Re: Comcast Speeds!!

[Blunted 2]

i download over 3000 kB a sec on some site so yea alot of sites can handle it but some cant even do 100 kB.    its only $45 a month for my connection so i'll be ready when they all can support those speeds.

[FGOKURULES]

Damn your connection is tight already, what else do u need? is that a cable connection? and how the hell do u get that kind of speed??? i Have COMCAST the biggest cable/internet retailer, they barely give you 6Mb connection with all the caps..

[VanBuren]

DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO PUSH THE SPEED A LITTLE FURTHER ON A Comcast CABLE MODEM??

dude get your caps lock off, if your talking about uncapping the modem, try another site we wont provide that info here

So are you an ass-hole part-time or you trying to go full time and make a career out of it? I just wanted to know, i'll be a good refrence on your resume, Jackass..

consider this as a warning, personal attacks is not allowed here

by the way, we dont like spamming here so you might want to think twice next time you post several identical threads

Oh ban me from this feeble little website, ohh boohoo you hurt my feelings..

like i really care go get a real job instead of wasting your breath..

VanBuren

[Blunted 2]

Damn your connection is tight already, what else do u need? is that a cable connection? and how the hell do u get that kind of speed??? i Have Comcast the biggest cable/internet retailer, they barely give you 6Mb connection with all the caps..

  yea mine is cable and my isp is optimum online and the 1st speed we had was 1 mb up and 10 mb down now they offer 2 mb upload and 15 mb down or 30 mb down for a little more and web hosting

[smut]

damn I want your isp blunted !

[Blunted 2]

its this or fios but i cant get fios yet so this is the next best thing

[FGOKURULES]

Me too I think comcast is out just to make more money, more speed increases mean more money over time, but when the Internet2 comes out in 3 years all isp's are going to have to have at least 10-15Mb connection to keep up with the change-over and the upgrades of the entire infrastructure...

[Blunted 2]

every business wants to make money but i'm sure comcast wants to upgrade but its hard to do that to that many customers.  you have any idea how much an upgrade has to cost man?  it has to be soo much its not funny i cant imagine how much it is but hopefully i hit 100 mb before i die lol

[FGOKURULES]

Dude with the current cable technogoly, they have enough bandwidth to allocate 1000 cable modems per node a 30Mb connection.. YOUR ALMOST THERE!!! it just sucks how they keep speeds low and prices high.. they have increased their speed 3 times over the past 2 years... and we have NO WHERE NEAR the speed COVAD is offering, and I'm pretty sure Comcast has way more Computing power and Bandwidth than COVAD..

[resopalrabotnick]

you said the magic word. /current/ cable tech. but if you're hooked up to hastily cobbled together 3 generations old cable tech that is oxidizing away in shoddy weatherproofing you can holler for an upgrade til you're blue in the face. it just ain't gonna come till that part of the net has so many failures that the cost of upgrading is finally lower than the cost of keeping the old gear working. it will always be the case that the newest installations have the newest gear and the highest speed.

[FGOKURULES]

That may be true, the cable industry has been so monopolized over the past few years, but I guarantee you that this is there gimmick for you to pay more down the line,,  your right, that kind of upgrade WOULD cost a fortune, but it's already there they just deny us of the service... RSVP

[resopalrabotnick]

as for them not offering the highest possible speed to the customer, consider the fact that not just the last mile is important. the cable co's/isp's backbone has to be able to support high traffic as well. what good does it do you to have a 30/5 connection if that means that your pings go through the roof, speeds drop at high traffic times, and general net congestion on the isp side slows. higher speed can lead to the e-mail server they run responding slower, their routing equipment can run into limits, meaning more cost to upgrade, the pipes they rent need to be increased, meaning even more cost and interconnect fees to the rest of the net go up for them too, since at every crossing point between their backbone and other companies backbones every single packet transmitted rings the cash register.

an isp policy againsty file sharing and hosting is not because they are a more law abiding bunch, it is because those kinds of use increase traffic on the connection costing them more money. the price they offer to every user is a mixed calculation in which granny smith that brings up maybe 4 pages of elderly Pr0n a week and visits her geriatric blog twice a week pays more than she would need to. she cofinances little billy's connection who is constantly running his game server and hosting his clans server on his link while downloading every movie ever made from the net at the same time. the caruthers family on the other hand pays just what they should since they are using their link for some surfing, daddies online shopping for parts for that old impala sitting on blocks in the garage, son todds occasional homework research, daughter mary-lou chat's with her friends on aim and mama caruthers looks up the latest fruitcake recipies for next christmas.

in the end, between the three, it evens out to 50-60 bucks a month. if individually billed granny smith would pay less and little billy would have to pay more. the caruthers would stay about the same. the only difference between a cable/dsl hookup and dw/wb is that dw/wb faps it's customers once they go above 'typical use' because even transmission on their internal net costs them money (it being via sat) and their internal bandwidth is restricted (same reason).

let's say the customers get upgraded from 5/512 to 30/5 because the cable tech installed can handle it. that is a possible increase of factor six for the download and factor ten for the upload. that means the possible costs for traffic incurred by the isp go up by the same factor (not counting initial investment to bolster servers/routing gear and continued increased cost of internal bandwidth rental). i'm not defending anyone, just offering answers as to why some companies upgrade and some decide to wait.

[FGOKURULES]

But your still not looking at the MAIN POINT... from experience, and understanding how the network runs,, the technology for what I was implying is ALREADY THERE!!! it's not like they would have to do a catastrophic system upgrade for the entire network!!! This was planned when they unleashed digital cable,,, Do you really understand how much bandwidth a cable wire can hold?? The speed for a 30/5 connection is already possible, they gradually rise it with cost over time,, I admit I don't really know what the hell you could do with a 30Mb connection that you can't do more than a 10Mb connection,, but the way that technology changes we may need that kind of speed in the future(INTERNET2) I am just debating how these small companies offer a much higher speed than the big ones at a more cost effective price.. Even understanding all of the technical jargon behind it why YOU think they lower the speeds, but still they have the resources to do what I said,,, MORE MONEY MORE MONEY>>>>

[resopalrabotnick]

ah. ok. how evil of them to want to make money. but have you thought of the reasons the smaller companies rush to push the highest possible speeds to the consumer? they need to have a gimmick to sell their connections. they need to build market share to go from vulnerable small fry to big fish. what you will see in the future is those companies stagnating at currently high speeds while the larger companies slowly but surely steamroller ahead to even higher speeds leaving the small ones behind. the reason? the short-term planning by the small companies leaves them less profitable due to higher costs for maintaining the higher traffic volume hence there is less money to invest into the next generation of technology the bigger companies can more easily roll out to the customer over time without tapping into their resources in a dangerous manner.

setting up the same equipment and then offering a good instead of an awesome connection to the large customer base it already has means the big fish can amortize the equipment faster than the smallfry that has to offer the maximum possible to attract a customer base to work with.

as for monopoly, yes and no. if company x already has a large customer base and a network laid all over, will company y lay its own net in the same area to try to get some of x's customers? too costly.

deregulation could force x to rent net capacity to y if one of x customers wants to change to y. sounds good in theory. but if that happens, companies a through k also want to do that. they each will not only transmit internet data, they will also have to send their own cable programming over the same line to the customers that switch. end result for the customer: a net that was fine for running one companies digital cable and internet service is all of a sudden running the same amount of internet service but several times the cable service because the cable companies squabbling over the market each pipe in their own feed. result: speed for the internet goes to hell because all the bandwidth is eaten up by mork and mindy reruns being broadcast by 6 companies simultaneously.

deregulation only works on phone networks where every piece of the last mile (the wire to the customer) originates at a telco switch where several companies can colocate dsl equipment, putting their dsl on any line they need to while not interfering with one another.

there is no doubt that all business decisions are based not on 'what would be nice for the customer' but on 'mo' money'. startups in a market need a gimmick while the big boys can plod along.

[FGOKURULES]

touche'