tech upgrd sweep we all be livin the dream . Later

neo86 · Post by **neo86** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 12:34 pm

Who uses pay-per-view anyways? I've only used it twice and it sucked. The picture was always blocky and it stuttered.

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 2:45 pm

Possible reason why comcast lowered bandwidth!

I can answer that definitively with one word:

Money

Bottom line that's what it's all about. Customer satisfaction is secondary.

HalfLifer · Post by **HalfLifer** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 3:20 pm

Bandwidth costs money.

OC-3 is like 50,000 a month. They carry TV, Cable internet, etc.

vic451 · Post by **vic451** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 3:27 pm

Actually it's inter office politics . Th big phone companys give certain people kickbacks for keeping their big expensive line when there are way cheaper alternatives .

T1

~1.5 Mbps

~$1,500 to
$2,000

T3

~45 Mbps

~$20,000 to
$50,000

OC3

~155 Mbps

~$75,000 to
$105,000

Cogent

100 Mbps

$1,000

Cogent also has a 1000mbps line for 10,000 dollars . Now lets see if comcast stoped payin the 75,000 and instead payed a mere 2,000 that would equate to a substantial savings that would be able to be merely obsorbed to comcasts wallet or to reduce our bill or to give us 50 times the access .

wee96 · Post by **wee96** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 3:58 pm

Your dumb dude, sorry but someone had to say it.

vic451 · Post by **vic451** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 4:12 pm

Pucker up comcast lacky . I make 70k plus a year clear for my opinion . So you can kiss it no one but you wanted to say it . And frankly no one cares . I think i'll go for a ride in my NEW corvette . Take what i said for what it's worth . I was only tryin to inform you guys .

wee96 · Post by **wee96** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 4:44 pm

Who asked what you make or anything about your line of work dude? Obviously that was you being offended and reacting in the only way you can, by trying to out do someone else. I was only stating that you sound very lame in your statements. Apologize if it offended your "corvette" driving self.

Originally posted by vic451
Pucker up comcast lacky . I make 70k plus a year clear for my opinion . So you can kiss it no one but you wanted to say it . And frankly no one cares . I think i'll go for a ride in my NEW corvette . Take what i said for what it's worth . I was only tryin to inform you guys .

eddiec · Post by **eddiec** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 5:13 pm

Sorry, Vic. Data over cable doesn't run an the same freq as video, thus no conflict. Don't know what you do for the cable company but I suspect you're overpaid or related to somebody. Or just misinformed.

Mike_W · Post by **Mike_W** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 5:32 pm

Probably had a lot to do with the new network

wee96 · Post by **wee96** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 5:50 pm

All I can do

eddiec · Post by **eddiec** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 6:02 pm

"Mcse , A+ and nowhere to go "

Well, that sig explains it.

wee96 · Post by **wee96** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 6:06 pm

Originally posted by eddiec
"Mcse , A+ and nowhere to go "

Well, that sig explains it.

Again

vic451 · Post by **vic451** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 7:26 pm

No matter what is transmitted it is in the 0-750mhz band . The part of the mhz range the data uses could be a channel . But, It is not . I personally don't know anywhere where they use the whole range . The 0-50 mhz range is usually rserved for upstream pay perview . That is just on a typical pay per view setup . Not a setup such as digital . Which can offer pay per view in the hundreds of channels . So you see that 50mhz range expands greatly . Thats one of the reasons that upstream is limited . In a highly taxed and constantly expanding digital cable system you can be sure that cable traffic will eventually be weighing on your data connection . There is no magical separate region for the data signal .

Kip Patterson · Post by **Kip Patterson** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 8:16 pm

Let's try to get away from the personal attacks and deal with something a little more factual.

VIC451, sorry, but you are off the mark in several areas. Pay-per-view uses very little upstream. It only has to notify the headend that you've purchased a movie. The principle use for the frequencies under 50 Mhz is for the upstream of cable modems.

The reduction in bandwidth has nothing to do with freeing up downstream channels for pay-per-view and other uses. A minimum of one channel has to be used for cable modem downstream, and it is a rare system that uses more than one, or two in the case of systems that have both DOCSIS and legacy modems.

It is true that the downstream channels are precious. With the advent of HDTV, each broadcast station has to be allocated a full channel, whereas today digital channels are packed 4 or 6 in a single 6Mhz space.

Cogent is in desperate trouble, having bought Allied Riser after they flew in to the ground at a high rate of speed. Cogent is offerng office connectivity, with no more performance guarantees than cable. There is no comparison between their offerings and T-3 or better lines.

Eddiec: Cable modem downstream uses one of the TV channels. Anyone can be used, it is not seperated in any way from the TV signals. In fact, it uses the same protocol, MPEG-2, as digital TV.

Lastly, an accusation that phone companies pay bribes to sell their circuits is actionable and has no place on this forum. In any case, Those circuits are not normally purchased from phone companies, but rather from nettwork companies such as Qwest, UUnet, etc.

Kip

eddiec · Post by **eddiec** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 8:28 pm

Kip, I stand corrected. We use 663 for data down here, and I thought the upper channels stopped lower than that, but I must be wrong. Thanks once again for your insight. And, um, sorry if I got out of line. I try never to flame.

vic451 · Post by **vic451** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 9:51 pm

I respect your opinion kip , But "Phone companies " is hardly a targeted acusation that could be taken liable . It's a general thing . If i said "Joe Blows phone service" that would be liable . About the pay per view thing maybe it not the same on all systems but tht's how i've seen it done . Thanks for the info .

vic451 · Post by **vic451** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 9:54 pm

Oh by the way the personal stuff didn't really bug me . It's all good

Unregistered · Post by **Unregistered** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 10:28 pm

Can't we all just.... get along?

Wouldn't it be better to try a new media to transfer information? I'm not against fiberoptic cable modems, but wouldn't it be better to use a system, if we're so worried about channels and vailable frequencies, to just use a seperate set of networks other than our already-in-use Cable connections?

I read an interesting article about the possiblity of using electical lines to transfer information, dunno how it all worked, don't know if they've ever used it, maybe some of you have heard about it and could back up what I'm saying...

But look at what you're squandering over; frequencies! Maybe I'm just dense in this area, but that doesn't make much sense... How can there be a 'limited" number of frequencies when there are a virtually unlimited number of variations...

Couldn't we run them at frequences that differ slightly, but not entirely? Like 57.8392Mhz, then another at 57.8292Mhz? What's so hard about that?

Or maybe the frequencies are distorted over distance, but that's not hard to change, send a type of header containing the frequency so that all fiber optic servers can continue fibering.... there...... optical ... things... Nevermind

MtCableman · Post by **MtCableman** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 9:31 am

Using the present scheme of modulation, what would be the benefits of using fiber besides ingress and signal loss? Keep in mind that you would have to build fiber to the home! That would incurr major costs! Yes, cable companies look at the return of the expenditure! That is why some of them are still in business. They work for profit.

The downstream data signal takes up one standard 6Mhz TV channel. The upstream uses about 1.5Mhz wide space and has sub-channels inside it for the data streams.

The decision to limit the bandwidth comes down to money. The first DOCSIS standard didn't support bandwidth limiting. Version 1.0 allowed fast speeds but no way to control the limits. When version 1.1 came out, the possibilties for controlling the limits was made possible. The old @HOME service didn't use the bandwidth limitation to their advantage. They could've used it to make more money. If they tiered out the service and charge for the bandwidth used they could've charged more for people that wanted more speed and charged less for a "basic" service. I think the "new" service providers that are coming out are seeing this potential for increased revenue. It's just the "smart" way to do business if you want to make a profit. I am sure that there are just as many people that would pay for a service that is faster than a dial-up but not a expensive as the 1.5M limit that is imposed right now as there would be people that would like a faster service. It is possible to limit the bandwidth even slower, like around 128K, and then charge a cheaper rate to entice others that would like a slightly faster speed.

It really comes down to making money!

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 10:21 am

Wow! How prophetic!

Originally posted by SilverDakota

I can answer that definitively with one word:

Money

Bottom line that's what it's all about. Customer satisfaction is secondary.

MtCableman · Post by **MtCableman** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 2:25 pm

Money!

Done with the best interest of the customer in mind?

More choices? = Marketing point of view!

Cable_Dood · Post by **Cable_Dood** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 12:44 am

Kip's response is the only 'informed' post on this topic. The decision to cut bandwidth is 100% marketing. Every single Comcast system got a brand spanking new optical interconnect. One of my markets has less than 200 subs swinging on an OC3. My Cisco 12000 series has a quad OC3 and a quad OC12 card in it....we were running on just 2 DS3s with @Home. Everyone still is limited to 1.5mbps. The build-out of an HFC cable plant is such that an upstream CMTS interface wont support enough upstream bandwidth to require more than a 6MHz-wide downstream QAM.

Bicker on.

A_COMMUNIST · Post by **A_COMMUNIST** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 1:13 am

Maybe these former independent ISPs (@Home, Mediaone, Road Runner) were just offering outstanding service while losing money doing it. Maybe this technology just is not ready to be deployed or managed right now. I think the death of these ISP's is just one of the ripples caused by the DOTBOMB era. Maybe these ISPs figured that if they could hang on and get enough customers then they could survive. I guess subscriber growth was not enough to keep them from going under.

I do not believe that today as of now, COMCAST is technically capable of handling this technology in a consumer orientated manner. They just do not have the skilled staff to handle it. I don't mean just customer support. I mean the actual technicians that manage the hardware. I just do not think they are very adept at this.

Also, I really do not think that COMCAST can keep costs low enough to enable the type of service that people were used to. That is why prices are going up and services are being scaled back.

Cable_Dood · Post by **Cable_Dood** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 9:59 am

>>I do not believe that today as of now, COMCAST is technically capable of handling this technology in a consumer orientated manner. They just do not have the skilled staff to handle it.<<

Laughable. Where do you think all the great folks that are now @Homeless are getting jobs?

The @Home network design worked well, but is circa 1998. The Comcast HSI systems were waaaay overbuilt from a hardware AND bandwidth end and use all the latest goodies. There are some sharp people working for Comcast, and there wasn't a dime spared on building this network.

The MARKETING folks know what they have and know what they can make you pay for it. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the people who make this service happen are the same guys and gals who get to decide what to charge for it and what to offer. Management, marketing and pencil-pushers get that privledge.

cplclegg · Post by **cplclegg** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:05 am

I can see why Comcast and other companies will start out with a lower cap. When I got my @Home I had blazing speeds but then they slowed down as time went on and more customers got on. It's like having a big road with no speed limit and with the less people everyone gets to where they are going a lot quicker. The more people you add the more congetsed it gets and all of a sudden you have jams. If there is a speed limit to start with it takes a little longer to get there but when you add more people you will still be going the same speed as before and have less congestion. As long as I get a consistant 1-1.5 mps that is better than getting 3mps some of the time but only 300kps most of the time.

Cable_Dood · Post by **Cable_Dood** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:24 am

You have a good point, but from what I've seen Comcast wouldn't have any trouble delivering say....5 megabits per second downloads without worrying too much about network performance.

What you are referring to is a very real phenomena. Many systems in Comcast launched without bandwidth caps due to provisioning and/or CMTS configuration problems......customers grew accustomed to blazing downloads (I was routinely getting 8-12mbps here) and then were let down when speeds dropped to 4 or 5mbps. At that point we started getting trouble calls and technician dispatches on speed complaints and seeing 3-6mbps when we got out there.

The laws of macroeconomics apply to everything....bandwidth included. If they can make you take 1.5mbps for $40, then they can make you want to pay $60 for more. Just marketing....and it sucks.

Cheers!

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:33 am

Again...

Money.

Cable_Dood · Post by **Cable_Dood** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 11:21 am

You're right....it's about MONEY, but understand one thing: We are not the typical consumers of this product. Our opinions are typical of about 10% of cable modem consumers. The other 90% are the 'average' users who are completely satisfied.....thrilled even.....that they can get 1.5mbps without even using their phone line.

So....any business that likes MONEY must make sure the majority of their customers are SATISFIED, hence most cable MSO's are concerned with customer satisfaction.

Meanwhile, this fact is of little solace to the bandwidth-hungry network-resource-monitoring fiends.......like me.

Mike_W · Post by **Mike_W** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 12:34 pm

I agree on the money issue. As a consumer and customer of Comcast for several years now (cable tv) and a broadband customer for about 9 months, I'd like to know something if you, Cable_Dood can answer it. You seem to have a lot of Comcast inside knowledge. If they do in fact offer cable bandwidth packages, what is your guess-timate on the prices for Xmgb/s. And, since I've not yet noticed my current charges to have been increased, will they likely BE increased?

Cable_Dood · Post by **Cable_Dood** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 1:14 pm

I don't know for sure what the 'tiers' that they are going to offer will be. The current 1.5/128 will be considered the 'silver' level. They'll have an economy 'bronze' and an upscale platinum level. What they will include, when they will be available and at what price are all conjecture at the moment.

I would expect bronze to be something like 512/128 and platinum to be maybe 3/256 with some additional IPs thrown in. Wee.

As far as prices: Well, the cable prices historically only go one direction....up....and February is the traditional month for cable rate hikes, so don't be surprised.

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:58 pm

The thing that ticks me off about the current attitude of slimband ISP's is that they are talking about us 'non-typical' users like we're stealing something that doesn't belong to us and I find that rude, disrespectful and simply unacceptable.

Of course I knew this would all happen once I saw that the Internet was becoming so popular. They want to tax it and and surcharge it and fee it to death like our ridiculous telephone bills, cable TV bills and almost everything freaking other thing we buy every day.

Sad.

I'm surprised they haven't created some special gamebox tax to cover litigation costs when idiots sue them and the game makers when some kid goes whacko over a shoot-em-up game and whacks a couple of his/her friends.

Ridiculous.

Cable_Dood · Post by **Cable_Dood** » Wed Feb 13, 2002 10:19 am

>>The thing that ticks me off about the current attitude of slimband ISP's is that they are talking about us 'non-typical' users like we're stealing something that doesn't belong to us and I find that rude, disrespectful and simply unacceptable.<<

Not true. Unfortunately, this is the attitude that customers usually approach us with. Please expand on this? How exactly are you treated like you're stealing something?

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Wed Feb 13, 2002 10:39 am

Geeze! Just crawl of of a cave?

All the talk of limits, limits, limits because of the 'bandwidth hogs', etc, etc, etc. Some CEO of Comcast has said (not exact quote): The free ride (@home) is over, and she said that we will be limited soon to a few gigs a month downloads, along with these freaking caps.

That's like taking away 20-30 cable channels and then broadcasting in black and white only.

For the same price.

Cable_Dood · Post by **Cable_Dood** » Wed Feb 13, 2002 4:20 pm

I do disagree with the decision to reduce the QOS while charging the same price. I'm not sure of all the factors that went into that decision. It's easy to blame it on greed....I'm not convinced that's entirely it. There were many markets that could not provide more than 1.5 even though the QOS specified 3. Other folks were getting more. Sometimes you guys give us too much credit for being cold, calculating businessmen. We'll see what happens. With the new provisioning system I can't even tweak my own account.....I had my QOS set to 10/10 before.

The only people who don't like 'advanced' users here are usually the tech support folks....mainly because you guys know more than they do anyway.

We like advanced users!

Crawling back towards my cave.

wee96 · Post by **wee96** » Wed Feb 13, 2002 6:45 pm

We all did as techs, dont act all smart. Your points are well said though.

Originally posted by Cable_Dood
I do disagree with the decision to reduce the QOS while charging the same price. I'm not sure of all the factors that went into that decision. It's easy to blame it on greed....I'm not convinced that's entirely it. There were many markets that could not provide more than 1.5 even though the QOS specified 3. Other folks were getting more. Sometimes you guys give us too much credit for being cold, calculating businessmen. We'll see what happens. With the new provisioning system I can't even tweak my own account.....I had my QOS set to 10/10 before.

The only people who don't like 'advanced' users here are usually the tech support folks....mainly because you guys know more than they do anyway.

We like advanced users!

Crawling back towards my cave.

SG Broadband Community

Possible reason why comcast lowered bandwidth!

Possible reason why comcast lowered bandwidth!

OOOOOOOHHHH KKKAAAYYYYY???

Re: OOOOOOOHHHH KKKAAAYYYYY???