# Comcast Data Caps Going Nationwide in 2021



## cwteevee (Dec 24, 2007)

For those of us in Comcast country who aren't subject to data caps, the gravy train is coming to an end early next year. Starting in January 2021, Comcast is going to start enforcing its 1.2 TB data cap for all service areas.

More details here: Comcast to enforce 1.2TB data cap in entire 39-state territory in early 2021


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

Many people, for years, have said they wanted Comcast to have more consistent offerings and fees across their entire footprint (and not just with HSI offerings). It would appear they got, at least partially, what they asked for, but perhaps they should have been more precise in their requests(*)......



(*) For the record, I am holding up a sarcasm sign


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

The combo of YTTV and xfinity internet is now questionable. My brother and I watch tv constantly on different TV's. I think we would go over the cap if we went to YouTube tv.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

The data table goes back to my May billing cycle and the most we've had since then is 449gb so we should be fine. 

But if we were higher users, the switch to Burlington Telecom would happen sooner. 

I sort of get this from how Comcast sees business but it just stings to do this in the middle of a pandemic when more people are home more of the time.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It's been a long time since I've been able to check my usage... it's always "not available."


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

Looks like I've been in a data cap region, as my account already lists the 1.2TB cap. We use between 600-700GB per month.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

mattyro7878 said:


> The combo of YTTV and xfinity internet is now questionable. My brother and I watch tv constantly on different TV's. I think we would go over the cap if we went to YouTube tv.


I've had YTTV for a couple of months and working from home using remote display software active almost 24/7 and usage is still only 600-700 GB/month. Cox has a 1.2TB cap as well.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

If you want more Comcast Business is always available without any cap... might be cheaper based on your usage.


----------



## ManeJon (Apr 14, 2018)

I, unfortunately, think this is the future for all these "standard" data providers - people are leaving those providers TV service and just using their internet so they will try and make up revenue elsewhere.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

I have 45 GB for use today before my Cox data cap resets and a new billing period starts. Just squeaking by this month.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Enjoy your Net Neutrality. This is the remedy for that. Back in the day, Comcast used to warn me when we broke 300GB. I would not come anywhere near that now as I rely on an antenna for programming, for the most part, but we got close during Christmas and February breaks.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Yea, I just pay the stupid $50 so I don't have to deal with it.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

wizwor said:


> Enjoy your Net Neutrality. This is the remedy for that. Back in the day, Comcast used to warn me when we broke 300GB. I would not come anywhere near that now as I rely on an antenna for programming, for the most part, but we got close during Christmas and February breaks.


While, yea, I pay the $50, but why shouldn't I? I blow through a TB every month, why should someone using substantially less bandwidth not pay less?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It's been a long time since I've been able to check my usage... it's always "not available."


get the phone app. It's an easier way to check.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mattack said:


> get the phone app. It's an easier way to check.


I can't even find a place in the phone app to check it...


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

Adam1115 said:


> Yea, I just pay the stupid $50 so I don't have to deal with it.


In most locations, with recent bundles, the price is only $30/mo if you are using your own equipment, and around $15/mo if you already use Comcast's xFi gateway. You may have to change your bundle to get those prices.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I can't even find a place in the phone app to check it...


I mean the xfinity "My Account" app in case that wasn't clear.
launch the app, hit the Internet tab at the bottom.. and scroll down (at least on my phone I have to scroll down)

still way less of a pain than trying to get it on their web site.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mattack said:


> I mean the xfinity "My Account" app in case that wasn't clear.
> launch the app, hit the Internet tab at the bottom.. and scroll down (at least on my phone I have to scroll down)
> 
> still way less of a pain than trying to get it on their web site.


There's nothing there for me. Under "Devices" it shows my modem (clicking on that just gives me some modem options); under "Support" it shows Troubleshoot Modem and Outage Map. And that's it. (Except at the top, where there's a link for Run Diagnostic Check.)


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

CommunityMember said:


> In most locations, with recent bundles, the price is only $30/mo if you are using your own equipment, and around $15/mo if you already use Comcast's xFi gateway. You may have to change your bundle to get those prices.


I was a new customer in July...


----------



## DeltaOne (Sep 29, 2013)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> There's nothing there for me. Under "Devices" it shows my modem (clicking on that just gives me some modem options); under "Support" it shows Troubleshoot Modem and Outage Map. And that's it. (Except at the top, where there's a link for Run Diagnostic Check.)


I check our data on the Xfinity home page on my computer. Select *My Account / Manage Internet / View Data Usage*. The graph shows four months. If you click *Show Table Data* you can see the data for seven months.

Our household has gone over 1000 GB four out of the seven months. We've gone over 1100 GB two of the seven months.

Lowest month was July at 461 GB which is half of the next lowest month. Sounds odd, I wonder if the chart data is wrong.

The data cap is new to our region and kicks in around February I think. I'm not going to worry about it, I'll just pay the extra $30 for unlimited data if I need to.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DeltaOne said:


> I check our data on the Xfinity home page on my computer. Select *My Account / Manage Internet / View Data Usage*. The graph shows four months. If you click *Show Table Data* you can see the data for seven months.


That's where I've been going, and it just says not available. For months now.

On the phone app, there's not even an option to try.


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

Adam1115 said:


> I was a new customer in July...


And while I do not recall the exact date, Comcast lowered the fees right around that time (so you may want to go check if you missed it by --><-- (this) much).


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

CommunityMember said:


> And while I do not recall the exact date, Comcast lowered the fees right around that time (so you may want to go check if you missed it by --><-- (this) much).


OK I will, thank you!


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Oh XFINITY... SIGH. I looked at my bill to figure out what I'm paying for the cap. GRR.

So yea, the cap is only $25 for "XFI COMPLETE". That's good. 

Somehow I have TV Choice TV+ for $10 (Includes Limited Basic, Streampix, 20 Hours of DVR Service, HD Technology Fee) along with a $13.65 broadcast TV fee.

That's nice. I wonder how the **** I use the TV plan I didn't even know I had. I imagine I'd have rent some box or something.


----------



## DeltaOne (Sep 29, 2013)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That's where I've been going, and it just says not available. For months now.
> 
> On the phone app, there's not even an option to try.


I guess I'd try a different web browser, empty the cache, delete the cookies for the Xfinity site...the usual stuff. If none of that works a quick call or chat to Xfinity might be able to fix the problem.


----------



## samsauce29 (Nov 30, 2007)

Adam1115 said:


> Oh XFINITY... SIGH. I looked at my bill to figure out what I'm paying for the cap. GRR.
> 
> So yea, the cap is only $25 for "XFI COMPLETE". That's good.
> 
> ...


For Spectrum, they have an app on Roku (and others) so no box required. Suspect Comcast may be the same?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

samsauce29 said:


> For Spectrum, they have an app on Roku (and others) so no box required. Suspect Comcast may be the same?


Comcast does have a Roku and Samsung TV app in beta testing.

On a side note, $10 for TV is pretty good. The ever increasing broadcast TV fee is the norm now, along with the also increasing Sports fee. In total I'm paying $25 a month for the combined two.


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

Adam1115 said:


> Oh XFINITY... SIGH. I looked at my bill to figure out what I'm paying for the cap. GRR.
> 
> So yea, the cap is only $25 for "XFI COMPLETE". That's good.
> 
> ...


If you do not use/want the TV plan, you can cancel it. BUT, that might break any bundle discount you have and you could end up paying more than having it included (for the first year or two, depending on what you signed up for). Given the regional difference in pricing there is no easy way for others to review the pricing available to you. There are other online communities where such things are discussed (such as dslreports.com, which now includes all isps not just dsl providers), but you may have to contact Comcast directly. Good luck.


----------



## KevTech (Apr 15, 2014)

DeltaOne said:


> I check our data on the Xfinity home page on my computer. Select *My Account / Manage Internet / View Data Usage*.


Another way to see the meter is to just click on devices at the top.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

KevTech said:


> Another way to see the meter is to just click on devices at the top.
> 
> View attachment 55302


Same (non-) result here. I also tried IE instead of Firefox. No luck.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Same (non-) result here. I also tried IE instead of Firefox. No luck.


I'm sure you have neighbors or 'kin perhaps near! Do they have the same issues? Do you perhaps have the Xfinity 'Xfi - package' and maybe since that's implied to eliminate the cap - you don't need to see usage! If you could see it then maybe a consumer might choose to do other than Xfi!

OR maybe you're not the account holder.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

morac said:


> Comcast does have a Roku and Samsung TV app in beta testing.


I think that we are long past the point where the term "beta" in the Xfinity Stream app can be viewed as a misnomer. After close to four years in the field, it is what it is, and if any improvements are in the offing they should be viewed as simple upgrades to the existing product.



morac said:


> On a side note, $10 for TV is pretty good. The ever increasing broadcast TV fee is the norm now, along with the also increasing Sports fee. In total I'm paying $25 a month for the combined two.


"Ever-increasing" is an apt description for those add-on fees.

In fact, as might have been expected, another increase is scheduled to take effect as of January 1, 2021. I would now peg the average cost of BTV + RSN fees (plus taxes) for the typical customer at between $30 to $35 (note that some consumers/markets are not subject to all fees and that the rates vary among Comcast regions).

*Comcast preps higher rates, hidden fees for New Year's Day*

OTOH, there have been some offsets. For example, here in the Big South Region, Comcast very recently decreased the discounted rate for their cheapest HSI tier (Performance Starter @ 25Mbps) from $25 p.m. to $20 with a 12-month agreement. They have also bumped up the speed of the Extreme tier from 300Mbps to 400Mbps.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Yeah with taxes and BS fees it's something like $35/mo. starting next year, offset by the $5 cablecard credit. So the $100/mo. DP promo plan they have now is about $130/mo.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> There's nothing there for me. Under "Devices" it shows my modem (clicking on that just gives me some modem options); under "Support" it shows Troubleshoot Modem and Outage Map. And that's it. (Except at the top, where there's a link for Run Diagnostic Check.)


This is what I see (and wow, I am amazed I used so much in the first couple of days this month)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mattack said:


> This is what I see (and wow, I am amazed I used so much in the first couple of days this month)


That's what mine looks like down to the outage map; below that is just white space.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

samsauce29 said:


> For Spectrum, they have an app on Roku (and others) so no box required. Suspect Comcast may be the same?


Interesting, I'll check that out.



morac said:


> Comcast does have a Roku and Samsung TV app in beta testing.
> 
> On a side note, $10 for TV is pretty good. The ever increasing broadcast TV fee is the norm now, along with the also increasing Sports fee. In total I'm paying $25 a month for the combined two.


It's not good if I don't have a way to use it! Seriously, how can they get away with selling you a TV package with NO box or *anything*? What exactly are they charging me for?


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

morac said:


> Comcast does have a Roku and Samsung TV app in beta testing.
> 
> On a side note, $10 for TV is pretty good. The ever increasing broadcast TV fee is the norm now, along with the also increasing Sports fee. In total I'm paying $25 a month for the combined two.


HEY! So I take it back, thanks for this! I now have the xfinity stream app on my two rokus and can watch on my PC as well! It doesn't have much, local channels, hallmark, discovery, cspan, etc. It also has my local government channel which is cool.

But, I was paying $5/mo for Locast and this has a DVR built in! Sweet!


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Adam1115 said:


> HEY! So I take it back, thanks for this! I now have the xfinity stream app on my two rokus and can watch on my PC as well! It doesn't have much, local channels, hallmark, discovery, cspan, etc. It also has my local government channel which is cool.
> 
> But, I was paying $5/mo for Locast and this has a DVR built in! Sweet!


The XS app will receive the channels to which your Comcast subscription tier entitles you, including both the QAM- and IP-delivered channels. It allows VOD but there is no DVR-like recording ability.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> The XS app will receive the channels to which your Comcast subscription tier entitles you, including both the QAM- and IP-delivered channels. It allows VOD but there is no DVR-like recording ability.


I have XS on my iPhone and iPad and Samsung TV and it does allow recording though I think you are limited to 10 hours or so of space.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> The XS app will receive the channels to which your Comcast subscription tier entitles you, including both the QAM- and IP-delivered channels. It allows VOD but there is no DVR-like recording ability.


It allows recording but no pausing live tv.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I have XS on my iPhone and iPad and Samsung TV and it does allow recording though I think you are limited to 10 hours or so of space.





Adam1115 said:


> It allows recording but no pausing live tv.


I assume that you have a Comcast STB/DVR on your account then. I see no recording option here.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> I assume that you have a Comcast STB/DVR on your account then. I see no recording option here.


Nope just the roku or the web browser.. Only box I have is the xfi router.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Time to push a bunch more TB to the Backblaze account


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Adam1115 said:


> Nope just the roku or the web browser.. Only box I have is the xfi router.


Interesting. I do not get that "Record" option on XS, whether via the app or on the web portal.

But you do have the xFi router (gateway). That puts you on the X1 system even without an X1 video receiver (STB).


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Our Comcast app also has the record option, they just added it recently. Is that the included 20GB or so of cloud DVR? We don't have X1, just a cablecard.

Also was able to renew my current 2-year deal for another 2-year deal at $100/mo. + taxes and junk fees or about $135/mo. when the fees go up next month (couple of bucks more than I'm paying now). This has the free speed bump to 400Mb and the same Preferred tier of channels. Hopefully we won't lose too many channels to IP (if any) in the next couple of years. Got it done via Twitter DM to ComcastCares, takes a little longer that way but the rep was good in handling the deal.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Our Comcast app also has the record option, they just added it recently. Is that the included 20GB or so of cloud DVR? We don't have X1, just a cablecard.


Nearly all TV packages include 20 hours or more of Cloud DVR. It can be watched in app or in the Roku or Samsung app.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> I assume that you have a Comcast STB/DVR on your account then. I see no recording option here.


No, but I do have the router and it seems like that is enough per the other poster.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

How many concurrent Xfinity Stream(s) can a person use at once in a browser?


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

morac said:


> Nearly all TV packages include 20 hours or more of Cloud DVR. It can be watched in app or in the Roku or Samsung app.


The key is "nearly" as I do not have any recording option, cloud or otherwise, via Xfinity. Perhaps it is now universal to all of the non-legacy packages.



PSU_Sudzi said:


> No, but I do have the router and it seems like that is enough per the other poster.


Yes, if you have an xFi gateway, then you are in the X1 ecosystem.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> The key is "nearly" as I do not have any recording option, cloud or otherwise, via Xfinity. Perhaps it is now universal to all of the non-legacy packages.


Yeah, as I recall, Xfinity began including 20 hours of cloud DVR service in their Extra and Preferred TV packages for all new subs signing up online in this area back in spring 2019, the same time when new eligible subs were served IP-only by default and were given the option not to rent any X1 STBs for $5/mo and instead just use the XS app on their own hardware.

But now, they're also including the 20 hour cloud DVR in the Basic package too. Upgrading to 150 or 300 hrs costs an extra $10 or $20/mo, respectively.


----------



## tommiet (Oct 28, 2005)

Caps will put the brakes on buying streaming packages forcing some to go back to cable TV. Not uncommon for my house to use 40-50gb a day.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tommiet said:


> Caps will put the brakes on buying streaming packages forcing some to go back to cable TV. Not uncommon for my house to use 40-50gb a day.


Yeah. Although one of the differentiating features of non-cable ISPs seems to be no data caps. I don't think that Verizon FiOS has ever had them and AT&T Fiber recently dropped them on their 100 and 300 Mbps tiers, matching the gigabit tier (which has always been cap-free.) And new wireless-to-the-home services from Verizon and T-Mobile, as well as bit players like Starry, also feature no caps.

So I would anticipate that those ISPs will get an increasing slice of available homes that want to stream all or most of their TV, leaving Comcast with relatively more double-play accounts.


----------



## buscuitboy (Aug 8, 2005)

if possible, do what I did. Bought a good wifi extender and tapped into an Xfinity public signal in my neighborhood. used my current Xfinity username to log in to the signal. Then used a network switch & powerline products to distribute this captured wifi signal throughout my house. I now basically have two internet sources so no cap worries & problem solved.

Again, not possible for everyone if you can't get a strong enough Xfinity public hotspot. I actually could only get it in two bedrooms on east end of my house, but it was good enough to get on my wifi extender & then distribute as needed. I usually pull in about 30Mbs speeds. not great (compared to my main normal 120mbs connection), but good enough for most my needs; streaming and PS4/Xbox download updates.


----------



## ThreeSoFar'sBro (Oct 10, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That's what mine looks like down to the outage map; below that is just white space.


Could you possibly be on "Complete" already? This has unlimited data. I was hit with data cap overages after Covid-19 and working from home, so I upgraded to Complete. Once I did, I can no longer see my usage.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

ThreeSoFar'sBro said:


> Could you possibly be on "Complete" already? This has unlimited data. I was hit with data cap overages after Covid-19 and working from home, so I upgraded to Complete. Once I did, I can no longer see my usage.


I doubt it...but how can I check?


----------



## ThreeSoFar'sBro (Oct 10, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I doubt it...but how can I check?


I'd log into Xfinity and use their chat feature (or call). Ask if you have unlimited or complete.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I doubt it...but how can I check?


Unless already included as part of a bundle deal, xFi Complete is an $11 add-on to the $14 fee for the rental gateway. You must have the gateway on your account in order to get xFi Complete. See the following web page for more details:

xFi Complete


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mattyro7878 said:


> The combo of YTTV and xfinity internet is now questionable. My brother and I watch tv constantly on different TV's. I think we would go over the cap if we went to YouTube tv.


It may for a small number of customers who are right on the edge, however, if you look at YTTV compared to Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, etc, the OTT SVOD services are going to consume a lot more than the vMVPD, both because most of the compelling content is now on OTT SVOD, but also because of 4k, which uses roughly 3x-4x the bandwidth of HD.

Comcast has finally started to realize that keeping sub numbers up on TV is kind of pointless, as they really don't make money on it. They make a little bit on the BS fees, and a little bit on extra box and VOD rentals, and they get to shovel some money over to NBCU in carriage costs, so that's eventually profit for their other arm, but in general, it's just not that profitable if you look at the way the bundles are priced. The carriage costs keep going up and up and up, and yet they continue to offer relatively cheap (compared to their outrageous internet-only prices) bundles. Cox's strategy is probably a better business strategy for profit, they don't give a rat's behind if they lose TV customers, they're going to milk the ones that stay for all they're worth, but they're privately owned, so they don't have to keep sub numbers up for Wall Street, all they care about is profit, and fewer TV customers at rack rate are more profitable than more TV customers at a steep bundle discount.

Comcast, however, still kind of has one foot on each side, they kinda-sorta try to keep TV subs around with bundles, but at the end of the day their business is broadband. They're working to push the ARPU over $100/mo for broadband, which costs them very little to provide, and pushes their profit margins on it in excess of 90%, whereas TV's margins are pretty thin due to carriage costs.

So at the end of the day, their business model is to leverage their broadband monopoly as hard as they can, and they really don't care that much if you subscribe to their TV service or not. Their primary motivation for their arbitrary and capricious data caps is to force more money out of broadband subscribers, not to keep TV numbers up, that's totally secondary to their main business strategy. Interestingly they do give Unlimited for "free" on their top two Triple Play bundles, that's likely just to keep ARPU up, as they are probably losing money on the TV portion of those packages at that point, so they're sort of playing a balancing game between raw profit (focus only on broadband subscribers) and keeping ARPU and subscriber numbers up (Double- and Triple-Play packages at a steep discount).



Adam1115 said:


> While, yea, I pay the $50, but why shouldn't I? I blow through a TB every month, why should someone using substantially less bandwidth not pay less?


Oh god, this BS again. There is no "lower" price, there is only a price increase for some customers. Comcast's arbitrary and capricious data caps have virtually no impact on peak upstream traffic levels, which is what determines when node splits have to happen, and also penalize downstream traffic, which has no bottleneck, versus the upstream traffic, which is what is capacity limited on low-split systems. The cost to build and maintain a cable plant is very high, once it is there and turned on, the marginal cost to move more data across it is virtually zero.

Comcast is effectively charging 4x for their internet service, not because it has any basis in "fairness" or in any physical reality, but because there is a lack of competition, and Comcast's bean counters have determined that they will make more money by extracting more money for essentially nothing from their captive customers than they will lose in the areas that they are now effectively writing off to FiOS or other competitors, where they exist.

Comcast effectively charges 4x for their internet service, 2x from charging almost double what it would cost in a functional, competitive market, a 3rd time by extorting Netflix and other CDNs for access to their captive customers so that their bits don't have any "accidents" if you know what I mean, and now a 4th time by charging extra to avoid the arbitrary and capricious data cap that they pulled out of their buttholes.

If you actually look at the cost structure, the most fair way to provide service would be to have one speed tier for one price, as the cost of the system is basically fixed. Pricing by speed tier is widely accepted, because the higher tier users subsidize the lower tier users (sort of since Comcast still has a massive profit margin on the lowest tier they sell), even if the higher tier users use orders of magnitude more data, since the cost to provide the service is basically the same whether you have 25mbps or gigabit service. Data consumption doesn't go up much once you pass a certain point, so gigabit users are more efficient for the system since they can use DOCSIS 3.1 vs. DOCSIS 3 for other users, and the DOCSIS 3.1 upgrades really aren't for gigabit service, they are to add overall capacity to the system.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Oh god, this BS again. There is no "lower" price, there is only a price increase for some customers. Comcast's arbitrary and capricious data caps have virtually no impact on peak upstream traffic levels, which is what determines when node splits have to happen, and also penalize downstream traffic, which has no bottleneck, versus the upstream traffic, which is what is capacity limited on low-split systems. The cost to build and maintain a cable plant is very high, once it is there and turned on, the marginal cost to move more data across it is virtually zero.


It has the impact of charging the users that put the greatest strain on their network so they can ensure it doesn't have an impact.

This is a business, not a charity.

Weird how nobody bats an eyelash at mobile carriers capping data.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> It has the impact of charging the users that put the greatest strain on their network so they can ensure it doesn't have an impact.


Did you read any of my post? It doesn't seem like it. The data caps do virtually nothing to manage peak traffic load, and Comcast is already charging exorbitant rates for their broadband service. Their network has been just fine with no data caps for years, as is Charter's and Altice's, and WOW's, and RCN's, and others'.



> This is a business, not a charity.


It is a business with no competition, and that is why it acts the way it does. Cable providers in properly functioning competitive markets are charging $40-$50/mo for 100mbps internet, no caps. Comcast, because they don't have widespread competition, and can write off the competitive markets, are charging $78/mo (as of December, they're doing yet ANOTHER rate increase in January) for 200mbps internet with an arbitrary and capricious 1.2TB/mo data cap.

Of course there is a business incentive for Comcast to charge double for their broadband, and then charge again, and again, because they don't operate in a functional market. That doesn't magically mean that there is any justification for their charges, other than because they can get away with it in a failed market with no regulation.

And offering a fairly priced product with no data cap does not make a business a charity, it just means that they are only able to make a nice, fat margin, not an absolutely insanely ginormous margin.



> Weird how nobody bats an eyelash at mobile carriers capping data.


There is only so much wireless spectrum. Wireline networks are not subject to the same capacity constraints.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> It is a business with no competition, and that is why it acts the way it does. Cable providers in properly functioning competitive markets are charging $40-$50/mo for 100mbps internet, no caps. Comcast, because they don't have widespread competition, and can write off the competitive markets, are charging *$78/mo* (as of December, they're doing yet ANOTHER rate increase in January) for 200mbps internet with an arbitrary and capricious 1.2TB/mo data cap.


That's not really a fair comparison. You are quoting Comcast's full retail rate for Performance Internet (which, BTW, is actually $73 and going up to $76 as of January), whereas in fact most customers can readily get that same stand-alone 100 Mbps HSI service for $35 p.m., with the rates for 200 and 400Mbps only slightly higher (and other discounts and/or bundles can further reduce the effective price). Indeed, I suspect that the average user would be reasonably well served with the bare-bones Performance Starter tier (25Mbps) at a relatively cheap $20 p.m.

You can rightly argue that the full retail rates are exorbitant and that the need to negotiate or seek out discounts and promotions is consumer-unfriendly, but that's just a product of competitive pressure and the nature of the U.S. capitalist economy with its lax regulations. However, in actuality, no conscientious consumer need pay rack rate in most cases.

I myself am currently paying $40 p.m. for Extreme Pro (an effective 720Mbps down/25Mbps up) and find that acceptable considering that years ago I was paying Earthlink $35 p.m. for 3Mbps DSL.


----------



## pvpost (Nov 7, 2007)

Google Fiber finally became available in my neighborhood, so I jumped at the first chance to sign up and kick Comcast to the curb. 

When the retention agent asked why I was canceling, I was happy to tell him it was partially because of the recent price increase and mostly because I felt it was immoral to reinstate a data cap during a pandemic when so many people are working and learning from home.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

chiguy50 said:


> You can rightly argue that the full retail rates are exorbitant and that the need to negotiate or seek out discounts and promotions is consumer-unfriendly, but that's just a product of competitive pressure and the nature of the U.S. capitalist economy with its lax regulations. However, in actuality, no conscientious consumer need pay rack rate in most cases.


I think the ability to negotiate depends on your market.

I've attempted to get better deals from Comcast, but anyone I've talked to knows that my only alternative is crappy DSL from Consolidated, so the only "deals" I've had them offer are basically zero-price additions of phone or basic TV to my plan.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Did you read any of my post? It doesn't seem like it. The data caps do virtually nothing to manage peak traffic load, and Comcast is already charging exorbitant rates for their broadband service. Their network has been just fine with no data caps for years, as is Charter's and Altice's, and WOW's, and RCN's, and others'.


Feel free to provide a cite or evidence that this is true. (That the caps have no impact on their peak traffic loads upstream.)


----------



## MrDell (Jul 8, 2012)

pvpost said:


> Google Fiber finally became available in my neighborhood, so I jumped at the first chance to sign up and kick Comcast to the curb.
> 
> When the retention agent asked why I was canceling, I was happy to tell him it was partially because of the recent price increase and mostly because I felt it was immoral to reinstate a data cap during a pandemic when so many people are working and learning from home.


 Competition is a really nice thing!! It's great to have a choice. Where I live we have Cox and Verizon fighting it out so prices are not too bad. Right now Verizon is offering 200 up and 200 down for $39.00/ Month with no caps. I really don't think that they would be that cheap if there wasn't any competition.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

kaszeta said:


> I think the ability to negotiate depends on your market.
> 
> I've attempted to get better deals from Comcast, but anyone I've talked to knows that my only alternative is crappy DSL from Consolidated, so the only "deals" I've had them offer are basically zero-price additions of phone or basic TV to my plan.


Yes, "negotiating" as in wrangling concessions not otherwise on the table is much more difficult both under Comcast's standardized Simple & Easy structure as well as in areas where there is no competition.

But there are quite a few discounts, promotions, freebies (termed "customer courtesy" services) and other benefits that can be had for the asking. To cite just three examples: (1) depending on your level of CATV service, you can frequently get either SHO or Starz for free for two months at a stretch (renewable upon termination); (2) depending on the HSI service tier, you can currently get up to $150 in a prepaid VISA debit card for signing a 12- or 24-month agreement; and (3) again depending on the HSI service tier, you can get a discount of $10 p.m. for 12 months with an Xfinity Mobile cellular line.

I have also obtained one-time credits of up to $25 from support CSRs as compensation for minor inconveniences or complaints. I see these as goodwill gestures, but they nevertheless indicate a welcome corporate culture designed to promote customer loyalty.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I’ve found it helps to post at forums.xfinity.com for all types of issues. I had 2 outages in the past 2 weeks. They weren’t really long enough to qualify for a credit since they were less than 24 hours, but I got $20 for the first one and $5 for the second one by posting there. The first time I wasn’t even trying to get a credit. I was asking a question about whether X1 was “immune” to TV outages.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

morac said:


> I've found it helps to post at forums.xfinity.com for all types of issues. I had 2 outages in the past 2 weeks. They weren't really long enough to qualify for a credit since they were less than 24 hours, but I got $20 for the first one and $5 for the second one by posting there. The first time I wasn't even trying to get a credit. I was asking a question about whether X1 was "immune" to TV outages.


That is what I was referring to when I speak of the corporate culture. Say what you will about Comcast's customer support (and many have done just so over the years in great volume), but they have made notable progress ever since back when Rick Germano took over the reins as VP for Customer Experience and have continued to improve under his successor, Tom Karinshak.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

kaszeta said:


> I've attempted to get better deals from Comcast, but anyone I've talked to knows that my only alternative is crappy DSL from Consolidated, so the only "deals" I've had them offer are basically zero-price additions of phone or basic TV to my plan.


Exactly. They know that they've got you as a captive customer, so they can screw you however they want.



Adam1115 said:


> Feel free to provide a cite or evidence that this is true. (That the caps have no impact on their peak traffic loads upstream.)


Go do some basic research. A few Google searches will turn up articles like this one:

Comcast waiving data caps hasn't hurt its network-why not make it permanent?

There has been article after article about this very topic. Comcast has stopped even pretending that there is any sort of capacity issue, probably because it's too awkward to be so two-faced about it. It's just too awkward to be saying at the same time "Our network sucks so bad that we have to put data caps in place so that people don't use it as much" while simultaneously claiming "Our network is so great and super fast and amazing". They can't have it both ways. Their network either sucks or it doesn't. In reality, it doesn't suck, and Comcast has been just fine without data caps in the Northeast.

The caps cap ALL data throughout the ENTIRE day. If they were designed to deal with upstream congestion, then they would only apply to upstream traffic, and only apply during certain hours of the day, incentivizing large uploads, like online backups, to be scheduled in the off hours. They also would not be able to be avoided for a cost, since that defeats the purpose of the cap, but instead would either cut upstream bandwidth significantly on a rolling time period, or deprioritize it.

The caps have absolutely nothing to do with network management, they are purely a method for Comcast to be more profitable with fewer customers, and without having to compete with other providers, as they are abandoning competitive markets and doubling down on extracting the maximum amount of profit out of captive customers in monopoly markets, meaning that they don't have to care as much about pesky things like customer service or churn, since their customers can't leave, and Comcast doesn't have to try to treat them well.



MrDell said:


> Competition is a really nice thing!! It's great to have a choice. Where I live we have Cox and Verizon fighting it out so prices are not too bad. Right now Verizon is offering 200 up and 200 down for $39.00/ Month with no caps. I really don't think that they would be that cheap if there wasn't any competition.


They aren't. There is no competition except for parts of two towns here in CT. Where I am, there is fiber from the competition on my street, but not in my building, so I'm stuck on SuxCox. SuxCox charges $83/mo for 150/10 with their arbitrary and capricious 1.25TB data cap. SuxCox has decided to abandon the areas that have fiber, charging $60/mo for 150/10 with cap, versus the competition charging $50/mo for 150/150 with no cap.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Comcast has stopped even pretending that there is any sort of capacity issue, probably because it's too awkward to be so two-faced about it. It's just too awkward to be saying at the same time "Our network sucks so bad that we have to put data caps in place so that people don't use it as much" while simultaneously claiming "Our network is so great and super fast and amazing". They can't have it both ways. Their network either sucks or it doesn't. In reality, it doesn't suck, and Comcast has been just fine without data caps in the Northeast.


I see - no, I don't think the caps are because they are trying to prevent some major capacity issue- and the articles indicate that they have the capacity to turn off the caps. Yes, of course, they don't wait until their entire system is bursting at the seams to add capacity.

But that's not what you said, you said that the caps don't do anything to reduce the peak traffic load. I find that surprising, that implementing caps hasn't reduced traffic. I know lots of people keep an eye on their caps.

Regardless, their capacity isn't a static 'number'. It's something they forecast and plan for. The caps came after they started seeing their utilization going up at a more rapid pace, a lot of which is due to streaming. They decided, instead of spreading that cost over all of their customers, to charge the 'heavy hitters'. I see nothing unfair about that, I use a lot more capacity than other people and see no issue with paying more than they do.

To argue they haven't had to increase their capacity with the growth of internet streaming services is ridiculous. Of course they have.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

I live 10 miles from new haven. There is a new provider there offering internet but haven't made the leap to surrounding towns. I also wonder about quality. If nothing else Comcast is robust and stable.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Around here in the Bay Area, Verizon is advertising a lot about home 5G.

They claim to be in San Jose but when you try random addresses, they say it's not available. I know they put in the mmWave locations in some downtown areas, maybe Levi's stadium in Santa Clara.

But those aren't aren't too residential, not too many prospective Home 5G customers downtown San Jose.

Hopefully they just speed up deployment in the New Year.

Because the inevitable annual price increase from Comcast is coming.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

wco81 said:


> Around here in the Bay Area, Verizon is advertising a lot about home 5G.
> 
> They claim to be in San Jose but when you try random addresses, they say it's not available. I know they put in the mmWave locations in some downtown areas, maybe Levi's stadium in Santa Clara.
> 
> ...


When somebody (I can't remember who) first introduced 5G in Minneapolis, it was in a small area around the Vikings stadium (where the Super Bowl was about to be held)...there are a lot of condos in the neighborhood (including mine), but I'm pretty sure that wasn't the impetus.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Yeah that's Verizon, they have a tie in with the NFL, even advertises about it, even though they don't have complete stadium coverage.

They use stadiums for marketing reasons but considering that it can't be used daily when there aren't games, except by employees who work in the stadium (and they probably already have Wifi).


I hope they plan to roll mmWave out to the spread-out suburbs, not just dense city centers where they can cherry-pick high rise apt. buildings.

But Verizon and Comcast have done joint ventures together. Xfinity Mobile uses Verizon network.

So I will have to see Verizon directly competing vs. Comcast for home broadband before I believe it.

If VZW won't, hope AT&T and T-Mobile get on the ball.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> I see - no, I don't think the caps are because they are trying to prevent some major capacity issue- and the articles indicate that they have the capacity to turn off the caps. Yes, of course, they don't wait until their entire system is bursting at the seams to add capacity.


Well duh, the Northeast has worked just fine without caps, because up until now, they viewed competing for customers against FiOS as more valuable than making more off of captive customers.



> But that's not what you said, you said that the caps don't do anything to reduce the peak traffic load. I find that surprising, that implementing caps hasn't reduced traffic. I know lots of people keep an eye on their caps.


A cap is basically saying "our network sucks", while at the same time they are trying to say that they have this great network. Caps do almost nothing to affect peak traffic load. You end up with some people "saving up" their "precious" GB for Netflix at 9pm along with everyone else, and others who are paying the ransom to get around who then want to "get their moneys worth", so you just make the load peakier, and the peaks are about the same.



> Regardless, their capacity isn't a static 'number'. It's something they forecast and plan for. The caps came after they started seeing their utilization going up at a more rapid pace, a lot of which is due to streaming. They decided, instead of spreading that cost over all of their customers, to charge the 'heavy hitters'. I see nothing unfair about that, I use a lot more capacity than other people and see no issue with paying more than they do.


WRONG. Caps came when they decided that the value of extracting another $30/mo of pure profit out of a lot of their captive customers would make them more profit than they would lose by effectively abandoning the markets that have FiOS available. There may also be a selection bias in that the heavy users have already self-selected off to FiOS where it is available, and they have the data to show that most of the remaining users on Comcast in FiOS areas are grandma using 50GB/mo and talking to her X1 remote, so they have already lost most of the customers that they would lose to data caps in competitive areas, while being able to extract more profit out of captive customers in uncompetitive markets.

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with fairness. If you think it has ANYTHING to do with fairness, you obviously have no clue how a cable system works. Their pricing has NOTHING to do with the cost to deliver service, if it did, it would be $40/mo or less with no data caps, and that's assuming a highly competitive market with low penetration for each provider and lots of churn and marketing cost to compete. It has to do with a lack of competition giving them an unregulated monopoly.

Just to further prove the fact that caps have NOTHING to do with fairness, or capacity, or anything else technical, you can see that they apply equally to upstream and downstream, when HFC-based systems split nodes on upstream, not downstream, as there is far more downstream capacity, and they have reclaimed a lot of QAMs from video for downstream bandwidth, whereas upstream bandwidth is limited to the split of the system.



> To argue they haven't had to increase their capacity with the growth of internet streaming services is ridiculous. Of course they have.


I never made that argument, so stop making things up. That is part of the normal cost of doing business and will happen regardless of a data cap or not. Further, if you're hung up on streaming bandwidth, you clearly have no clue how cable works, as they have excess downstream bandwidth now with D3.1 and QAMs reclaimed from video, and they have to split nodes based on upstream bandwidth. If they were having issues with downstream bandwidth, then they would provide incentives to upgrade to D3.1 modems, not implement arbitrary and capricious data caps.



mattyro7878 said:


> I live 10 miles from new haven. There is a new provider there offering internet but haven't made the leap to surrounding towns. I also wonder about quality. If nothing else Comcast is robust and stable.


GoNetSpeed or another? I've heard great things about GoNetSpeed.


----------



## KevTech (Apr 15, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Well duh, the Northeast has worked just fine without caps, because up until now, they viewed competing for customers against FiOS as more valuable than making more off of captive customers.


Actually the cap going live nationwide had more to do with the fact that customers on the cap were complaining about the portions that did not.
Customers with the cap were asked to pay more to not have a cap while the customers who had no cap were not paying extra to have no cap.
Leave yourself open for a massive lawsuit when you are doing that and it would be a lawsuit the company would lose.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

KevTech said:


> Actually the cap going live nationwide had more to do with the fact that customers on the cap were complaining about the portions that did not.
> Customers with the cap were asked to pay more to not have a cap while the customers who had no cap were not paying extra to have no cap.
> Leave yourself open for a massive lawsuit when you are doing that and it would be a lawsuit the company would lose.


That makes absolutely no sense. They have wildly different pricing region to region. There is no law against being a discombobulated company where the left arm doesn't know what the right arm is doing.

If there were any law about the "fairness" of caps, then it would outlaw all caps on wireline broadband nationwide. But our Congress is in the pocket of big cable and telecom, so they don't do even the most basic and obvious reforms, like banning paid interconnects and data caps.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

GoNetSpeed or another? I've heard great things about GoNetSpeed.[/QUOTE] I have looked into GoNetSpeed . They have not branched out into suyrrounding tgowns yetr. I check every week


----------



## KevTech (Apr 15, 2014)

Bigg said:


> That makes absolutely no sense. They have wildly different pricing region to region.


I was not referring to the pricing but to the extra charge of 30 dollars a month if using your own modem to have unlimited data.
Anyone with the cap using their own equipment has to pay 30 extra a month independent of their monthly charges while anyone with no cap just had to pay their monthly charges.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

GoNetSpeed has branched out into West Hartford, Newington, Wethersfield, and Southington up here, but they only cover areas with aboveground utilities. I'm hoping that they will get all the way around Hartford, as it will start to turn up the heat on Comcast and Cox.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

KevTech said:


> I was not referring to the pricing but to the extra charge of 30 dollars a month if using your own modem to have unlimited data.
> Anyone with the cap using their own equipment has to pay 30 extra a month independent of their monthly charges while anyone with no cap just had to pay their monthly charges.


That still doesn't make any sense. There's nothing illegal about being a discombobulated, discoordinated, left-arm and right-arm are going in two different directions company of little fiefdoms that can't get together and agree on anything. The bottom line is that the two Northeast fiefdoms have decided that based on the number of customers that they will lose to FiOS with the data cap, they will make more money off of their captive customers who have no choice. It has nothing to do with managing their network, nothing to do "fairness" between users who use more or less, and nothing to do with "fairness" across regions. If the goal was "fairness" no one would have data caps. If it were network management, they would only be targeting upstream, and wouldn't allow people to buy their way around the caps, but would throttle or drop their upstream provisioning if they went over.


----------



## KevTech (Apr 15, 2014)

Bigg said:


> The bottom line is that the two Northeast fiefdoms have decided that based on the number of customers that they will lose to FiOS with the data cap


Nope you are wrong and I can not post anything further than I already have cause of NDA settlement.
Just face the fact you are wrong and quit trying to prove what is wrong as right.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

KevTech said:


> Nope you are wrong and I can not post anything further than I already have cause of NDA settlement.
> Just face the fact you are wrong and quit trying to prove what is wrong as right.


 Yeah right LOL. It is clear and obvious why Comcast is doing what they are doing. It is a somewhat complex equation of how they can make the most money. There is no law in existence that outlaws a discombobulated company with different divisions that are doing different things in different places.

You just made up a lawsuit about something that would be completely and totally baseless. Not that I am defending Comcast and their arbitrary and capricious data caps, or their absurdly high pricing or anything else, all of that is indefensible, but there is just no basis for a lawsuit over different pricing in different parts of the country.

Customers are going to complain and complain loudly when they are treated like bottomless ATMs by Comcast, screwing more customers over more badly isn't going to stop that, and if Comcast's goal was to get their customers not to complain, they'd just offer everyone $40 200mbps broadband with no data caps, and make their network better. But that's not their goal, their goal is to exploit the regulatory failures and the market failures to abuse their monopoly to the maximum extent possible, and extract the maximum amount of money out of their captive customers as possible. Sure, they'd gain a lot of customers offering a reasonably priced service with no data caps, but they would end up making less money than with their current strategy. They just have to hope that they don't face a significantly larger amount of competition in the near future, as their customers hate them and will leave as soon as there is any alternative.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

E&C Leaders Demand Answers from Internet Companies Regarding Raising Prices and Imposing Data Caps During COVID-19 Pandemic


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

It seems they are TRYING to be more nice about it with credit for any overages in Jan and Feb and then a once every 12 months credit. It's a little something at best.










For us, the cap really is a non-issue. Even with my daughter home from mid-december to this weekend, we've never come anywhere near our cap. That doesn't mean I like having the cap but I just don't really have to worry about it myself.










Some context for our usage habits.....

My wife is on the internet most of any day looking for inventory for her antiques business. I work mostly from home right now and stream iTunes or Spotify all day. Most of our viewing of TV content these days is Netflix/Hulu based.


----------



## JoeTaxpayer (Dec 23, 2008)

In my opinion the CAP 'feels' worse than it is. Before school started (I teach) usage was from 400-500GB/mo. Since October, 650-700. 
We use Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc, but basically just 2 of us watching TV. I say it feels worse, because it's another thing to pay attention to. 
Comcast needs to let us set up alerts. If they are already available, I don't know, yet how to activate. I'd like an alert that if on any day I'm on a runrate to be at 90% of 1.2TB, to get the warning. They claim that only 5% of customer are actually affected, but the reality is that the next 10% or so can easily blow through the cap if they jump to a 4K TV, or have a family member go from an Xfinity offering to watching a streaming service. 
Agreed with all who note that doing this during Covid is pretty awful. As far as I can tell, Zoom is a tiny fraction of streaming TV bandwidth, but it still adds up over time, especially with multiple kids.


----------



## DeltaOne (Sep 29, 2013)

JoeTaxpayer said:


> Comcast needs to let us set up alerts. If they are already available, I don't know, yet how to activate.


More info here: Will I be alerted when I approach, reach or exceed my data usage plan?
------
*Notification Thresholds*
You'll get email, text message and Xfinity X1 on-screen notifications at the 75% (email only), 90% and 100% thresholds.

If you use more than 1.2 Terabytes (TB) you will also receive an email, SMS text message, and X1 on-screen notification for each 250 GB you use over 1.2 TB up to the maximum overage charge of $100 (Internet Essentials and Internet Essentials Partnership Program customers have a maximum overage charge of $30 per month).
-----


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Yeah, I've always gotten alerts and they even intercept browser requests with warnings. Knowing you're getting close to the cap isn't an issue, but the cap itself is a relic of rent-seeking oligopolies that don't have enough competition. And a government that's been bought off to look the other way.


----------



## JoeTaxpayer (Dec 23, 2008)

DeltaOne said:


> More info here: Will I be alerted when I approach, reach or exceed my data usage plan?
> ------
> *Notification Thresholds*
> You'll get email, text message and Xfinity X1 on-screen notifications at the 75% (email only), 90% and 100% thresholds.
> ...


Thanks. If it were a perfect world, I'd have better granularity. Hitting 75% on the 24th of the month? Not a big deal. 10 days in? Problem.
After a few months of close tracking, I'll drop to a reminder to check on the 15th of the month. (For what it's worth, on Jan 4th I saw 200GB usage. Today, 434GB. So, initial panic, but now I see it was likely a one-off occurrence, reloaded a drive with iTunes from cloud. I can avoid paying much attention by being mindful of large potential transfers like that.)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JoeTaxpayer said:


> Thanks. If it were a perfect world, I'd have better granularity.


In a perfect world, monopoly cable companies wouldn't invent arbitrary and capricious data caps to create artificial scarcity of bits so that they could talk out of both sides of their mouths to profit from abusing their monopoly while simultaneously claiming that they have a great network that's super fast (so which is it, a creaky old POS network that can't handle the load, an amazing network that needs no caps?).


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Lack of competition.

AT&T is offering no caps and free HBO MAX. But in most markets, they don't compete with Comcast in speed.

AT&T made a big splash about 5 years ago about their AT&T Gigapower product but seems like they haven't bothered to expand the footprint, particularly in cities which they opened up at the time.

Now, they're going to borrow to pay for new 5G spectrum in the record auctions which saw a combined $90 billion in bids.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

wco81 said:


> Lack of competition.
> 
> AT&T is offering no caps and free HBO MAX. But in most markets, they don't compete with Comcast in speed.
> 
> ...


We have AT&T Fiber in Cupertino but when I compare all the various options + Ooma to get my Comcast contract triple play services which can create a lot of usage complications it seems like Comcast is still pretty close.

Inserting Tivo OTA is about the only option that is viable but I then have to add in the missing cable channels with something like Philo.
AT&T plus Sling is the next option but I still need a PBS subscription
I could do AT&T and get all the individual subscriptions CBS/Hulu/Peacock/PBS/Philo which is basically the same as Comcast
AT&T plus YouTubeTV is the same as Comcast


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

wco81 said:


> Lack of competition.


This.

Technically Verizon (FIOS) competes with Comcast in the Northeast and has speeds that exceed Comcast.

In reality though Comcast and Verizon have partnered up (Verizon runs Comcast's cellular service), Verizon isn't hooking up new customers and Verizon is following Comcast's lead in lowering quality. As such there really isn't much competition.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> AT&T made a big splash about 5 years ago about their AT&T Gigapower product but seems like they haven't bothered to expand the footprint, particularly in cities which they opened up at the time.


No, AT&T Fiber (formerly Gigapower) has expanded a LOT in the last 5 years. AT&T reported the numbers about every quarter. Anecdotally, I can tell you that it's become available at my home, my sister's home, and my parent's home in that time. We live in three different states.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

They claimed to have added 220k fiber subscribers in the July quarter.

but the CWA says they're well short of how much coverage they could have.

CWA calls out AT&T's lack of fiber in its DSL footprint

In my town they made a big splash 5-6 years ago but they certainly haven't expanded deployment to my part of town.


----------



## LoREvanescence (Jun 19, 2007)

Sighs, I hate Comcast.

I thought I was all set as I signed up for an Unlimited Internet Plan last year.

The rep I was talking upsold me on a internet / streaming only tv double play plan that included Unlimited Internet. 

He was like I know Comcast doesn't have data caps in your area currently, but you will be good to go should they roll them out. 

I went with the upgrade, and my billing / account information for almost the last year showed I had Unlimited Internet.

Today I get a notification from Comcast that I'm approaching the data cap of 1.2 TB and outlined how overages are billed and has a link to upgrade to unlimited for $30 a month.

I was like hold on here, I already have unlimited, I shouldn't have to pay more for it.

So I called them up. Comcast confirmed that I did previously have an Unlimited Plan, and that Comcast did offer Unlimited Plans in my area. There was no data caps in my area before 1/1/20201.

I told them again that the plan I had was unlimited, and specifically listed that way in the plan details. And that the rep who sold it said I would be good to go and have no data caps should the roll them out in my area.

They got back to me again with as of 1/1/2021 Comcast has decided to impose a data cap of 1.2 TB on all plans in my area, including the plan I previously had that was Unlimited. 

And that they would be happy to upgrade me to Unlimited for an additional $30 a month.

I questions then why the hell I was paying more for an unlimited plan before than a regular plan that had no data caps. What was I paying for. Then they said, we can give you a promo for free unlimited for 5 months. After 5 months, they will start billing me for $30 a month or I can downgrade back to my other plan.

Sighs, what a joke.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

I had a similar conversation when I upgraded to Gigabit Ethernet. I was told that Gigabit came with unlimited so I was fine, but it didn't matter, because they weren't enforcing caps, but if they ever did start, I would be unlimited.

Now they start enforcing caps, and I indeed have a 1.2TB limit. And I can plainly see that Gigabit is capped, but Gigabit _Pro_ is not capped. But they've reswizzled the plans around as of Jan, and I can't honestly tell if the rep lied (or misinformed) to me, or if maybe the rep was right at the time, and comcast changed the rules out from under him.

For the moment, I'm projected to come in under the cap (average month is 600-800GB), but I'm still annoyed by the situation.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

morac said:


> Technically Verizon (FIOS) competes with Comcast in the Northeast and has speeds that exceed Comcast.
> 
> In reality though Comcast and Verizon have partnered up (Verizon runs Comcast's cellular service), Verizon isn't hooking up new customers and Verizon is following Comcast's lead in lowering quality. As such there really isn't much competition.


In the areas that have FiOS. Much of the Northeast does not, including all of Comcast's territory in Connecticut, a good chunk of it in MA outside of towns touching the 128 loop, and Northern New England.

That's why Comcast decided that they could abandon the notion of trying to compete with FiOS and just go after sucking as much money as they can out of their captive customers.


----------



## LoREvanescence (Jun 19, 2007)

kdmorse said:


> I had a similar conversation when I upgraded to Gigabit Ethernet. I was told that Gigabit came with unlimited so I was fine, but it didn't matter, because they weren't enforcing caps, but if they ever did start, I would be unlimited.
> 
> Now they start enforcing caps, and I indeed have a 1.2TB limit. And I can plainly see that Gigabit is capped, but Gigabit _Pro_ is not capped. But they've reswizzled the plans around as of Jan, and I can't honestly tell if the rep lied (or misinformed) to me, or if maybe the rep was right at the time, and comcast changed the rules out from under him.
> 
> For the moment, I'm projected to come in under the cap (average month is 600-800GB), but I'm still annoyed by the situation.


I wonder if this is class action lawsuit territory like what happened to AT&T Wireless with their original unlimited plan when they changed the terms.

This is shady. Especially when we both have said we were told we were good to go and would have unlimited should they ever roll out data caps and start enforcing them.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

LoREvanescence said:


> I wonder if this is class action lawsuit territory like what happened to AT&T Wireless with their original unlimited plan when they changed the terms.
> 
> This is shady. Especially when we both have said we were told we were good to go and would have unlimited should they ever roll out data caps and start enforcing them.


They'd probably just let people who complained out of their contracts. They know that most have nowhere to go and are captive to Comcast.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Well I re-upped with the evil empire, for a 2 year deal which cuts my bill by about $20.

They have to agree to the contract on a special website link that they email you and it specifically has you click about the 1.2 TB cap and understand the overage charges.


----------



## LoREvanescence (Jun 19, 2007)

I just broke the 1.2 TB mark today streaming Fate: The Winx Saga on Netflix.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

I would be careful about relying on Comcast's My Account app. The one month I went over, it showed I still had like 30-40 gigs left of the 1229 GB limit.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I keep track of usage on my router, which keeps track of daily and monthly usage and I’ve found that Comcast’s My Account undercounts my actual usage by a fair amount, even for past months. 

I’m assuming though that Comcast uses that for billing purposes. It does say usage in the last 24 hours may not show up immediately.


----------



## LoREvanescence (Jun 19, 2007)

morac said:


> I keep track of usage on my router, which keeps track of daily and monthly usage and I've found that Comcast's My Account undercounts my actual usage by a fair amount, even for past months.
> 
> I'm assuming though that Comcast uses that for billing purposes. It does say usage in the last 24 hours may not show up immediately.


I have found the opposite. Comcast lists my usage higher than my router.

So, I'd still error on the side of caution if you are close to going over.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> They claimed to have added 220k fiber subscribers in the July quarter.
> 
> but the CWA says they're well short of how much coverage they could have.
> 
> ...


Per this article (written Nov. 2017), looks like AT&T's FTTH network (originally branded AT&T GigaPower) passed only roughly 1 million homes as of 3Q15 (i.e. 8 quarters prior to when the article was written).

_"AT&T has expanded from roughly 1MM homes passed with fiber to 6MM in the past 8 quarters."
_​Five years later, at the end of 3Q20, that figure was 14 million homes per this article (written Oct. 2020):

_AT&T Fiber currently has 4.7 million fiber subscribers and a 33% penetration of fiber homes passed. AT&T Fiber passes 14 million homes._​
I'd say expanding their FTTH network from being available to only 1 million homes to 14 million homes is a pretty big increase. More would be nice, of course. But that's significant growth. I'm not aware of any other operator who has come close to that much FTTH expansion in the past few years. There's been some expansion by Google, Verizon, Altice, Frontier, and C-Spire but nothing like what AT&T has done.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

This is the current Central NJ rate card.

You should be able to get the equivalent for your area by going to Local services and pricing (xfinity.com).


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

NashGuy said:


> Per this article (written Nov. 2017), looks like AT&T's FTTH network (originally branded AT&T GigaPower) passed only roughly 1 million homes as of 3Q15 (i.e. 8 quarters prior to when the article was written).
> 
> _"AT&T has expanded from roughly 1MM homes passed with fiber to 6MM in the past 8 quarters."
> _​Five years later, at the end of 3Q20, that figure was 14 million homes per this article (written Oct. 2020):
> ...


Like I said, they made a splashy announcement in my town in 2014 and they haven't expanded the footprint at all. I'm within miles of Apple HQ and homes here are all worth millions, with high incomes.

But the article I referenced looks like they're only going to expand their footprint if they're also needing backhaul to build out 5G. Which is not a bad strategy but they're not in the FTTH business for the sake of FTTH only.

After the stupid blunder with the DirecTV acquisition, they're probably not in a mood to spend a lot of capital. They may screw up Warner/HBO yet so I'm not pinning a lot on AT&T.

That's one reason I signed up for a 2-year contract with Comcast, because I don't expect them to expand fiber or 5G to my place. They'd also probably be my last choice for mobile.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> Like I said, they made a splashy announcement in my town in 2014 and they haven't expanded the footprint at all. I'm within miles of Apple HQ and homes here are all worth millions, with high incomes.
> 
> But the article I referenced looks like they're only going to expand their footprint if they're also needing backhaul to build out 5G. Which is not a bad strategy but they're not in the FTTH business for the sake of FTTH only.
> 
> ...


No one seems to understand how AT&T decided upon the neighborhoods/streets where they rolled out FTTH over the past few years. An affluent, tech-centric area like yours would seem like a no-brainer if there's not another FTTH provider there already.

Anyhow, most of AT&T Fiber's expansion was done, at least in part, in order to meet a promise they made to the federal government as a condition to acquire DirecTV. They fulfilled that promise awhile ago (2019, maybe) and by some point last year took their foot off the gas with regard to FTTH rollout. At this point, further fiber deployment is much more strategic, with 5G backhaul being one of the chief considerations. So yeah, if it's not available where you live now, it *probably* won't be coming. But it still could.

But there's probably a better chance of you getting some kind of fixed wireless broadband provider there, like T-Mobile or Verizon 5G home service, or maybe Starry. At any rate, hope you get at least one other decent option there besides Comcast before long...


----------



## Fiber Paladin (Jan 13, 2021)

I live in a Sparklight ex- NewWave area and we have had the 1.2 TB cap for a while. Sadly we don’t have another option other than Frontier which is only getting up to 45 mbps. We haven’t went over the cap yet. Highest usage we have had is up to 900 GB. I am intrigued by options like StarLink and T-Mobile’s home Internet. If Sparklight doesn’t kick it in gear, we may look at those options more closely.


----------



## Fiber Paladin (Jan 13, 2021)

Bigg said:


> It may for a small number of customers who are right on the edge, however, if you look at YTTV compared to Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, etc, the OTT SVOD services are going to consume a lot more than the vMVPD, both because most of the compelling content is now on OTT SVOD, but also because of 4k, which uses roughly 3x-4x the bandwidth of HD.
> 
> Comcast has finally started to realize that keeping sub numbers up on TV is kind of pointless, as they really don't make money on it. They make a little bit on the BS fees, and a little bit on extra box and VOD rentals, and they get to shovel some money over to NBCU in carriage costs, so that's eventually profit for their other arm, but in general, it's just not that profitable if you look at the way the bundles are priced. The carriage costs keep going up and up and up, and yet they continue to offer relatively cheap (compared to their outrageous internet-only prices) bundles. Cox's strategy is probably a better business strategy for profit, they don't give a rat's behind if they lose TV customers, they're going to milk the ones that stay for all they're worth, but they're privately owned, so they don't have to keep sub numbers up for Wall Street, all they care about is profit, and fewer TV customers at rack rate are more profitable than more TV customers at a steep bundle discount.
> 
> ...


Sparlklight is moving away from the old model the hardest, they are turning off QAM TV here by year's end. I'm really curious to see how this is handled. Considering how people around where I live are not exactly on the cutting edge of technical knowledge, I can see lots of grandma's waking up one morning and not having TV and wondering what on Earth is going on.

Sparklight TV FAQ's



> Q: Can I keep my traditional cable TV service?
> A: We will be transitioning all Sparklight markets to Sparklight TV on a market-by-market basis by the end of 2021, at which time we will no longer be offering traditional linear cable TV service which requires a cable box. Existing Cable TV customers will be contacted directly when Sparklight TV service is available for their home.


So far I don't see a plan for them to have a DVR box or even IPTV adaptors. This looks like it will be a cluster.

‎Sparklight TV


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

morac said:


> I keep track of usage on my router, which keeps track of daily and monthly usage and I've found that Comcast's My Account undercounts my actual usage by a fair amount, even for past months.
> 
> I'm assuming though that Comcast uses that for billing purposes. It does say usage in the last 24 hours may not show up immediately.


I'm seeing the opposite. Right now Comcast lists my Jan usage at 2011 GB and my router (Google wifi) lists the last 30 days (so it includes part of December) as 1825 GB.

(This month is an anomaly since my husband and I both downloaded our google photo backups. Normally we're well under a TB.)

My hope is that Comcast will tick off so many people by pulling this during the pandemic that it'll spark them getting regulated like other utilities.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

buscuitboy said:


> if possible, do what I did. Bought a good wifi extender and tapped into an Xfinity public signal in my neighborhood. used my current Xfinity username to log in to the signal. Then used a network switch & powerline products to distribute this captured wifi signal throughout my house. I now basically have two internet sources so no cap worries & problem solved.
> 
> Again, not possible for everyone if you can't get a strong enough Xfinity public hotspot. I actually could only get it in two bedrooms on east end of my house, but it was good enough to get on my wifi extender & then distribute as needed. I usually pull in about 30Mbs speeds. not great (compared to my main normal 120mbs connection), but good enough for most my needs; streaming and PS4/Xbox download updates.


Don't you have to log in to the hotspot through your comcast account? Doesn't that count against your cap?



JoeTaxpayer said:


> In my opinion the CAP 'feels' worse than it is. Before school started (I teach) usage was from 400-500GB/mo. Since October, 650-700.
> We use Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc, but basically just 2 of us watching TV. I say it feels worse, because it's another thing to pay attention to.
> Comcast needs to let us set up alerts. If they are already available, I don't know, yet how to activate. I'd like an alert that if on any day I'm on a runrate to be at 90% of 1.2TB, to get the warning. They claim that only 5% of customer are actually affected, but the reality is that the next 10% or so can easily blow through the cap if they jump to a 4K TV, or have a family member go from an Xfinity offering to watching a streaming service.
> Agreed with all who note that doing this during Covid is pretty awful. As far as I can tell, Zoom is a tiny fraction of streaming TV bandwidth, but it still adds up over time, especially with multiple kids.


I would say it is about as bad as it feels. Most of my friends have kids and we're all bumping up against the limit. People are working from home, kids are doing school from home, and everyone has a lot more time at home so plenty of video games and streaming video.

I do not believe for a second that this only affects 5% of their customers. I believe it affected 5% a couple of years ago when someone ran the numbers.

It's ridiculous that they can just give a number and claim that's your usage with nothing to back it up or way to confirm it. (Especially since my router reports a much lower number than they do.)


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Fiber Paladin said:


> Sparlklight is moving away from the old model the hardest, they are turning off QAM TV here by year's end. I'm really curious to see how this is handled. Considering how people around where I live are not exactly on the cutting edge of technical knowledge, I can see lots of grandma's waking up one morning and not having TV and wondering what on Earth is going on.
> 
> Sparklight TV FAQ's
> 
> ...


OMG. I had read recently about Sparklight shifting toward IPTV with a plan to dump QAM and reclaim that bandwidth. But I didn't think that they'd shut down QAM TV so quickly. (This is the opposite situation of Comcast, which has been running full-on IPTV for years now in parallel with QAM TV but has still given no public indication as when they'll ever stop selling QAM TV, much less shut it down.)

But the Sparklight TV FAQ page does state:

_We will be transitioning all Sparklight markets to Sparklight TV on a market-by-market basis by the end of 2021, at which time we will no longer be offering traditional linear cable TV service which requires a cable box. Existing Cable TV customers will be contacted directly when Sparklight TV service is available for their home.
_​Surely that means that they'll simply stop *selling* traditional QAM TV by the end of this year rather than shut down its operation completely. Because if it's the latter, yeah, it's gonna be a cluster. For the process to be managed well, I'd think they'd need to stop selling QAM TV at the point when their IPTV product launches in a given market but still continue to operate the QAM service for at least six months, during which time they run an extensive communications effort to notify customers about the pending switchover (e.g. letters in the mail, robocalls, on-screen crawlers, etc.). I wonder if they'll even spend money to process returns of all that QAM TV equipment or just ask customers to drop it off at a recycling center themselves. It can't really be worth anything at this point.

I see that they're using MobiTV as their underlying streaming tech platform, which is probably a good thing. They power OTT/IPTV for several smaller operators now.

I'm surprised that Sparklight TV isn't selling/renting their own Android TV device with a home screen and remote control customized for their service (as T-Mobile is doing with TVision, AT&T is doing with AT&T TV, etc.). That kind of solution can be spun up very quickly using off-the-shelf hardware and then marrying your Android TV app to Google's Android TV Operator Tier operating system. Maybe customized devices aren't offered by MobiTV though, not sure. (TiVo is a competitor to MobiTV and offers a similar solution, and it offers a customized Android TV device running the TiVo UI home screen.)

IMO, they definitely need to offer an *optional* customized streaming device with full-fledged remote control (channel up/down, volume up/down, guide, DVR list, etc.) for Sparklight TV. Lots of elderly folks will be lost if they have to migrate to launching an app on a Roku or Chromecast or whatever to watch "regular TV". They could sell or rent them (making it an additional profit center). And they ought to include at least one such streaming device with the required wifi modem/router gateway for those Sparklight TV customers who do not take Sparklight broadband. I'm sure there will be an equipment rental fee for that.


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

wco81 said:


> Like I said, they made a splashy announcement in my town in 2014 and they haven't expanded the footprint at all. I'm within miles of Apple HQ and homes here are all worth millions, with high incomes.


This issue is build-out costs. In the greater Cupertino area (Apple HQ) the truly new community builds often have AT&T fiber (I have seem them advertised as such). But existing residential housing, that is another thing.

5-10 years ago it was estimated by the people that actually do these types of construction that build-out (for new deployment of coax, fiber, it does not matter, the cost is not the medium itself) was $1500-2000 per passed medium density single family residence with aerial deployment (and existing ROW easements) and a very low community permitting and construction requirements process and over a wide area (the overheads of the entire process only make sense over thousands, not ones or tens). Note that that does not include connection, just a passing. Over that time the costs have only risen. The cost was around double for underground build-outs (and that greater area is mixed with aerial and underground according to Google Street View). And existing MDUs were essentially out of any consideration due to installation/renovation costs and the unwillingness of most property holders to assist the process. HOA communities are also special. btw, Cupertino is not a low cost permitting and construction location (I am guessing you already know that). And then there are local jurisdiction "compensation" requests, where to offer some types of approvals the local jurisdiction added their own additional costs or requirements. As you may recall, San Jose forced the cable franchise owner (AT&T cable at the time) to not enable certain HSI capabilities before they were able to deploy it city wide (the city was concerned about redlining/cherry picking) which delayed availability for years and years even to those for which it was possible to flip the switch.

So if you want to see AT&T fiber soon, you likely first need to start attending the neighborhood community meetings and see if there is community interest in pursuing discussions with AT&T (even when the price might be many many thousands of dollars per house (whether they subscribe or not)), and if there is, engage AT&T to attend a few meetings to come up with a plan and proposal for everyone to sign.

Oh, and in many of that area Comcast Gigabit Pro (i.e. Metro-E) is available to those single family residences which means those that want it, and can afford it, they have a good chance to be able to get it (and there are dozens of Metro-E competitors, although not at the Gigabit-Pro residential discount pricing).


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

CommunityMember said:


> This issue is build-out costs. In the greater Cupertino area (Apple HQ) the truly new community builds often have AT&T fiber (I have seem them advertised as such). But existing residential housing, that is another thing.
> 
> 5-10 years ago it was estimated by the people that actually do these types of construction that build-out (for new deployment of coax, fiber, it does not matter, the cost is not the medium itself) was $1500-2000 per passed medium density single family residence with aerial deployment (and existing ROW easements) and a very low community permitting and construction requirements process and over a wide area (the overheads of the entire process only make sense over thousands, not ones or tens). Note that that does not include connection, just a passing. Over that time the costs have only risen. The cost was around double for underground build-outs (and that greater area is mixed with aerial and underground according to Google Street View). And existing MDUs were essentially out of any consideration due to installation/renovation costs and the unwillingness of most property holders to assist the process. HOA communities are also special. btw, Cupertino is not a low cost permitting and construction location (I am guessing you already know that). And then there are local jurisdiction "compensation" requests, where to offer some types of approvals the local jurisdiction added their own additional costs or requirements. As you may recall, San Jose forced the cable franchise owner (AT&T cable at the time) to not enable certain HSI capabilities before they were able to deploy it city wide (the city was concerned about redlining/cherry picking) which delayed availability for years and years even to those for which it was possible to flip the switch.
> 
> ...


What is Metro E?

I have Gigabit from Comcast but not the DOCSIS 3.1 modem for it. I'm fine with 600 Mbps or whatever it's rated at. It's the caps and unreliable service from Comcast that I object to.

I'm getting notices from the city. They're approving all kinds of 5G micro cells and big towers all over the city. They must have some cozy relationship with Comcast and the wireless carriers.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

wco81 said:


> Like I said, they made a splashy announcement in my town in 2014 and they haven't expanded the footprint at all. I'm within miles of Apple HQ and homes here are all worth millions, with high incomes.
> 
> But the article I referenced looks like they're only going to expand their footprint if they're also needing backhaul to build out 5G. Which is not a bad strategy but they're not in the FTTH business for the sake of FTTH only.
> 
> ...


Where I am in Cupertino we do have AT&T Fiber and I have thought about it but when I build out the various services I have now I don't save any money and I lose some channels. It gets even worse if I try to keep Comcast for Video and AT&T for Internet and lose the bundling discounts. Even AT&T + YoutubeTV + Ooma is more expensive than the triple play pricing I currently have.

I have not heard any personal reviews of the service in our area either.


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

wco81 said:


> What is Metro E?


Metro-E (the E is for Ethernet services) can be provisioned over various forms, but typically fiber direct to a distribution hub/dc/colo and typically symmetric, typically available in multiple speed levels (up to 100Gbps for some providers) and targeted towards businesses (and priced accordingly). For Comcast's Consumer Gigabit-Pro offering it is business class Metro-E service (2Gb/sec symmetric) at "consumer" pricing (for consumers with some money).



> It's the caps and unreliable service from Comcast that I object to.


From reports of others in the SF Bay Area the reliability is typically not an issue, so if you have unreliable service you should request service to determine the cause(s).


----------



## Fiber Paladin (Jan 13, 2021)

Nashguy, if Sparklight licensed X1, I’d probably take it over Sparklight TV. For sure if Sparklight bought XG1V4’s, then I’d probably go that route. I doubt X1 syndication is cheap, though.

Personally I would be fine with QAM TV being gone, I had satellite for TV before I went all in streaming. That said, Hulu + Live TV and YouTube TV losing the Sinclair sports networks hurt me. Sports is pretty much it for linear content as far as what I watch.

I checked Sparklight’s site and didn’t find any way to order traditional QAM cable online. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t call and order it. I’m going to have to do more digging here.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Fiber Paladin said:


> Nashguy, if Sparklight licensed X1, I'd probably take it over Sparklight TV. For sure if Sparklight bought XG1V4's, then I'd probably go that route. I doubt X1 syndication is cheap, though.
> 
> Personally I would be fine with QAM TV being gone, I had satellite for TV before I went all in streaming. That said, Hulu + Live TV and YouTube TV losing the Sinclair sports networks hurt me. Sports is pretty much it for linear content as far as what I watch.
> 
> I checked Sparklight's site and didn't find any way to order traditional QAM cable online. That doesn't mean I couldn't call and order it. I'm going to have to do more digging here.


Sparklight is not going to license X1. We can definitively conclude that because they are essentially outsourcing their new IPTV platform to MobiTV, which effectively competes in this arena with X1 as a licensed platform. (So far, though, I think only larger cable operators have licensed X1 -- Cox here in the US plus three, I think, in Canada -- while MobiTV and TiVo target small to mid-size operators.)

If they do anything in terms of offering a dedicated streaming cable TV device, it'll be one that runs Android TV Operator Tier (because that's really the only option going these days other than X1). But having looked at a couple of the operators who have already deployed MobiTV's IPTV platform (C Spire in MS and EPB in TN), it doesn't appear that either of them offer such a device. Instead, they just provide a list of suggested retail streamers on which their customers can run their app (Fire TV, Apple TV and various Android TV devices like Nvidia Shield TV).

So if I had to guess, I'd say that Sparklight won't offer one either. But the thing is, MobiTV's other clients don't seem to be traditional cable operators but rather telcos, fiber companies, and power companies. In other words, secondary alternatives in their given markets to the original cable company, which is what Sparklight/CableOne is. I'd think Sparklight would have a bigger base of longtime (and older) customers who have subscribed to their cable TV service for years, or even decades. Those folks probably aren't gonna like it when they find out that they have to switch to a Fire TV stick and it's little remote to continue accessing their cable TV.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

zalusky said:


> Where I am in Cupertino we do have AT&T Fiber and I have thought about it but when I build out the various services I have now I don't save any money and I lose some channels. It gets even worse if I try to keep Comcast for Video and AT&T for Internet and lose the bundling discounts. Even AT&T + YoutubeTV + Ooma is more expensive than the triple play pricing I currently have.
> 
> I have not heard any personal reviews of the service in our area either.


One thing you have going for you now with your Comcast bundle is that (I presume) you don't have to spend money on DVR service each month because you probably have TiVo DVRs with lifetime service already paid for. (Note that that equipment can be probably sold for a few hundred bucks, though, if you decided to ditch Comcast permanently.) So that does help. And with Comcast, you also have the option of buying and using your own modem and router rather than renting that equipment from them.

From what I've seen in my area, when you match similar bundles of broadband and TV, with similar equipment and contracts (if any), between Comcast and AT&T, the pricing ends up coming out pretty darn close. For instance, for Comcast's 100/5 internet with XFi Complete (which includes their gateway plus unlimited data) along with their Xtra TV package, 150 hrs cloud DVR and one X1 box rental, with a 2-yr contract and paperless autopay, you pay $147.05 including all fees each month for those 24 months. (Price goes up $41/mo after that, or to whatever the prevailing rate is then.) You also get Peacock Premium ($5/mo value) for free.

With AT&T Fiber and TV, if you take their 100/100 internet (which comes with their gateway plus unlimited data) along with their Xtra TV package (which, I believe, has more channels than Comcast's Xtra) with 500 hrs cloud DVR and 1 box (which you own, not rent), with a 2-yr contract on TV service (no contract on internet), the average monthly price including fees over the first 24 months (after deducting for the $200 in Visa gift cards up-front) comes to $148.29. And you get one year of HBO Max and NBA League Pass Premium included too (plus 3 months of Showtime, Starz and Epix). Not to mention better internet (symmetrical upload speed, fiber reliability) and far better HD picture quality.

By the time you get to month 13 with AT&T, you're paying a regular monthly total rate of $196.13. During the first 12 months, you're paying $117.12. The regular rate on Comcast doesn't kick in until month 25, when you're paying $188.05. That said, because there's no contract on AT&T Fiber and it's always competing against a local cableco, it's reportedly very easy to ask them to extend your first-year promo pricing for the next 12 months if you contact them just before the first year ends. Several folks have reported doing this for a few years running. But rather than assume that that's possible, I just calculated the average AT&T monthly price for the first 24 months using the regular internet price for months 13-24.

Anyhow, all that said, those figures are for a new customer deciding between the two services who doesn't own a TiVo. And if you own your own cable modem and router and aren't worried about Comcast's data cap, then you can save $25/mo by not subscribing to their XFi Complete add-on.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Well if I'd switched to AT&T recently, I would definitely have saved money each month but their speed is only rated at 100 Mbps down and it's barely that.

I've had Uverse twice. It's an underwhelming product.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> One thing you have going for you now with your Comcast bundle is that (I presume) you don't have to spend money on DVR service each month because you probably have TiVo DVRs with lifetime service already paid for. (Note that that equipment can be probably sold for a few hundred bucks, though, if you decided to ditch Comcast permanently.) So that does help. And with Comcast, you also have the option of buying and using your own modem and router rather than renting that equipment from them.
> .
> .
> .


Check, Check and Check. All that fits into my rationale of staying for now unless they change the package structure in our area and I need to re-evaluate.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

jlb said:


> That doesn't mean I like having the cap but I just don't really have to worry about it myself.


The Xfinity data caps are going to be an issue for us, and may compel us to switch providers. (We switched to YouTube TV from Comcast CableCARD back in October.)


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> Well if I'd switched to AT&T recently, I would definitely have saved money each month but their speed is only rated at 100 Mbps down and it's barely that.
> 
> I've had Uverse twice. It's an underwhelming product.


I had it two (three?) different times in the past before my address got upgraded to FTTH. It was always fine. Never had any problem with the provided gateway, although I did have a few limited outages. (Neither FTTN or HFC networks are as reliable as FTTH. Nothing is really, it's the gold standard.) The available download speed was enough for me at the time. The last time I had it, I think it was 50 Mbps down. And the down/up speed ratio is usually better on Uverse than Comcast.

Anyhoo, in today's quarterly results call, the AT&T CEO said that they plan to roll out FTTH to another 2 million addresses, maybe a little more, this year as they continue to see increased uptake on the product in areas where it's already rolled out. That's more rollout than I was expecting. So who knows, you still might get lucky there in your neighborhood.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

I'll believe it when I see it.

I think AT&T can't get rid of the huge albatross of DirecTV.

I had a recent enough experience with their Internet product that I won't subscribe to it again unless they are expanding fiber.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

krkaufman said:


> The Xfinity data caps are going to be an issue for us, and may compel us to switch providers. (We switched to YouTube TV from Comcast CableCARD back in October.)


Well, if you happen to rent an XFi gateway from Comcast, you might be able to add unlimited data for an extra ~$10/mo. Around here, the XFi alone is a $15 rental, while XFi Complete (gateway + unlimited data) is $25.

Another thing to keep in mind: as AT&T's CEO pointed out today, we may see a return of net neutrality under the Biden administration. Note that Comcast zero-rates their own IPTV service on their network, so it doesn't count against your data cap like YouTube TV or other OTT services do. That's a clear violation of net neutrality. So maybe we'll see Comcast do away with their data caps. Or maybe they'll waive the data cap on all customers who bundle internet plus Xfinity TV (with a hidden underlying price increase to offset the lost data cap waiver revenue). That way, they could count the IPTV data but it wouldn't matter, since none of those folks would have a cap. (This is what AT&T Fiber+TV does.)


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> I think AT&T can't get rid of the huge albatross of DirecTV.


What a colossal mistake that acquisition was. But the rumor mill says that they're close to selling off a minority stake in DTV to a hedge fund or some such. They definitely need the cash right now because they're already leveraged to the hilt and need to continue plowing money into HBO Max, FTTH, plus C-band spectrum for 5G.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

JoeTaxpayer said:


> In my opinion the CAP 'feels' worse than it is. Before school started (I teach) usage was from 400-500GB/mo. Since October, 650-700.
> We use Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc, but basically just 2 of us watching TV. I say it feels worse, because it's another thing to pay attention to.
> Comcast needs to let us set up alerts. If they are already available, I don't know, yet how to activate. I'd like an alert that if on any day I'm on a runrate to be at 90% of 1.2TB, to get the warning. They claim that only 5% of customer are actually affected, but the reality is that the next 10% or so can easily blow through the cap if they jump to a 4K TV, or have a family member go from an Xfinity offering to watching a streaming service.
> Agreed with all who note that doing this during Covid is pretty awful. As far as I can tell, Zoom is a tiny fraction of streaming TV bandwidth, but it still adds up over time, especially with multiple kids.


what you need to do is drop your plan to less than 4k. If Netflix sees this happening all over they will wonder why. Comcast would be the cause of a lot of revenue missing from Netflix. Maybe that would start some sort of chain reaction. We all know 1080p is just fine but 4k consumes a lot more data


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> if you happen to rent an XFi gateway from Comcast, you might be able to add unlimited data for an extra ~$10/mo. Around here, the XFi alone is a $15 rental, while XFi Complete (gateway + unlimited data) is $25.


So about the same as the $30 fee for eliminating the data cap. Thanks for the tip/heads-up; I'll do a bit more investigation.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

mattyro7878 said:


> what you need to do is drop your plan to less than 4k. If Netflix sees this happening all over they will wonder why. Comcast would be the cause of a lot of revenue missing from Netflix. Maybe that would start some sort of chain reaction. We all know 1080p is just fine but 4k consumes a lot more data


If Netflix offers 1080p with HDR, people might go for it instead of paying extra for the 4K.

But NF wouldn't give away HDR for free ...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> If Netflix offers 1080p with HDR, people might go for it instead of paying extra for the 4K.
> 
> But NF wouldn't give away HDR for free ...


Yeah, there's a pretty big bump in picture quality between Netflix's 1080p and 4K HDR. I only pick up Netflix for a month here and then to catch up on a few things I care about but when I do, it's the top tier so I can watch in 4K HDR (even though it's now $18/mo!).


----------



## DeltaOne (Sep 29, 2013)

krkaufman said:


> The Xfinity data caps are going to be an issue for us, and may compel us to switch providers. (We switched to YouTube TV from Comcast CableCARD back in October.


Some packages include unlimited data. My Super+ More plan includes unlimited data.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

krkaufman said:


> So about the same as the $30 fee for eliminating the data cap. Thanks for the tip/heads-up; I'll do a bit more investigation.


Oops, looks like the XFi gateway alone here is $14/mo, not $15. But XFi Complete is $25/mo. So it's an $11/mo upcharge.

In addition to adding unlimited data, Complete also includes an XFi Pod "if recommended" for better wifi coverage throughout the whole home. I guess the Pod is an extender (like AT&T's AirTies)? Per a Comcast support page, the XFi gateway "automatically evaluates your network performance to help ensure the most WiFi coverage throughout your home." So I guess if the gateway tells Comcast that a Pod is needed, they'll send you one at no extra charge.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Attorney General called upon to investigate Comcast for 'predatory price gouging'


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Oops, looks like the XFi gateway alone here is $14/mo, not $15. But XFi Complete is $25/mo. So it's an $11/mo upcharge.
> 
> In addition to adding unlimited data, Complete also includes an XFi Pod "if recommended" for better wifi coverage throughout the whole home. I guess the Pod is an extender (like AT&T's AirTies)? Per a Comcast support page, the XFi gateway "automatically evaluates your network performance to help ensure the most WiFi coverage throughout your home." So I guess if the gateway tells Comcast that a Pod is needed, they'll send you one at no extra charge.


Not to nitpick, but the gateway rental fee ($14) incurs a state sales tax charge, where applicable. Therefore, in most cases the net cost to the customer is going to be somewhere around $15 after all. I would assume that the $11 upcharge for XFi Complete is not subject to sales tax.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Some state legislators try to ban Comcast data caps until the pandemic is over.

State reps try to ban Comcast data cap and price hikes until pandemic is over


----------



## KevTech (Apr 15, 2014)

wco81 said:


> Some state legislators try to ban Comcast data caps until the pandemic is over.


The bill says any *new* data caps and the cap started January 1st so I don't think the bill would affect it since the bill was drafted after the cap started.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

KevTech said:


> The bill says any *new* data caps and the cap started January 1st so I don't think the bill would affect it since the bill was drafted after the cap started.


The cap didn't really start Jan 1 since the first 2 months are not being enforced.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

Remember Comcast offers Comcast Business which is cap free... I currently get 85/20 for $49.95 a month (2 year commitment - 3 year would have been cheaper) using my own modem/router. I originally had it for fixed IP addresses (which they really charge for and you have to pay/use their modem!) and when that need stopped I rewrote the service.

Although once my commitment is over I'll try to grab a cheaper deal with Comcast if possible... or anyone else for a couple of years...


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> Not to nitpick, but the gateway rental fee ($14) incurs a state sales tax charge, where applicable. Therefore, in most cases the net cost to the customer is going to be somewhere around $15 after all. I would assume that the $11 upcharge for XFi Complete is not subject to sales tax.


Reviewing the costs for our local fiber provider, w/ varying fixed rates for service but all of the plans incurring a required $6.50 "modem & maintenance" fee, I was wondering why they didn't just embed the modem fee into the cost, making pricing that much more straightforward ... and wondered if there wasn't some tax or other accounting angle that compels them to keep the two separate.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

Here Comcast charges sales tax on the modem fee (only) and it also allows them to raise the price within a contract period as it's not covered under the commitment agreement (as being fixed). I had numerous increases on their modem (again in my case required for fixed IP addresses).


----------



## KevTech (Apr 15, 2014)

morac said:


> The cap didn't really start Jan 1 since the first 2 months are not being enforced.


From what I have been told by people in the NE is that they now have a meter when before they did not.
Enforcement for going over has been held off until July.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dswallow said:


> This is the current Central NJ rate card.


Then you need a magnifying glass and the decoder ring. They purposefully make the plans to obfuscate what things actually cost so that you can't do an apples to apples comparison, you end up having to do a multivariable algebra equation, and because the packages value different services differently, you'll end up with an unsolvable equation, or else multiple answers depending on what path you take.



NashGuy said:


> Another thing to keep in mind: as AT&T's CEO pointed out today, we may see a return of net neutrality under the Biden administration. Note that Comcast zero-rates their own IPTV service on their network, so it doesn't count against your data cap like YouTube TV or other OTT services do. That's a clear violation of net neutrality.


Well actually, it's not zero-rating, and it's not a violation of Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is for *internet *traffic, not for IP traffic moved over a private network.



wco81 said:


> But NF wouldn't give away HDR for free ...


And NF keeps jacking their rates up over and over again. They've more than doubled their price in the last few years, and while the quantity of the content has gone way up, the quality has gone down.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

KevTech said:


> From what I have been told by people in the NE is that they now have a meter when before they did not.
> Enforcement for going over has been held off until July.


I'm in the NE and I've had a meter on my account page for years. It just was meaningless.


----------



## KevTech (Apr 15, 2014)

morac said:


> I'm in the NE and I've had a meter on my account page for years. It just was meaningless.


I was referring to where it tells you how much you have left before you go over.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

KevTech said:


> I was referring to where it tells you how much you have left before you go over.
> 
> View attachment 57044


Ah okay.

I'll mention that enforcement was pushed back to March, 2021, not July.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

morac said:


> Ah okay.
> 
> I'll mention that enforcement was pushed back to March, 2021, not July.


I think the July date comes from the fact that if you do upgrade to unlimited now, the cost of unlimited is waived until July. So you get unlimited now, you're unlimited freely until July and then it's $30/mo, but you're locked in. And no, I have *no idea* how that interacts with the cancel/restart any time logic. The whole thing is terribly confusing. (If there's another announcement about enforcement also being delayed to July, I haven't seen it.)


----------



## KevTech (Apr 15, 2014)

morac said:


> Ah okay.
> 
> I'll mention that enforcement was pushed back to March, 2021, not July.


Changed to June and no overage charges until July.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Well actually, it's not zero-rating, and it's not a violation of Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is for *internet *traffic, not for IP traffic moved over a private network.


That may be correct in a narrow, technical sense but when a network+content provider gives preferential treatment to their own content service streamed on their network over competing content services, it violates the basic concept of net neutrality. And that's what's going on with Xfinity IPTV vs. YouTube TV, Fubo TV, etc. What's to keep Comcast from also making Peacock a managed IPTV service when delivered to Comcast broadband customers, thereby zero-rating it against their data cap, while not doing the same for Hulu, Netflix, etc?


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

The providers have always claimed that if TV traffic doesn't leave their internal network then it doesn't count against NN. I also don't agree with this because it's anti-competitive at it's core, but they've been able to get away with it.

The solution is to force them to split off HSI and run it seperately but that will never happen. Comcast and AT&T own way too many regulators and legislators.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> That may be correct in a narrow, technical sense but when a network+content provider gives preferential treatment to their own content service streamed on their network over competing content services, it violates the basic concept of net neutrality. And that's what's going on with Xfinity IPTV vs. YouTube TV, Fubo TV, etc. What's to keep Comcast from also making Peacock a managed IPTV service when delivered to Comcast broadband customers, thereby zero-rating it against their data cap, while not doing the same for Hulu, Netflix, etc?


Not really. So it does get a bit murkier when you get into apps like the Roku app. But for their STBs, it's a clear-cut case of not being a violation of net neutrality, because it's no different than them delivering data over a QAM network to their STBs from a legal/billing perspective.

Where it really gets bad is when they are zero-rating their own services that aren't part of their STB-based cable service, like AT&T has done with wireless, where the distortion is much larger due to much lower data caps on the wireless side.

Of course, this whole discussion shouldn't have to happen, as if they didn't have arbitrary and capricious data caps, then no one would care what is counted as what, because they wouldn't have to make the counting accessible to the user anyway.



slowbiscuit said:


> The solution is to force them to split off HSI and run it seperately but that will never happen. Comcast and AT&T own way too many regulators and legislators.


If they were forced to divest the content, cable problem wouldn't be more than marginally profitable for them anymore, and they either wouldn't care if people left for other services, or they would get rid of pay TV altogether.

However, that would only make them dig their heels in more on their arbitrary and capricious data caps, which is why the logical solution would be for Congress to do their job and just pass a law banning wireline data caps, but they're corrupt, so that's never going to happen.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> The providers have always claimed that if TV traffic doesn't leave their internal network then it doesn't count against NN. I also don't agree with this because it's anti-competitive at it's core, but they've been able to get away with it.
> 
> The solution is to force them to split off HSI and run it seperately but that will never happen. Comcast and AT&T own way too many regulators and legislators.


This makes no sense at all- on multiple levels.

First what do you think 'net' in 'net neutrality' is? It's the internet. They don't have to go out and get upstream providers to deliver TV to their own customers over their own internal network. Do you think the feds should be able to monitor you streaming movies over your internal network from a NAS at your house? Just because it is delivered over IP, doesn't mean it's "Internet". The 'network' they built was for carrying TV. Internet was an afterthought- a side business. Why would they penalize their customers for delivering the product they have had before the internet even existed so that a competitor can use their network for free to compete with them?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> This makes no sense at all- on multiple levels.
> 
> First what do you think 'net' in 'net neutrality' is? It's the internet. They don't have to go out and get upstream providers to deliver TV to their own customers over their own internal network. Do you think the feds should be able to monitor you streaming movies over your internal network from a NAS at your house? Just because it is delivered over IP, doesn't mean it's "Internet". The 'network' they built was for carrying TV. Internet was an afterthought- a side business. Why would they penalize their customers for delivering the product they have had before the internet even existed so that a competitor can use their network for free to compete with them?


Comcast plays games with Net Neutrality.

For example one of the reasons Netflix is so expensive is that Comcast charges Netflix to deliver videos to Comcast customers. I believe Netflix passes those costs along to its subscribers so if you subscribe to Netflix you are essentially paying Comcast twice. Three times if you exceed the cap.

On the other hand, Comcast gives all Comcast users free Peacock streaming.

That is what is meant by violating net neutrality, which isn't enforced any more. That may change in this administration.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

morac said:


> Comcast plays games with Net Neutrality.
> 
> For example one of the reasons Netflix is so expensive is that Comcast charges Netflix to deliver videos to Comcast customers. I believe Netflix passes those costs along to its subscribers so if you subscribe to Netflix you are essentially paying Comcast twice. Three times if you exceed the cap.
> 
> ...


Do you have a cite that Xfinity still charged netflix a fee?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Do you have a cite that Xfinity still charged netflix a fee?


Netflix to Pay Comcast for Smoother Streaming


----------



## mcf57 (Oct 19, 2012)

for the past few months, I have been tapping into my neighbor's Xfinity modem public wifi signal. Use a wifi extender in an east end bedroom window where the signal is strongest. I then have it feed a powerline adapter system for the whole house. I have about 3 powerline adapter receivers through out the house to tap from this signal. Mainly where my Xbox and PS4 are located as they eat up the most data with game updates. I do have a Roku in a bedroom hooked up to it as well and it works good. The overall speed I get from this connection is about 25Mbs so strong enough for basic streaming needs. can easily stream Netflix, HBO MAX, Amazon Prime, etc on Xbox, PS4, Fire TV and Roku. 

It has DRASTICALLY cut down on my Xfinity home internet data cap account & no worries. I haven't gone over the cap in over a yr. I monitor my meter as needed so if I am really under toward the end of the month, I then use my normal 200mbs home connection more. Also no need to pay Comcast an extra $30/month for unlimited data. Just thought I would pass along to others if interested (& able) to try.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Before Comcast opened up their hotspots to everyone, hotspot usage used to count towards the data cap. They could change that back at some point.


----------



## mcf57 (Oct 19, 2012)

morac said:


> Before Comcast opened up their hotspots to everyone, hotspot usage used to count towards the data cap. They could change that back at some point.


I don't think its open to "everyone". rather just those with a comcast account as I had to initially log my wifi extender in with a comcast email/password.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

mcf57 said:


> I don't think its open to "everyone". rather just those with a comcast account as I had to initially log my wifi extender in with a comcast email/password.


Xfinity WiFi Hotspot Access Opened Nationwide in Response to Coronavirus - Xfinity Support


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Comcast suspends Internet data limits, fees for Northeast customers

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/03/comcast-suspends-data-caps/


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

morac said:


> Netflix to Pay Comcast for Smoother Streaming


That is from 2014. I'm talking about now, in 2021.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> That is from 2014. I'm talking about now, in 2021.


Why would there be new articles about something that's been ongoing for 7 years?


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

morac said:


> Why would there be new articles about something that's been ongoing for 7 years?


Well now I'm really confused.

You posted an article from 2014, the FCC started enforcing net neutrality in 2015. How would it have been 'ongoing for 7 years' if it was illegal to do that because of net neutrality??

Your original post said-


> Comcast plays games with Net Neutrality.
> 
> For example one of the reasons Netflix is so expensive is that Comcast charges Netflix to deliver videos to Comcast customers. I believe Netflix passes those costs along to its subscribers so if you subscribe to Netflix you are essentially paying Comcast twice. Three times if you exceed the cap.


What am I missing, were you claiming they just ignored net neutrality anyway?

So now, do you have a cite that they openly ignored net neutrality that was implemented in 2015? I don't see how the 2014 article is relevant to anything you said since that was pre-net neutrality.


----------



## mcf57 (Oct 19, 2012)

morac said:


> Xfinity WiFi Hotspot Access Opened Nationwide in Response to Coronavirus - Xfinity Support


Well, I JUST found another fairly decent Xfinity public wifi signal on the west end of my house so I'll just keep mooching off my two neighbors as long as I can and NOT pay Comcast more money than I need too. Works for me


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

morac said:


> For example one of the reasons Netflix is so expensive is that Comcast charges Netflix to deliver videos to Comcast customers. I believe Netflix passes those costs along to its subscribers so if you subscribe to Netflix you are essentially paying Comcast twice. Three times if you exceed the cap.


Basically four times, since they charge about double for their internet in the first place.



morac said:


> Before Comcast opened up their hotspots to everyone, hotspot usage used to count towards the data cap. They could change that back at some point.


I don't recall them ever counting hotspot data. They just don't seem to care. I'm pretty sure that they could do it if they wanted to.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Basically four times, since they charge about double for their internet in the first place. .............


Double what? My 100/10 Spectrum internet costs $75 /mo.

Spectrum has no caps - yet, as a condition of their agreement to be merged into Charter. But they are trying to get that overturned, and it will expire in a year or two anyway.

May as well bend over and brace yourself, folks. Unless you're prepared to invest $Billions in internet delivery infrastructure and then run it as a non-profit organization.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

With my wife teaching from home, my kids learning remotely, and me working at home, we are always flirting with the data cap. I'm just glad they raised it to 1.2TB. We have now gone over 1TB five months in a row ...


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Double what? My 100/10 Spectrum internet costs $75 /mo.
> 
> Spectrum has no caps - yet, as a condition of their agreement to be merged into Charter. But they are trying to get that overturned, and it will expire in a year or two anyway.
> 
> May as well bend over and brace yourself, folks. Unless you're prepared to invest $Billions in internet delivery infrastructure and then run it as a non-profit organization.


Not bad compared to my 150/10 Cox service with 1.2 TB/month cap for $84/month and going up every year. Of course I'm in California too where everything is more expensive. But I've seen many posts of people in Northeast region where there is mostly robust competition where prices are much lower.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Double what? My 100/10 Spectrum internet costs $75 /mo.


Double what a functional market would charge, which is $40-$50/mo with no data caps for 100-200mbps.



> May as well bend over and brace yourself, folks. Unless you're prepared to invest $Billions in internet delivery infrastructure and then run it as a non-profit organization.


We're not going to have gigabit for $20/mo, but the cable companies could offer 200mbps profitably for $40/mo with no caps if there was a functioning market that gave them any incentive to do so. Instead, they charge four times for the same service and end up with profit margins around 90%.



moyekj said:


> But I've seen many posts of people in Northeast region where there is mostly robust competition where prices are much lower.


RI is a lot cheaper because of FiOS. CT is not, since we lack effective competition in most areas.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Double what a functional market would charge, which is $40-$50/mo with no data caps for 100-200mbps.
> 
> We're not going to have gigabit for $20/mo, but the cable companies could offer 200mbps profitably for $40/mo with no caps if there was a functioning market that gave them any incentive to do so. Instead, they charge four times for the same service and end up with profit margins around 90%.
> 
> RI is a lot cheaper because of FiOS. CT is not, since we lack effective competition in most areas.


And of course your "functioning market" will not exist for a long time, if it ever does, in many areas of the country, especially rural areas. But maybe SpaceX's StarLink system will fix that. Initial reports of beta users are very promising.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

dlfl said:


> But maybe SpaceX's StarLink system will fix that. Initial reports of beta users are very promising.


With a $499 upfront cost and $99 per month (during closed Beta) I would hope. Once released its expected to cost more...


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Charles R said:


> With a $499 upfront cost and $99 per month I would expect such.


That's not much different than crappy DSL in rural areas. Installation plus a modem - maybe not $500, but half that? And $99/mo, sure, all day long.

The 50 GB plan for Hughes net is $139.99/mo. 50. Gig. lol Equipment is $349.99.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

Adam1115 said:


> The 50 GB plan for Hughes net is $139.99/mo. 50. Gig. lol Equipment is $349.99.


They haven't addressed caps yet but I'm guessing they will come as soon as it's available... along with higher pricing. Rumor is there might be at least one plan without caps...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Charles R said:


> With a $499 upfront cost and $99 per month (during closed Beta) I would hope. Once released its expected to cost more...


Really? If anything, I thought costs might come down as the subscriber base increases. Even at the current pricing of $99/mo with a big upfront equipment cost, the only type of internet service I can see Starlink replacing is the current generation of fixed orbit satellite internet (e.g. Hughesnet). At those prices, for the kind of speeds it offers (and with the possibility of data caps too), no one is leaving cable broadband for Starlink. Very few would even choose it over T-Mobile's fixed 5G/4G at $50/mo with no data cap.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

StarLink just speaks to the failure of broadband infrastructure policy in this country.

Put up a lot of space junk because it's so hard to put in new last-mile infrastructure for the first time in 40-50 years?


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

wco81 said:


> Put up a lot of space junk because it's so hard to put in new last-mile infrastructure for the first time in 40-50 years?


Here MetroNet has been running cable for the last year down virtually every street I drive on...


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Charles R said:


> They haven't addressed caps yet but I'm guessing they will come as soon as it's available... along with higher pricing. Rumor is there might be at least one plan without caps...


But probably not a 50 gig cap...


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> That's not much different than crappy DSL in rural areas. Installation plus a modem - maybe not $500, but half that? And $99/mo, sure, all day long.
> 
> The 50 GB plan for Hughes net is $139.99/mo. 50. Gig. lol Equipment is $349.99.


Interestingly, the problems folks here are reporting is that the beta is geographically restricted. People in Hanover and Lebanon (which have good options for multiple providers) can sign up for the beta, but Vermont customers and those in the outlying rural areas get a message that the service isn't available.

One guy here in town signed up using his brother's address, but the Starlink router is geolocked, so it doesn't work here 9 miles down the road.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Charles R said:


> With a $499 upfront cost and $99 per month (during closed Beta) I would hope. Once released its expected to cost more...


Who says "it's expected to cost more"? 


Adam1115 said:


> That's not much different than crappy DSL in rural areas. Installation plus a modem - maybe not $500, but half that? And $99/mo, sure, all day long.
> 
> The 50 GB plan for Hughes net is $139.99/mo. 50. Gig. lol Equipment is $349.99.


And the StarLink terminal includes a WiFi router - no other equipment (such as modems, ont's etc.) required.


Charles R said:


> They haven't addressed caps yet but I'm guessing they will come as soon as it's available... along with higher pricing. Rumor is there might be at least one plan without caps...


Anything other than pessimism behind these guesses?


NashGuy said:


> Really? If anything, I thought costs might come down as the subscriber base increases. Even at the current pricing of $99/mo with a big upfront equipment cost, the only type of internet service I can see Starlink replacing is the current generation of fixed orbit satellite internet (e.g. Hughesnet). At those prices, for the kind of speeds it offers (and with the possibility of data caps too), no one is leaving cable broadband for Starlink. Very few would even choose it over T-Mobile's fixed 5G/4G at $50/mo with no data cap.


The two gorilla-in-the-room factors that need to be appreciated about StarLink are (1) it's just as available, with identical costs, in low density areas as in urban areas and (2) it offers low latencies comparable to cable/fiber internet


Charles R said:


> Here MetroNet has been running cable for the last year down virtually every street I drive on...


Metronet will never compete on installation costs in the rural areas - in fact will never go there.


kaszeta said:


> Interestingly, the problems folks here are reporting is that the beta is geographically restricted. People in Hanover and Lebanon (which have good options for multiple providers) can sign up for the beta, but Vermont customers and those in the outlying rural areas get a message that the service isn't available.
> 
> One guy here in town signed up using his brother's address, but the Starlink router is geolocked, so it doesn't work here 9 miles down the road.


Obviously there will be geo limitations with only about 10% of the planned number of satellites in place, with a very complex algorithm needed to set the boundaries, with some unavoidable rough edges.

I wouldn't bet against SpaceX. How many of you skeptics wouldn't have scoffed when Musk said he was going to have re-usable stage one boosters that came back and landed themselves?


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

kaszeta said:


> Interestingly, the problems folks here are reporting is that the beta is geographically restricted. People in Hanover and Lebanon (which have good options for multiple providers) can sign up for the beta, but Vermont customers and those in the outlying rural areas get a message that the service isn't available.
> 
> One guy here in town signed up using his brother's address, but the Starlink router is geolocked, so it doesn't work here 9 miles down the road.


It's a beta, so my guess is that their primary motivation is to test the service. They may have sufficient testers in Vermont, but not in Lebanon.

It's a nice side benefit that people who are underserved can get internet during the beta, but I don't think that's the primary goal at this stage.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> And of course your "functioning market" will not exist for a long time, if it ever does, in many areas of the country, especially rural areas. But maybe SpaceX's StarLink system will fix that. Initial reports of beta users are very promising.


At least 75% of the population lives in areas that are dense enough to support 3-4 broadband providers, and that would create a functioning market. StarLink is NOT competition for wired broadband, it's competition for areas that have unfortunately been left behind. I think it will face an uphill battle though, as Verizon and AT&T can do some incremental upgrades, off a reasonable amount of LTE for home use with much cheaper hardware, and undermine StarLink.

But like most of these technologies, the real profit is probably in commercial use anyway.



wco81 said:


> StarLink just speaks to the failure of broadband infrastructure policy in this country.
> 
> Put up a lot of space junk because it's so hard to put in new last-mile infrastructure for the first time in 40-50 years?


Exactly. We've had the solution since the early 2000's. Fiber to everyone. It's not a technical issue, it's a political/economic issue.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dlfl said:


> The two gorilla-in-the-room factors that need to be appreciated about StarLink are (1) it's just as available, with identical costs, in low density areas as in urban areas and (2) it offers low latencies comparable to cable/fiber internet


I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I stand by my assertion that, at current pricing ($499 for equipment, $99/mo service fee), virtually no one who has wired broadband (cable or fiber) will choose Starlink instead (especially if there ends up being a data cap on Starlink). Starlink is in no way better than cable or fiber service. It's just more expensive. But who knows, maybe the pricing structure looks different once it exits beta and there are lots more sats (and therefore capacity) in the fleet.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> But like most of these technologies, the real profit is probably in commercial use anyway.


Yeah, I think a big part of Starlink's planned revenues will come from commercial financial traders (e.g. high-frequency systematic traders) who need the fastest route to overseas servers. They'll pay hefty sums for a special class of internet service that will let them execute trades between NYC, London, Tokyo, etc. faster than any other method via laser linkages between Starlink sats in space.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> StarLink is NOT competition for wired broadband, it's competition for areas that have unfortunately been left behind. I think it will face an uphill battle though, as Verizon and AT&T can do some incremental upgrades, off a reasonable amount of LTE for home use with much cheaper hardware, and undermine StarLink.


Yes. For that fraction of Americans who live places where no form of wired broadband (cable, fiber, higher-speed DSL) is available, we may be heading toward a two-tier system: LEO satellite broadband as the more expensive option and fixed 5G/4G as the less expensive ($50-60/mo) option. And if LEO is close to twice as expensive on a monthly basis, on top of its hefty upfront hardware costs, then the great majority of rural dwellers in the US would opt for fixed 5G/4G, I think, at least if it was reliable and fast enough to support a couple of HD video streams at the same time. That said, there will always be a slice of rural homes for whom fixed 5G/4G won't be available from any provider. So LEO providers will be a godsend for them.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

dlfl said:


> Who says "it's expected to cost more"


Virtually every article I have read about their deployment.



> Anything other than pessimism behind these guesses?


Reality. Again virtually every article I have read...

If you want to look at history... with almost every model of car he introduces they never ship the artificially "delayed" low-cost version announced at launch only to offer the high-cost model years later reduced by a few bucks.

Another thing I love about their marketing... when you price the vehicle they subtract the "Potential savings" (gasoline savings) from the price of the car until you go to pay...

From someone who is more than happy with their stock experience.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

But that is not unusual. Other car makers will list the price after all possible incentives are deducted. Even though most people will not even qualify for all the incentives available.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> But that is not unusual. Other car makers will list the price after all possible incentives are deducted. Even though most people will not even qualify for all the incentives available.


If they want to deduct the cost of gasoline from their sale price (until paid) fine... instead add in the cost of future replacement batteries.  Not to mention in my case their estimate is in left field.

Bottom line they lost a sale. I thought it was rather "sleazy"... closed my browser at the payment page and walked away.

When the CyberTruck was introduced I liked it so much I was going to forgive them and order... the low-end (single motor RWD) model. Well it _may_ ship a year after the more expensive models although based on their track record I highly doubt it... they lost another sale as I didn't even get to the payment page.

For me it's not the actual price rather their approach. Why "introduce" a cheaper model that won't ship for at least two years other than trying to convert those orders into higher priced model orders once the more expensive model actually starts shipping in a year or more... if they hadn't announced the single motor at all I would have simply ordered the dual motor AWD and waited my year+.

This way they offered me something I wanted but more than likely will never be produced. However I'm sure a ton of single motor customers give up (especially when told it will never ship ) and upgrade along the way.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I think a big part of Starlink's planned revenues will come from commercial financial traders (e.g. high-frequency systematic traders) who need the fastest route to overseas servers. They'll pay hefty sums for a special class of internet service that will let them execute trades between NYC, London, Tokyo, etc. faster than any other method via laser linkages between Starlink sats in space.


Huh, I didn't even think of HFT. Maybe that's the whole game right there. I was thinking of more traditional satellite stuff like payment systems, backup connections, energy installations, railroads, etc.



NashGuy said:


> Yes. For that fraction of Americans who live places where no form of wired broadband (cable, fiber, higher-speed DSL) is available, we may be heading toward a two-tier system: LEO satellite broadband as the more expensive option and fixed 5G/4G as the less expensive ($50-60/mo) option. And if LEO is close to twice as expensive on a monthly basis, on top of its hefty upfront hardware costs, then the great majority of rural dwellers in the US would opt for fixed 5G/4G, I think, at least if it was reliable and fast enough to support a couple of HD video streams at the same time. That said, there will always be a slice of rural homes for whom fixed 5G/4G won't be available from any provider. So LEO providers will be a godsend for them.


Hopefully they competitive threat of Starlink will cause AT&T and Verizon to get off their duffs, and offer more competitive plans with reasonable amounts of data transfer and upgrade the capacity of rural sites. LTE as a technology has the ability to deliver halfway decent rural internet if the providers wanted to put even a modicum of effort into it.

There are some far off-grid places or areas down in hollers in the Appalachians that don't have any 4G/5G connectivity, but they're relatively few and far between. There are a lot with crappy 4G/5G where an externally mounted antenna and site upgrades could yield decent results if the carriers wanted to put a modicum of effort towards it.



Charles R said:


> If they want to deduct the cost of gasoline from their sale price (until paid) fine... instead add in the cost of future replacement batteries.  Not to mention in my case their estimate is in left field.


Well, people are dumb and don't look at TCO. So they have to put it right in their face.



> For me it's not the actual price rather their approach. Why "introduce" a cheaper model that won't ship for at least two years other than trying to convert those orders into higher priced model orders once the more expensive model actually starts shipping in a year or more... if they hadn't announced the single motor at all I would have simply ordered the dual motor AWD and waited my year+.


Limited production capacity and high demand, so it makes sense to sell the most profitable ones first so that they have the capital to expand production while getting costs down.



> This way they offered me something I wanted but more than likely will never be produced. However I'm sure a ton of single motor customers give up (especially when told it will never ship ) and upgrade along the way.


You may find that based on the profit margins, they only need to retain half or fewer of the customers to make just as much profit, and with less capital investment up front.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

Bigg said:


> You may find that based on the profit margins, they only need to retain half or fewer of the customers to make just as much profit, and with less capital investment up front.


That's why I called it "sleazy" not a bad business policy... stating as much in the post.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Nobody is paying $499 up front for satellite unless they have no other choice whatsoever.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

wco81 said:


> Nobody is paying $499 up front for satellite unless they have no other choice whatsoever.


You underestimate how much people hate Comcast.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Robin said:


> You underestimate how much people hate Comcast.


Starlink isn't competitive with Comcast. It's competitive with poorly maintained or very long DSL/VDSL loops.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Robin said:


> You underestimate how much people hate Comcast.


How could you post such an impolite, arrogant . . . oh, I see now.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Comcast won't implement the data caps in the Northeast until 2022.

Comcast reluctantly drops data-cap enforcement in 12 states for rest of 2021


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

"The delay applies to Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia."

Cool. 

Fortunately I got word today that fiber is coming to my neighborhood. (Local company, not FIOS.)

Syonara, Comcast.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Really sad that the rest of their footprint continues to get the shaft as they kowtow to the NE.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Came to post the Comcast link; old news, but good news for us in the NE.

I will be dropping phone and tv from my xfinity plan this month. Keeping internet only, $65/mo (from like $150/mo). I could bump our plan from 100Mbps to 200Mbps for an extra $15. I really cannot recall any instances where our current 100Mbps limit was a barrier to anything we do here at home, at least not a $15 per month barrier.

Youtube TV already cancelled, $65/mo. A nice net monthly savings. Paving the way for a smaller recurring footprint heading into early retirement.


----------



## pl1 (Jan 18, 2007)

markp99 said:


> Came to post the Comcast link; old news, but good news for us in the NE.
> 
> I will be dropping phone and tv from my xfinity plan this month. Keeping internet only, $65/mo (from like $150/mo). I could bump our plan from 100Mbps to 200Mbps for an extra $15. I really cannot recall any instances where our current 100Mbps limit was a barrier to anything we do here at home, at least not a $15 per month barrier.
> 
> Youtube TV already cancelled, $65/mo. A nice net monthly savings. Paving the way for a smaller recurring footprint heading into early retirement.


You might want to check to see if that $65/mo turns into $81/mo if you remove TV and phone. I'm also in the NE area, so this our current pricing. The cheapest Internet now is $55/mo for 25Mbps/3Mbps.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

pl1 said:


> You might want to check


This was the quoted rate, 12mo contract, 2yr fixed price. The csr made note I've been a customer since 1985, I guess I am special. 

I'll be sure to confirm when I call to finalize.

Does seem odd to drop our decades old phone number. TV, no issue.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

markp99 said:


> This was the quoted rate, 12mo contract, 2yr fixed price. The csr made note I've been a customer since 1985, I guess I am special.
> 
> I'll be sure to confirm when I call to finalize.
> 
> Does seem odd to drop our decades old phone number. TV, no issue.


You might want to survey your other options for the best deal.

In your area, the standard on-line offers include (among others):

1) Performance Pro (200 Mbps) for $40 p.m. for the first 12 months with No Term Agreement

2) Blast! (300 Mbps) for $60 p.m. for the first 24 months with a 1-Year Agreement

3) A "Limited Time Offer" of Choice Double Play (10+ TV channels) + speed increase to Performance Pro (bumping up from 100 to 200 Mbps) for $55 p.m. for the first 12 months with No Term Agreement

All of the above prices include the standard $10 p.m. discount for automatic payment and paperless billing.

And these are just the standardized offers available to the general public in your locality. You might be able to negotiate something better through personal contact with a CSR.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

pl1 said:


> You might want to check to see if that $65/mo turns into $81/mo if you remove TV and phone. I'm also in the NE area, so this our current pricing. The cheapest Internet now is $55/mo for 25Mbps/3Mbps.
> 
> View attachment 57673


That rate chart is only a point of departure. You need to check on-line or talk to a CSR who has access to your account in order to ascertain current offers. This caveat applies especially to regions like yours that have not converted to Simple & Easy, which is much more standardized.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

markp99 said:


> Does seem odd to drop our decades old phone number. TV, no issue.


I'd port it to a Google Voice account and forward it in case anyone tries to call you on that number.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I'd port it to a Google Voice account and forward it in case anyone tries to call you on that number.


Yeah, but don't you still have to first port your landline (or VoIP) number to a cellular phone first, and then port from cellular to Google Voice? Which is kind of a pain. In the past, GV didn't accept ports directly from landlines or VoIP lines.

Move your home phone number to Google Voice


----------



## waterchange (Jun 29, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, but don't you still have to first port your landline (or VoIP) number to a cellular phone first, and then port from cellular to Google Voice? Which is kind of a pain. In the past, GV didn't accept ports directly from landlines or VoIP lines.
> 
> Move your home phone number to Google Voice


Yes, that's what I had to do years ago when I ported my land line to google voice with an intermediate stop on a t-mobile prepaid (that I spent $15 for maybe). It's a little work but well worth it though as I'm using my old landline number connected to a $40 OBi200 device to still use our landline phones with no perpetual costs (besides $12/year for E911 service which is optional).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, but don't you still have to first port your landline (or VoIP) number to a cellular phone first, and then port from cellular to Google Voice? Which is kind of a pain. In the past, GV didn't accept ports directly from landlines or VoIP lines.
> 
> Move your home phone number to Google Voice


It's not that hard to do an intermediate port to a $10 SIM card. I've done various port methods to get promos and such before. It just takes a little bit of planning.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> It's not that hard to do an intermediate port to a $10 SIM card.


Yes, seems easy enough. Been poking around the process the past couple days. There aren't many cheep pre-paid SIM deal out there, except for some way off brands maybe. My fear, I'll start the port process, get my landline ported to my mobile device, but then Google Voice will not recognize the cheapo SIM, leaving my landline number stranded.

Is Google picky about which SIM card provider it can port from? Valid concern?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

markp99 said:


> Yes, seems easy enough. Been poking around the process the past couple days. There aren't many cheep pre-paid SIM deal out there, except for some way off brands maybe. My fear, I'll start the port process, get my landline ported to my mobile device, but then Google Voice will not recognize the cheapo SIM, leaving my landline number stranded.
> 
> Is Google picky about which SIM card provider it can port from? Valid concern?


I don't know what's out there today, but a few years ago you could do a PAYGO SIM from T-Mobile for $10, which had a very limited amount of texts/calls/data just to port the number through. If it got "stuck" somehow, you could always port to another kind of cheapo SIM and try again....


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> PAYGO SIM from T-Mobile for $10


No longer a thing as far as I can tell.

I completed the port to T-Mobile using a $5 prepaid SIM from Amazon. Had to activate on T-Mo, which completed this morning, then over to Google Voice, to be completed tomorrow morning. Cancelled XFinity Phone & Cable this morning. Done!


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

markp99 said:


> Is Google picky about which SIM card provider it can port from? Valid concern?


There have to be the appropriate contractual relationships. In the past some numbers just could not port, due to, um, issues. One/more of the issues are also why one cannot simply port a landline to Google, as it first has to turn into a truly portable number. The "big three" mobile carriers can do that for most (although not all) local numbers (there were still some specific locations that were special (typically small regional telephone companies)). The smaller mobile carriers or MVNOs sometimes do not end up being able to, or willing, to make it easy to port out. While it can be more expensive, using one of the "big three" is far more likely to work, and far more likely to be able to get resolution if things go sideways.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

markp99 said:


> No longer a thing as far as I can tell.
> 
> I completed the port to T-Mobile using a $5 prepaid SIM from Amazon. Had to activate on T-Mo, which completed this morning, then over to Google Voice, to be completed tomorrow morning. Cancelled XFinity Phone & Cable this morning. Done!


Be sure to post back 'TO THIS THREAD' your thoughts after 30 & 60 days!!


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

markp99 said:


> No longer a thing as far as I can tell. I completed the port to T-Mobile using a $5 prepaid SIM from Amazon. Had to activate on T-Mo, which completed this morning, then over to Google Voice, to be completed tomorrow morning. Cancelled XFinity Phone & Cable this morning. Done!


FWIW, it is usually recommended (just to be safe) to give things a day or two to settle after the first port (to T-Mobile in your case), making sure that all calls can be made from/to the device from multiple locations (especially from out of area), since behind the scenes the call redirection updates can take time to complete (it takes time for the updates to propagate), and getting another change quickly after the first has not yet completed has resulted in cases where the later ports go (very) bad, so that you either can't make, or can't receive, calls. And getting such things fixed can reportedly take a lot of time (it can require a number of high level staff in multiple organizations (some of which you no longer have a contractual relationship with, so they don't want to talk to you) to try to find out what happened and get it resolved). Of course most of the time things go well, but if you end up being one of the people who end up in port purgatory, it is reportedly hard to quickly get out of.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

CommunityMember said:


> There have to be the appropriate contractual relationships. In the past some numbers just could not port, due to, um, issues. One/more of the issues are also why one cannot simply port a landline to Google, as it first has to turn into a truly portable number. The "big three" mobile carriers can do that for most (although not all) local numbers (there were still some specific locations that were special (typically small regional telephone companies)). The smaller mobile carriers or MVNOs sometimes do not end up being able to, or willing, to make it easy to port out. While it can be more expensive, using one of the "big three" is far more likely to work, and far more likely to be able to get resolution if things go sideways.


I had this issue when attempting to port a 304-725-XXXX to an Xfinity/VZN mobile. I was successful moving it to AT&T and buying an 'annual' package I did pretty well. Unlimited TALK/TEXT - 8G data monthly of which unused rolls to the following month. $300 annual prepaid. Xfinity/VZN had/has very poor coverage in my rural location BUT AT&T very good but w/WiFi calling it isn't important any longer. For years we needed MicroCell for in home Cell use. I have my actual Cell a 304-279-XXXX parked for the time being @ USMobile for maybe $4 PM. Xfinity agreement expires 7/21 so I'll see what happens then, the AT&T renewed last month so that's good for 11 months.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

CommunityMember said:


> There have to be the appropriate contractual relationships


I had read of people successfully using off-name brand SIM/Mobile carriers. I chose T-Mobile as it was cheapest name-brand options, more to save time and aggravation than expense.

So far so good. We'll know more tomorrow.

Ordered an ObiHai VOIP adapter to permit me to use my analog handsets around the house. $48.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

markp99 said:


> Ordered an ObiHai VOIP adapter to permit me to use my analog handsets around the house.


I have been using the above with Google Voice for years. I had Ooma previously and initially call quality wasn't very good. Eventually Ooma got pretty good. With Google Voice the call quality has been very good. Only issue I have seen (a little more often lately) is... "The number you dialed, ______ has not received a response from the service provider." which others have reported as well.

Everything is hard wired and my Internet hasn't been down. As an example I would answer a call and right after hanging up attempt to place a call and receive the above. Each time a reboot has fixed the issue... it hasn't happened often enough that I have looked into it too deeply.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

markp99 said:


> So far so good. We'll know more tomorrow.


Google Voice port from T-Mobile completed this morning, within 3 minutes of the promised time. :up: Texting seems a bit flaky, but instructions from Google did note it could 3 days for texting to function. Call functions in and out seem perfect.

ObiHai device arriving today...


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I'm still trying to figure out what Google Voice has to do with Comcast Data Caps. VOIP doesn't use that much traffic in the scheme of things.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

morac said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what Google Voice has to do with Comcast Data Caps. VOIP doesn't use that much traffic in the schema of things.


Yep, I think I derailed it a bit. We were talking about XFinity stuff when I mentioned I was dropping Phone & Cable...

Back to data cap stuff.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

morac said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what Google Voice has to do with Comcast Data Caps. VOIP doesn't use that much traffic in the scheme of things.


You're surprised a TCF thread is off-topic?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Bigg said:


> You're surprised a TCF thread is off-topic?


No, I'm surprised a TCF stayed off-topic for that long. I don't know what the record is, but I'm not letting this thread break it.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

morac said:


> No, I'm surprised a TCF stayed off-topic for that long. I don't know what the record is, but I'm not letting this thread break it.


They only stay off topic until someone has something of relevance to post about the topic...


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Charles R said:


> They only stay off topic until someone has something of relevance to post about the topic...


Best I can do is this:

Senators call on FCC to quadruple base high-speed internet speeds

I'm fully in support of redefining high-speed broadband to include 100mbps down. I'm fascinated by the notion that they think they can also make it require 100mbps up. I think most carriers would just say "Nope, I'm out" (of being classified as high speed by the federal government) at that point. Sure, they give up some federal dollars, but I suspect it would be far less than it would cost to deliver 100mbps up across their footprints.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

morac said:


> No, I'm surprised a TCF stayed off-topic for that long. I don't know what the record is, but I'm not letting this thread break it.


I'm amazed that the off-topic discussion stayed so on-topic.



kdmorse said:


> I'm fully in support of redefining high-speed broadband to include 100mbps down. I'm fascinated by the notion that they think they can also make it require 100mbps up. I think most carriers would just say "Nope, I'm out" (of being classified as high speed by the federal government) at that point. Sure, they give up some federal dollars, but I suspect it would be far less than it would cost to deliver 100mbps up across their footprints.


So you really have to look at the technologies involved. The only technology that comes into play between 25mbps and several hundred mbps is moderate length VDSL2 loops. If you run cable or fiber, it's trivially easy to get cable up to 1gbps and fiber up to 10gbps once the physical infrastructure is there. I'd make the standard include FTTB technologies like MoCA Access and G.Fast for MDUs, but you're still talking several hundred mbps.

So all you're doing by moving from 25mbps up to as high as about 500mbps is excluding VDSL as a technology. At this point, new deployments should really be fiber, maybe cable if there's an existing cable plan nearby.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

kdmorse said:


> Best I can do is this:
> 
> Senators call on FCC to quadruple base high-speed internet speeds
> 
> I'm fully in support of redefining high-speed broadband to include 100mbps down. I'm fascinated by the notion that they think they can also make it require 100mbps up. I think most carriers would just say "Nope, I'm out" (of being classified as high speed by the federal government) at that point. Sure, they give up some federal dollars, but I suspect it would be far less than it would cost to deliver 100mbps up across their footprints.


Heh, I guess my FTTH plan that clocks in at about 62 Mbps up and down wouldn't count as "high-speed broadband" by this new definition! Although obviously I could opt for a more expensive gigabit plan that offers a full 1000 Mbps in both directions (which would be useless for my needs). I guess for the purposes of the FCC, they're saying that they only want to count connections that offer a maximum available speed of at least 100 Mbps up and down, regardless of whether consumers opt for slower plans on that connection.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Bigg said:


> I'm amazed that the off-topic discussion stayed so on-topic.
> 
> So you really have to look at the technologies involved. The only technology that comes into play between 25mbps and several hundred mbps is moderate length VDSL2 loops. If you run cable or fiber, it's trivially easy to get cable up to 1gbps and fiber up to 10gbps once the physical infrastructure is there. I'd make the standard include FTTB technologies like MoCA Access and G.Fast for MDUs, but you're still talking several hundred mbps.
> 
> So all you're doing by moving from 25mbps up to as high as about 500mbps is excluding VDSL as a technology. At this point, new deployments should really be fiber, maybe cable if there's an existing cable plan nearby.


I have 4 bonded ATDMA 5120 ksym/sec upstream channels which gives a theoretical rate 122.88 mbps. That's shared, so I don't see how it's possible to give everyone 100 mbps up, though my modem is DOCSIS 3.0, not 3.1.

It looks like even Comcast's Gig speed tiers only have a 35 mbps (around 42 because of over provisioning) upload speed though.

Gigabit speed incrase? - Comcast XFINITY | DSLReports Forums


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

morac said:


> I have 4 bonded ATDMA 5120 ksym/sec upstream channels which gives a theoretical rate 122.88 mbps. That's shared, so I don't see how it's possible to give everyone 100 mbps up, though my modem is DOCSIS 3.0, not 3.1.
> 
> It looks like even Comcast's Gig speed tiers only have a 35 mbps (around 42 because of over provisioning) upload speed though.


So I didn't mention upstream speeds. Low-split 5-42mhz plants can only do about 50mbps, which is why Comcast has 35mbps max upload, which is really about 41-42mbps with overprovisioning. Most 50mbps uploads don't quite hit 50mbps, so in practice, "35mbps" and "50mbps" are almost the same.

Mid-split 5-85mhz plants can deliver at least 100mbps up, and depending on architecture and node size, high-split 5-204mhz plants can deliver somewhere in the 300-500mbps up range.

Cable companies are just too cheap/lazy to do the plant upgrades, as they are rather involved, but yet they are splitting nodes like crazy to deal with their limited upstream capacity. I guess they figure that they either have no competition, so why bother upgrading, or they compete with fiber, in which case the people who care about upload are going to get fiber anyway.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> So I didn't mention upstream speeds. Low-split 5-42mhz plants can only do about 50mbps, which is why Comcast has 35mbps max upload, which is really about 41-42mbps with overprovisioning. Most 50mbps uploads don't quite hit 50mbps, so in practice, "35mbps" and "50mbps" are almost the same.
> 
> Mid-split 5-85mhz plants can deliver at least 100mbps up, and depending on architecture and node size, high-split 5-204mhz plants can deliver somewhere in the 300-500mbps up range.
> 
> Cable companies are just too cheap/lazy to do the plant upgrades, as they are rather involved, but yet they are splitting nodes like crazy to deal with their limited upstream capacity. I guess they figure that they either have no competition, so why bother upgrading, or they compete with fiber, in which case the people who care about upload are going to get fiber anyway.


How will Comcast's eventual upgrade to full-duplex DOCSIS 4.0 change this picture? Won't they then have the capacity for symmetrical multi-gigabit speeds over their HFC network?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> How will Comcast's eventual upgrade to full-duplex DOCSIS 4.0 change this picture? Won't they then have the capacity for symmetrical multi-gigabit speeds over their HFC network?


In theory. I'm skeptical as to whether it is even possible in some areas, and whether it will ever be economical compared to EPON fiber. This is Comcast we're talking about here.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> So I didn't mention upstream speeds. Low-split 5-42mhz plants can only do about 50mbps, which is why Comcast has 35mbps max upload, which is really about 41-42mbps with overprovisioning. Most 50mbps uploads don't quite hit 50mbps, so in practice, "35mbps" and "50mbps" are almost the same.
> 
> Mid-split 5-85mhz plants can deliver at least 100mbps up, and depending on architecture and node size, high-split 5-204mhz plants can deliver somewhere in the 300-500mbps up range.
> 
> Cable companies are just too cheap/lazy to do the plant upgrades, as they are rather involved, but yet they are splitting nodes like crazy to deal with their limited upstream capacity. I guess they figure that they either have no competition, so why bother upgrading, or they compete with fiber, in which case the people who care about upload are going to get fiber anyway.


Interesting that a bipartisan group of US Senators is now pushing for the FCC to redraw their broadband availability maps to reflect only those locations where a minimum of 100 Mbps *in both directions* is available. Which would exclude the great majority of homes in the country, right? Obviously FTTH offers 100+ Mbps upstream but do any of the major HFC providers on D3.1? Pretty sure the gig tier service on both Comcast and Charter have an upload speed rated at only 35 Mbps.

100Mbps uploads and downloads should be US broadband standard, senators say


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Interesting that a bipartisan group of US Senators is now pushing for the FCC to redraw their broadband availability maps to reflect only those locations where a minimum of 100 Mbps *in both directions* is available. Which would exclude the great majority of homes in the country, right? Obviously FTTH offers 100+ Mbps upstream but do any of the major HFC providers on D3.1? *Pretty sure the gig tier service on both Comcast and Charter have an upload speed rated at only 35 Mbps.*
> 
> 100Mbps uploads and downloads should be US broadband standard, senators say


Comcast's 1Gbps service was indeed 1000/35 when I last had it a couple of years ago. OTOH, their Gigabit Pro is symmetrical 2G, but that is fiber, not HFC.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Interesting that a bipartisan group of US Senators is now pushing for the FCC to redraw their broadband availability maps to reflect only those locations where a minimum of 100 Mbps *in both directions* is available. Which would exclude the great majority of homes in the country, right? Obviously FTTH offers 100+ Mbps upstream but do any of the major HFC providers on D3.1? Pretty sure the gig tier service on both Comcast and Charter have an upload speed rated at only 35 Mbps.


Yup. Until they do mid-split, that would exclude most cable systems. Comcast may have a few that are mid-split that they could re-provision quickly to meet that standard, but AFAIK, those are only a few newer systems that have been rebuilt with mid-split.

Today, more than 90% of homes have access to 100mbps+ downstream, but only about 30-35% have access to 100mbps upstream.

If they're going to do 100mbps symmetrical, they could just as easily do 500/100 or more. And for SFUs, that practically means 1000/100.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Today, more than 90% of homes have access to 100mbps+ downstream, but only about 30-35% have access to 100mbps upstream.


Do a third of US homes have access to fiber? Maybe there are a sliver of HFC connections that offer 100 Mbps upstream but I really don't think there are many once you exclude Comcast, Charter and Cox, none of which do. And some fixed wireless connections (e.g. Starry, Verizon 5G Home) may offer 100 Mbps or faster up. But again, those are a relative handful of addresses. So close to all of the providers offering 100 Mbps+ up right now are FTTH. But I guess between Verizon FiOS and AT&T Fiber, that's a lot of homes. And then Google Fiber and other small operators add up to a few more.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Do a third of US homes have access to fiber?


Roughly, yes. AT&T and Verizon are still the bulk of those, there are some small private providers and munis, plus some areas that don't have cable have rural co-ops.

There are some fixed wireless (Starry) and AT&T G.Fast that have 100mbps upstream, but these are probably less than 1% of connections in the US.



> Maybe there are a sliver of HFC connections that offer 100 Mbps upstream but I really don't think there are many once you exclude Comcast, Charter and Cox, none of which do.


I don't think any do in the US. In Europe, it's common to have several hundred mbps upload on cable, but much of Europe doesn't have cable at all. Comcast and maybe Cox have some systems that they could re-provision to 100mbps uploads, these are mid-split systems, but that's probably only a handful of systems nationwide. Most current cable systems top out at 50mbps upload (Comcast and Cox advertise 35mbps so that they can over-provision at ~42mbps, while a few smaller MSOs advertise 50mbps that they often fall a bit short of, so 35mbps and 50mbps are effectively the same thing).



> And some fixed wireless connections (e.g. Starry, Verizon 5G Home) may offer 100 Mbps or faster up. But again, those are a relative handful of addresses. So close to all of the providers offering 100 Mbps+ up right now are FTTH. But I guess between Verizon FiOS and AT&T Fiber, that's a lot of homes. And then Google Fiber and other small operators add up to a few more.


For a long time, Verizon was the majority of fiber connections. They are expanding slowly, and only within wirecenters that already had FiOS, while AT&T has been expanding in footprint haphazardly, so now AT&T is at 14M, Verizon is at 20M, that alone is 34M out of 122M US households. 40M homes total are passed by FTTH, or 32.7%.

I do think overall, that all providers should have to offer at least 1000/100 service to SFUs, and something like 500/100 to MDUs (to account for FTTB G.Fast), with ILECs being required to provide fiber to every residential building within their service area. Of course our government has no backbone, so they've been asleep at the wheel since the early 2000's. If they had mandated 100% fiber in the early 2000's, the entire US would have been built out by around 2015-2020.

In terms of defining broadband, I'm not really sure what defining it as 100mbps upload would actually do. I can't see cable monopolies going out and rebuilding all their plants just to meet an arbitrary definition without a legal service mandate. And 50mbps wouldn't do anything, they'd just change the provisioning from 42mbps to 50mbps and advertise "up to 50mbps" and people would basically have the same service they have today.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Bigg said:


> I don't think any do in the US. In Europe, it's common to have several hundred mbps upload on cable, but much of Europe doesn't have cable at all. Comcast and maybe Cox have some systems that they could re-provision to 100mbps uploads, these are mid-split systems, but that's probably only a handful of systems nationwide. Most current cable systems top out at 50mbps upload (Comcast and Cox advertise 35mbps so that they can over-provision at ~42mbps, while a few smaller MSOs advertise 50mbps that they often fall a bit short of, so 35mbps and 50mbps are effectively the same thing).


How hard is it for a cable plant to switch to mid or high split?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Roughly, yes. AT&T and Verizon are still the bulk of those, there are some small private providers and munis, plus some areas that don't have cable have rural co-ops.
> 
> There are some fixed wireless (Starry) and AT&T G.Fast that have 100mbps upstream, but these are probably less than 1% of connections in the US.


Yeah, I had forgotten about Gfast when I wrote that, but then happened to post something on that topic on another forum soon after. Is AT&T still doing Gfast in MDUs? I know they were, even in cities outside their footprint, like Boston, a few years ago. But I haven't heard much about that tech in quite awhile. Maybe AT&T has just shifted to full FTTH for MDUs.

Seems like Google is shifting to Starry-like wireless for MDUs after buying Webpass and renaming it Google Fiber Webpass. A lot of the limited rollout of Google Fiber here in Nashville was in MDUs but I don't think they're even doing that any more, now shifting to Webpass for new MDU deployments here.

As for Starry, seems they've been saying awhile now that they want to expand into SFUs, although I wonder if it's really financial feasible for them. The logistics would be similar to Verizon 5G Home, which has been very limited in its deployment and is pretty dependent on where Verizon puts mm-wave 5G for cellular, I think.



Bigg said:


> I don't think any do in the US. In Europe, it's common to have several hundred mbps upload on cable, but much of Europe doesn't have cable at all. Comcast and maybe Cox have some systems that they could re-provision to 100mbps uploads, these are mid-split systems, but that's probably only a handful of systems nationwide. Most current cable systems top out at 50mbps upload (Comcast and Cox advertise 35mbps so that they can over-provision at ~42mbps, while a few smaller MSOs advertise 50mbps that they often fall a bit short of, so 35mbps and 50mbps are effectively the same thing).


Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are areas where Comcast has done mid-split but they've yet to increase upload speeds for some reason.



Bigg said:


> For a long time, Verizon was the majority of fiber connections. They are expanding slowly, and only within wirecenters that already had FiOS, while AT&T has been expanding in footprint haphazardly, so now AT&T is at 14M, Verizon is at 20M, that alone is 34M out of 122M US households. 40M homes total are passed by FTTH, or 32.7%.


Interesting figures. If current trends hold, AT&T may surpass Verizon on FTTH in the next few years. Although no guarantees that they'll expand that much more. We'll see. I keep wondering if AT&T's AirGig technology will ever be commercially deployed. It apparently worked well in tests and would seem to be cheaper to deploy than FTTH as it's intended to be a self-install for customers. Not much how much cheaper it is in terms of hanging the wireless repeater hardware on the utility poles versus just running fiber though.



Bigg said:


> In terms of defining broadband, I'm not really sure what defining it as 100mbps upload would actually do. I can't see cable monopolies going out and rebuilding all their plants just to meet an arbitrary definition without a legal service mandate. And 50mbps wouldn't do anything, they'd just change the provisioning from 42mbps to 50mbps and advertise "up to 50mbps" and people would basically have the same service they have today.


I don't really see the point of using the same upload as download speed in the minimum definition of broadband. While pandemic Zooming has increased the need for decent upload speeds, it's still downstream bandwidth that's far more important. So defining broadband as 100 down and 50 up would make more sense to me. If the FCC broadband maps were to be redrawn based on 100/100, the result would be highly misleading because everyone (correctly) sees cable internet as broadband, even if it's low-split with 35 Mbps up.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I don't really see the point of using the same upload as download speed in the minimum definition of broadband. While pandemic Zooming has increased the need for decent upload speeds, it's still downstream bandwidth that's far more important. So defining broadband as 100 down and 50 up would make more sense to me. If the FCC broadband maps were to be redrawn based on 100/100, the result would be highly misleading because everyone (correctly) sees cable internet as broadband, even if it's low-split with 35 Mbps up.


The current definition of broadband upstream is 5. I have 10 mbps upstream and work from home currently. Uploading 500 MB files to my work servers is beyond painful. So is sending 4K videos I take on my phone (LTE upload via AT&T is actually faster), so I can definitely see how upstream is important.

Once you hit a certain downstream speed, increases don't mean much. I have 350 mbps down. I had 200 mbps a few years ago and it was increased for "free". Do I notice the difference? Other than in speed tests, not really.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

morac said:


> The current definition of broadband upstream is 5. I have 10 mbps upstream and work from home currently. Uploading 500 MB files to my work servers is beyond painful. So is sending 4K videos I take on my phone (LTE upload via AT&T is actually faster), so I can definitely see how upstream is important.
> 
> Once you hit a certain downstream speed, increases don't mean much. I have 350 mbps down. I had 200 mbps a few years ago and it was increased for "free". Do I notice the difference? Other than in speed tests, not really.


Oh, I'm not saying that the definition of broadband upstream shouldn't increase. I agree that 5 Mbps is too low. I just don't see the point in either increasing it to 100 Mbps or in making it equal to the downstream defined speed. Instead of 25/5, maybe it should be 100/50 (as I said before) or even 100/25.

I have 60/60 and I can tell a difference in the upstream speed on those occasions that I upload something versus the Comcast (Performance tier) plan I used to have. But as for downstream, for me, as long as I'm over 40 Mbps, it doesn't matter much. Downloading large files go a little faster the higher the downstream speed but that's just the occasional software update for me and I don't really care if it takes 2 minutes versus 5 minutes. As long as I can stream 4K HDR video with no buffering lag, I'm good.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

morac said:


> How hard is it for a cable plant to switch to mid or high split?


Well, they have to replace all the filters on the node and amps to start with, so it's a lot of work.



NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I had forgotten about Gfast when I wrote that, but then happened to post something on that topic on another forum soon after. Is AT&T still doing Gfast in MDUs? I know they were, even in cities outside their footprint, like Boston, a few years ago. But I haven't heard much about that tech in quite awhile. Maybe AT&T has just shifted to full FTTH for MDUs.


I don't know. Those types of things are hard to pin down.



> As for Starry, seems they've been saying awhile now that they want to expand into SFUs, although I wonder if it's really financial feasible for them. The logistics would be similar to Verizon 5G Home, which has been very limited in its deployment and is pretty dependent on where Verizon puts mm-wave 5G for cellular, I think.


I don't think Starry has the scale of economy to make it work. Verizon's not so secret weapon is that they need the 4G small cells anyway, they cost a fortune, but the marginal cost to add mmWave 5G is small.



> Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are areas where Comcast has done mid-split but they've yet to increase upload speeds for some reason.


Probably support/consistency since there are so few.



> Interesting figures. If current trends hold, AT&T may surpass Verizon on FTTH in the next few years. Although no guarantees that they'll expand that much more. We'll see. I keep wondering if AT&T's AirGig technology will ever be commercially deployed. It apparently worked well in tests and would seem to be cheaper to deploy than FTTH as it's intended to be a self-install for customers. Not much how much cheaper it is in terms of hanging the wireless repeater hardware on the utility poles versus just running fiber though.


Possible. AT&T has been doing low hanging fruit where they have fiber close by anyway, I'm not sure how much low hanging fruit or partially completed buildouts there are left to complete. Airgig seems to have been vaporware all along. AT&T may do home 5G as well, but they don't need nearly as many small cells for mobile due to their spectrum position compared to Verizon, so whatever they do will be modest.



> I don't really see the point of using the same upload as download speed in the minimum definition of broadband. While pandemic Zooming has increased the need for decent upload speeds, it's still downstream bandwidth that's far more important. So defining broadband as 100 down and 50 up would make more sense to me. If the FCC broadband maps were to be redrawn based on 100/100, the result would be highly misleading because everyone (correctly) sees cable internet as broadband, even if it's low-split with 35 Mbps up.


It depends on what you want to include technologically. 50mbps would allow low-split cable systems to offer "broadband". If you're going to exclude VDSL for the most part, you may as well go to 500/50 because any tech that can do 100/50 can do 500/50.

Zoom and Skype and stuff maxes out at about 3mbps/user. The higher upstream speeds are really useful for stuff like cloud storage, sending large files, and uploading content where it takes forever and a half now. There are some jobs that require much larger uploads, but most don't.

I think the ratio is important too. Any ratio over 10:1 is not very useful in most cases. Most of the users getting gigabit today, at least the ones who know what they're actually getting are getting it because of the upload. I'd bet 95% of them would be fine with 300mbps or even less on the downstream.



morac said:


> The current definition of broadband upstream is 5.


It's 3mbps. Which is pathetic.[/quote]


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Possible. AT&T has been doing low hanging fruit where they have fiber close by anyway, I'm not sure how much low hanging fruit or partially completed buildouts there are left to complete. Airgig seems to have been vaporware all along. AT&T may do home 5G as well, but they don't need nearly as many small cells for mobile due to their spectrum position compared to Verizon, so whatever they do will be modest.


No, AirGig isn't vaporware, it was actually deployed and tested in rural GA in conjunction with Georgia Power. I think this report from Sept. 2018 is the last we've heard from AT&T on the subject, which reported that they were looking to find suppliers who could develop and test commercial-grade AirGig equipment. The plan was to test the system using the 5G protocol for mm-wave wireless sent around power lines.

AT&T's Project AirGig Gets Closer to Commercial Deployment

I think the best-case-scenario hope for AirGig was that it would not just deliver 5G home broadband but be the way they would largely deliver 5G mobile service too. Per a 2017 press release about the GA field test: "We hope that one day there will be no need to build new towers or bury new cables in locations close to aerial power lines. Instead, using AirGig patented technology, we would install devices to provide high speed broadband which can be clamped on by trained electrical workers in just a few minutes."

Maybe they've since abandoned it or maybe they're still trying to figure out how to make it cheap enough to deploy to be worthwhile. Who knows. But it's a real technology that went well beyond the white board.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> No, AirGig isn't vaporware, it was actually deployed and tested in rural GA in conjunction with Georgia Power. I think this report from Sept. 2018 is the last we've heard from AT&T on the subject, which reported that they were looking to find suppliers who could develop and test commercial-grade AirGig equipment. The plan was to test the system using the 5G protocol for mm-wave wireless sent around power lines.


Ok, so one baby step short of vaporware. The whole thing sounds like a crackpot idea.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Ok, so one baby step short of vaporware. The whole thing sounds like a crackpot idea.


If you're not a scientist specializing in the subject matter at hand, I guess any new scientific/technological breakthrough would sound like a crackpot idea at first.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> If you're not a scientist specializing in the subject matter at hand, I guess any new scientific/technological breakthrough would sound like a crackpot idea at first.


There are plenty of technologies that don't sound like crackpot ideas.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Oh, I'm not saying that the definition of broadband upstream shouldn't increase. I agree that 5 Mbps is too low. I just don't see the point in either increasing it to 100 Mbps or in making it equal to the downstream defined speed. Instead of 25/5, maybe it should be 100/50 (as I said before) or even 100/25.
> 
> I have 60/60 and I can tell a difference in the upstream speed on those occasions that I upload something versus the Comcast (Performance tier) plan I used to have. But as for downstream, for me, as long as I'm over 40 Mbps, it doesn't matter much. Downloading large files go a little faster the higher the downstream speed but that's just the occasional software update for me and I don't really care if it takes 2 minutes versus 5 minutes. As long as I can stream 4K HDR video with no buffering lag, I'm good.


On a semi-related note, as of today Comcast has increased the download speeds on their top two HSI tiers (Extreme Pro and Gigabit) from 600 and 1000Mbps, respectively, to 800 and 1200 Mbps. The line-up now measures 25/100/200/400/800/1200Mbps here in the Central Division.

I have Extreme Pro and am now getting the same range of download speeds that I formerly had with their Gigabit service (with the typical 20% overprovisioning).










I do not believe there will be a commensurate augmentation to the upload speeds, although that is presumably in the offing at the least whenever DOCSIS 4.0 is deployed on their system.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

> I have Extreme Pro and am now getting the same range of download speeds that I formerly had with their Gigabit service (with the typical 20% overprovisioning).


You lost upload speed. It is pretty funny that 800 over-provisioned to 968 is gigabit on a gigabit ethernet connection though. The only thing you're paying for on tiers that high is upload anyway.



> I do not believe there will be a commensurate augmentation to the upload speeds, although that is presumably in the offing at the least whenever DOCSIS 4.0 is deployed on their system.


There won't be until they upgrade systems to mid-split, high-split, or if FDX ever works.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> You lost upload speed. It is pretty funny that 800 over-provisioned to 968 is gigabit on a gigabit ethernet connection though. The only thing you're paying for on tiers that high is upload anyway.


Upload speed did not go down; it just remains the same (nominally 20Mbps), which is sufficient for our barely existent upload needs.

I do agree that, as it happens in our case, we do not "need" the extra download speeds. However, the Extreme Pro tier works out to be our best bargain ($50 p.m. locked in for 24 months) and, besides, "mo' speed, mo' better," as the saying goes.



Bigg said:


> There won't be until they upgrade systems to mid-split, high-split, or if FDX ever works.


Why wouldn't full-duplex HFC work???


----------



## DeltaOne (Sep 29, 2013)

chiguy50 said:


> Upload speed did not go down; it just remains the same (nominally 20Mbps), which is sufficient for our barely existent upload needs.


We had 1000 Mbps down, 35 Mbps up. I guess we could reboot our modem to see if we got the new 1200, but our ethernet network wouldn't show us that anyway.

I just did a speed test, we're still seeing 35 Mbps up.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> On a semi-related note, as of today Comcast has increased the download speeds on their top two HSI tiers (Extreme Pro and Gigabit) from 600 and 1000Mbps, respectively, to 800 and 1200 Mbps. The line-up now measures 25/100/200/400/800/1200Mbps here in the Central Division.


I was hoping that they'd finally increase the speeds on the low-end Performance Starter tier that my parents have. Even at 25/3, it's generally sufficient for their needs but that seems a bit measly these days for a regular $46/mo rate (after deducting the $10 savings for paperless autopay).

The weird thing is that Comcast recently effected a major upgrade to their Prepaid Internet service. It costs $45 per 30-day period and now has 50/5 speeds. (I think it was only 20/1 before.) And it looks like it still has no data cap (although I'm not 100% sure about that). One downside (for some) is that you can't use your own equipment but must purchase a Prepaid Starter Kit from them for $35 which includes a refurbished low-end XFi (XB3) gateway. Although new subs can pay $90 up-front for the kit plus their first two 30-day refills, which effectively gives them the gateway for free. Also, I guess there's no free Peacock Premium or Flex box included.

Their Prepaid Instant TV service that can be used in conjunction with Prepaid Internet is intriguing too. Costs $22 per 30 days for Basic (locals), which includes the broadcast TV fee. I assume that includes HD channels. Apparently includes the standard on-demand library plus cloud DVR (20 hrs, I assume, although it doesn't explicitly state). Larger channel packages are available for more. Interestingly, the only way their site mentions that you can watch it on a TV is through "an Amazon streaming device." No mention of Roku. Wonder if this portends anything about the future availability of the Xfinity Stream app on that platform.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Comcast scrambled to fix mistake that cut some users' upload speeds by 20%


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> Upload speed did not go down; it just remains the same (nominally 20Mbps), which is sufficient for our barely existent upload needs.


Gigabit is 35mbps upstream.



> I do agree that, as it happens in our case, we do not "need" the extra download speeds. However, the Extreme Pro tier works out to be our best bargain ($50 p.m. locked in for 24 months) and, besides, "mo' speed, mo' better," as the saying goes.


Yeah, that's a good price for any broadband from Comcast. They are effectively selling on upload speed, since the tiers are so unbalanced.



> Why wouldn't full-duplex HFC work???


FDX is hard/impossible to run with amps, so you have to run N+0, and I don't think N+0 as a topology will work in exurban/rural areas. In some metro areas where there are systems that are entirely dense suburban/urban it may work, but here in Connecticut, virtually every system has a large exurban component to it (<25 homes per cable mile) that I don't think will work with N+0, at least not in any practical or economical way.

They could get up to at least 300mbps if they just did high split, possibly 500mbps. And even mid-split would get them to 100mbps uploads, keeping a 10:1 ratio on gigabit service.



NashGuy said:


> I was hoping that they'd finally increase the speeds on the low-end Performance Starter tier that my parents have. Even at 25/3, it's generally sufficient for their needs but that seems a bit measly these days for a regular $46/mo rate (after deducting the $10 savings for paperless autopay).


Good luck. Why would they give away something that they can force upgrades to screw people even more for?



> The weird thing is that Comcast recently effected a major upgrade to their Prepaid Internet service. It costs $45 per 30-day period and now has 50/5 speeds.


That is weird. I tried to get Cox's prepaid internet, and they told me in not so many words that my neighborhood is too middle class. Apparently they only offer it to low income neighborhoods.



> Their Prepaid Instant TV service that can be used in conjunction with Prepaid Internet is intriguing too. Costs $22 per 30 days for Basic (locals), which includes the broadcast TV fee.


That is a total rip-off compared to an antenna.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Good luck. Why would they give away something that they can force upgrades to screw people even more for?


Because Comcast has a history of regularly increasing speeds on various tiers while holding the price the same. Less than a year ago when I had Comcast's Performance tier, it was 60 Mbps down. Now it's 100. Performance Starter used to be 10 down a few years ago but then was upgraded to the minimum for "broadband" at 25.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> Gigabit is 35mbps upstream.


Right, but I mistakenly thought you were referring to the current changes.

When I had Comcast Gigabit I routinely got 950/42Mbps. Today with Extreme Pro I just got a bump up from 720/24 to around 950/24.

But then, I was paying $70 p.m. for Gigabit (w/1-yr. price lock) vs. $50 for Extreme Pro (w/2-yr. price lock). As I said, I see this as the best bargain for my needs. And after all the discounts currently on my account, my actual end price for the HSI service is $37.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> That is a total rip-off compared to an antenna.


IDK, it's not *awful*. The whole reason cable TV originally came into existence was for people who couldn't reliably pick up stations with an antenna (or who didn't want to fool with one). And they're including a bit of cloud DVR, plus the major networks' authenticated on-demand content. So $22/mo for that doesn't sound too bad. Of course, you can only get that service at that price if you're already getting (prepaid) internet from them too.

What does Cox charge in your parts for the most basic (locals only) package in HD?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Because Comcast has a history of regularly increasing speeds on various tiers while holding the price the same. Less than a year ago when I had Comcast's Performance tier, it was 60 Mbps down. Now it's 100. Performance Starter used to be 10 down a few years ago but then was upgraded to the minimum for "broadband" at 25.


They do on the higher tiers so that they can claim that they got "cheaper" (per megabit).



chiguy50 said:


> Right, but I mistakenly thought you were referring to the current changes.


I see what you're saying. You lost upload by downgrading your plan, but yes, each plan kept the same upload speeds.



> But then, I was paying $70 p.m. for Gigabit (w/1-yr. price lock) vs. $50 for Extreme Pro (w/2-yr. price lock). As I said, I see this as the best bargain for my needs. And after all the discounts currently on my account, my actual end price for the HSI service is $37.


Wow, that's a really good price.



NashGuy said:


> IDK, it's not *awful*. The whole reason cable TV originally came into existence was for people who couldn't reliably pick up stations with an antenna (or who didn't want to fool with one). And they're including a bit of cloud DVR, plus the major networks' authenticated on-demand content. So $22/mo for that doesn't sound too bad. Of course, you can only get that service at that price if you're already getting (prepaid) internet from them too.


That's still pretty high. Higher than basic cable used to be. I don't think there's a viable way to offer locals at a reasonable price given the price gouging for carriage that the networks engage in through their stations.



> What does Cox charge in your parts for the most basic (locals only) package in HD?


No clue. I don't really care.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> They do on the higher tiers so that they can claim that they got "cheaper" (per megabit).


Have you ever had Comcast service? I have, on and off, for many years. And I can tell you that they've upped the speed for lower tiers multiple times over the years too. Performance was the tier I typically had and I'm pretty sure several years ago it was 25, then upped to 60 (with maybe an upgrade in between) and now it's 100. And Performance Starter has been boosted at least once, from 15 (IIRC) to the current 25.



Bigg said:


> That's still pretty high. Higher than basic cable used to be. I don't think there's a viable way to offer locals at a reasonable price given the price gouging for carriage that the networks engage in through their stations.


Yeah, it is, at least when you compare it to what the cost of basic locals-only cable used to be many years ago before the advent of the current retransmission compensation system. Seems like it was maybe $7 or so on Comcast in my area back in the late 80s/early 90s (a price that was set by the local franchise authority). And of course it was all clear QAM back then, so you just connected the coax to your TV or VCR, same as you would an antenna, and it just worked. But these days, Comcast charges around $15/mo just for the broadcast TV fee, which I suppose simply covers retrans fees.



Bigg said:


> No clue. I don't really care.


Sounds like you don't have much basis for assessing what's a competitive price for a locals-only basic cable package these days.

Even though you don't care, I did a quick search. Looks like Cox charges $25/mo for "Starter TV" which is just the locals (plus Music Choice audio channels). But then there's also a broadcast TV surcharge of up to $13.50 on top of that. Yikes.

Starter TV from Cox - 75 channels for $25/month


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Have you ever had Comcast service? I have, on and off, for many years. And I can tell you that they've upped the speed for lower tiers multiple times over the years too. Performance was the tier I typically had and I'm pretty sure several years ago it was 25, then upped to 60 (with maybe an upgrade in between) and now it's 100.


Your memory serves you well.

I had Performance when I first signed up for internet service with Comcast almost exactly five years ago. The download speed was 25Mbps and the retail price was $60 with a promo discount of $30. The gateway (XB3) rental fee was $10.

Of course, I also remember when candy bars were five cents, comic books were a dime, and we were practicing "duck and cover" in school in preparation for a nuclear attack.

Ah, the "good old days."


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> Your memory serves you well.
> 
> I had Performance when I first signed up for internet service with Comcast almost exactly five years ago. The download speed was 25Mbps and the retail price was $60 with a promo discount of $30. The gateway (XB3) rental fee was $10.
> 
> ...


Ha. I think I first got Comcast broadband back around 2004. I can't even remember what the download speed was or how much I paid. Maybe like 5 Mbps down for around $25/mo? Or maybe it was closer to $40/mo even back then. Really not sure. I know I bought an early model Motorola Surfboard modem to use -- probably the SB3100. Didn't have or need a router back then, just connected internet to my desktop computer. (WiFi? What's that?) Don't think I've ever used a Comcast-issued modem.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Well in a big surprise, AT&T said they will increase their fiber to the home footprint by about 3 million households this year, resulting in a total footprint of about 18 million homes.

They have just under 5 million FTTH customers.

AT&T promises fiber-to-the-home expansion in 90 metro areas this year

They made this announcement at an event where they talked up more HBO Max and the C-band 5G spectrum that they just bid for, and how they plan to have some of that spectrum deployed for their mobile 5G service by end of the year.

I guess it's understandable that they're not more aggressive with deployment when only 1/3 of the homes which can get AT&T FTTH actually subscribe.

Maybe they should choose more urban areas, especially those around tech hubs, to get a higher percentage of households in the FTTH service area to subscribe:

https://about.att.com/ecms/dam/snrdocs/fiber/ATTFiberBuild_8.5x11_03042021.jpg

See those cities? There could probably be about a half dozen more in the SCV for instance.

No offense to anyone in those areas but are they going to get high take-up in MS, AL, LA, 3 of the poorest states in the country? Or a lot of second-tier cities in the midwest and South?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Have you ever had Comcast service? I have, on and off, for many years. And I can tell you that they've upped the speed for lower tiers multiple times over the years too. Performance was the tier I typically had and I'm pretty sure several years ago it was 25, then upped to 60 (with maybe an upgrade in between) and now it's 100. And Performance Starter has been boosted at least once, from 15 (IIRC) to the current 25.


Yes, far longer than I have had Cox, and at several locations on two different systems. Yes, they have in the past, but I don't see the inventive to do so now given their pricing structure. Maybe they will eventually to justify the next round of price increases.



> Sounds like you don't have much basis for assessing what's a competitive price for a locals-only basic cable package these days.


I don't think it's a viable product at this point given the retrans fees being so ridiculously high. They probably should just bury it in the rate card and not advertise that it exists in the first place.



> Even though you don't care, I did a quick search. Looks like Cox charges $25/mo for "Starter TV" which is just the locals (plus Music Choice audio channels). But then there's also a broadcast TV surcharge of up to $13.50 on top of that. Yikes.


If you want to see some epic Cox rip-offs, check out their Triple Play packages. The equivalent of the packages that are ~$250/mo on Comcast are north of $300/mo on Cox. They are truly a horrible company. Their TV is so overpriced that I can still tell when I cross a town line from a Comcast system to a Cox system, as the number of DirecTV dishes (which may or may not still be in use at this point) goes up significantly.



wco81 said:


> I guess it's understandable that they're not more aggressive with deployment when only 1/3 of the homes which can get AT&T FTTH actually subscribe.


Verizon considers 20% penetration of FiOS to be good. Proof that Americans are irrational and stupid, if they were rational and smart, it would either be near 100%, or cable would be WAY cheaper than FiOS, not $10-$20/mo cheaper for far inferior service.



> No offense to anyone in those areas but are they going to get high take-up in MS, AL, LA, 3 of the poorest states in the country? Or a lot of second-tier cities in the midwest and South?


Factor in build-out costs. They pick the lowest hanging fruit. If the cost is lower, the penetration can be lower and it's still more profitable. That's what you get with an unregulated, discombobulated, lazy, two decades behind the ball telco that goes picking and choosing where they roll out fiber instead of going 100% fiber.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> Well in a big surprise, AT&T said they will increase their fiber to the home footprint by about 3 million households this year, resulting in a total footprint of about 18 million homes.
> 
> They have just under 5 million FTTH customers.
> 
> ...


Their penetration rate over the entire AT&T FTTH footprint is at 34% but they've found that in those areas where it's been around a few years, it's approaching 50%, which is their goal for every area they offer it. (Keep in mind that they only started offering FTTH in a few spots in 2015, with millions more addresses coming online every year since.) It takes awhile to get folks to become aware of a new option and to switch. Some amount of provider switching probably only happens when folks move.

As for where they're rolling it out, there are middle and upper-class neighborhoods all over the country and nearly everyone wants high-quality broadband at a competitive price. So as long as they're deploying in areas where the only option is the incumbent cableco (or that and their own FTTN DSL), then it should do well as long as they continue to price it competitively. And a lot of us "second-tier cities in the Midwest and South" are experiencing far greater growth these days than CA, which appears to actually be in population decline now.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Their penetration rate over the entire AT&T FTTH footprint is at 34% but they've found that in those areas where it's been around a few years, it's approaching 50%, which is their goal for every area they offer it. (Keep in mind that they only started offering FTTH in a few spots in 2015, with millions more addresses coming online every year since.) It takes awhile to get folks to become aware of a new option and to switch. Some amount of provider switching probably only happens when folks move.


Human behavior is bizarre. Rational humans would sign up for fiber as soon as they could. But humans aren't rational.



> As for where they're rolling it out, there are middle and upper-class neighborhoods all over the country and nearly everyone wants high-quality broadband at a competitive price. So as long as they're deploying in areas where the only option is the incumbent cableco (or that and their own FTTN DSL), then it should do well as long as they continue to price it competitively. And a lot of us "second-tier cities in the Midwest and South" are experiencing far greater growth these days than CA, which appears to actually be in population decline now.


CA isn't really declining in population, that's a myth, but it doesn't really have much room to grow with the cost structure that they have, the the Northeast has shot itself in the foot with bad infrastructure and high cost of local government that has impeded the growth potential that's here.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Don't they offer a discount if you're a AT&T wireless customer?

So maybe they're targeting areas where they want to make gains in wireless marketshare.

The other factor could be that in some jurisdictions, getting permits, right-of-ways and various other deployment costs are lower.

Someone on another forum speculated that CA cities were not getting the kind of 5G buildout other states were because of greater costs and bureaucracy in getting city approvals for upgrading existing towers to 5G or for adding new cell sites with things like microcells.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Human behavior is bizarre. Rational humans would sign up for fiber as soon as they could. But humans aren't rational.


Another of your exaggerations.  I consider myself pretty rational and I didn't sign up for fiber as soon as it was available. Not until maybe 1.5 years later. Sure, FTTH is technically superior to HFC DOCSIS, but normal rational people evaluate services in terms of "what do I get in exchange for what I'm paying." Most people don't care about the technology behind their broadband connection, only whether it works reliably and is fast enough for their needs. (That said, many folks have an exaggerated sense of how fast their broadband needs to be, as well as how much data they need for their wireless plan.)

The broadband service I had with Comcast (rated 60/5, I believe, but routinely tested at about 70/6) was perfectly fine. It was generally reliable and could easily handle everything I cared about (mainly being able to stream 4K HDR video). I preferred the idea of not having a data cap but in reality I think I only ever once exceeded 50% of Comcast's 1 TB cap.

I had a 2-yr new customer deal to get that service (using my own modem and router, which were decent, nothing special) for $30/mo the first year, then $40/mo the next, before it would have gone to the regular price this month of $66/mo.

Last Sept., I switched to AT&T Fiber through their Toast.net reseller because their cheapest plan, 60/60 uncapped with gateway included for a regular ongoing price of $45/mo, was about to be grandfathered. I didn't intend to switch to that plan until this month, when my Comcast plan would've increased to $66. But I had to switch then if I ever wanted it.

Now, I will say that I can notice the faster upload speed when I occasionally upload a file. It's nice but, for me, not a huge deal. I got lucky and got AT&T's new WiFi 6 router (at the time it was only being installed in a few homes a week in Nashville and Huntsville, I think). It blasts out a very strong dual-band signal throughout my house. It's definitely better than the mid-range AC1200 router I was using on Comcast. And I like the idea that I have no data cap in case at some point everything I stream becomes available in 4K HDR. (If only!) And I know that, overall, FTTH is at least a bit more reliable than HFC. Fiber is the gold-standard broadband transmission medium.

So while I like the idea that I'm on a fiber connection, in the end, my *rational evaluation* is that I really only want to pay for the level of service I need and no more. If my choice was between Comcast and only, say, Google Fiber's 1 gig tier at $70/mo, or even worse, Ting Fiber's 1 gig tier at $89/mo, then I would probably have just stayed with Comcast and tried to extend my discount. Actually, as I discussed before, their new 50/5 Prepaid Internet service for $45/mo is a pretty good deal. I'd easily take that over 1 gig at $70. Why pay the extra $25/mo for something that offers so little benefit? I'd rather just use that to pay for a couple of SVOD subscriptions.



Bigg said:


> CA isn't really declining in population, that's a myth, but it doesn't really have much room to grow with the cost structure that they have, the the Northeast has shot itself in the foot with bad infrastructure and high cost of local government that has impeded the growth potential that's here.


Think I'll take the word of actual journalists over yours. We won't have a definitive answer until the census results come out, but it's established that CA population growth has been slowing for a long while. It may have turned negative in the last year or so.

California's population may be declining


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Another of your exaggerations.  I consider myself pretty rational and I didn't sign up for fiber as soon as it was available. Not until maybe 1.5 years later. Sure, FTTH is technically superior to HFC DOCSIS, but normal rational people evaluate services in terms of "what do I get in exchange for what I'm paying." Most people don't care about the technology behind their broadband connection, only whether it works reliably and is fast enough for their needs. (That said, many folks have an exaggerated sense of how fast their broadband needs to be, as well as how much data they need for their wireless plan.)


Uploads and latency. Fiber is clearly superior. The only rational reason to have cable if fiber is available is if it's significantly cheaper.



> I had a 2-yr new customer deal to get that service (using my own modem and router, which were decent, nothing special) for $30/mo the first year, then $40/mo the next, before it would have gone to the regular price this month of $66/mo.


Wow, that's cheap.



> Last Sept., I switched to AT&T Fiber through their Toast.net reseller because their cheapest plan, 60/60 uncapped with gateway included for a regular ongoing price of $45/mo, was about to be grandfathered. I didn't intend to switch to that plan until this month, when my Comcast plan would've increased to $66. But I had to switch then if I ever wanted it.


Also incredibly cheap.



> So while I like the idea that I'm on a fiber connection, in the end, my *rational evaluation* is that I really only want to pay for the level of service I need and no more. If my choice was between Comcast and only, say, Google Fiber's 1 gig tier at $70/mo, or even worse, Ting Fiber's 1 gig tier at $89/mo, then I would probably have just stayed with Comcast and tried to extend my discount. Actually, as I discussed before, their new 50/5 Prepaid Internet service for $45/mo is a pretty good deal. I'd easily take that over 1 gig at $70. Why pay the extra $25/mo for something that offers so little benefit? I'd rather just use that to pay for a couple of SVOD subscriptions.


It's rational to have cable if it's significantly cheaper and you're willing to live with crap upload speed in exchange for cheaper service, but in most cases in most markets, cable isn't much cheaper than fiber. You've got remarkably cheap plans from both providers. Around here, cable is around $90/mo, even in competitive FiOS markets, FiOS is up there, and cable is maybe a bit cheaper.



> Think I'll take the word of actual journalists over yours. We won't have a definitive answer until the census results come out, but it's established that CA population growth has been slowing for a long while. It may have turned negative in the last year or so.


There have been a bunch of articles debunking the whole "leaving CA" myth. Joe Rogan and Elon Musk left, and now people think gazillions of people left. The actual movement of people was out of the Bay Area to other parts of CA. There may have been some people who left, but they were mostly offset by people coming to LA from places like NYC.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Uploads and latency. Fiber is clearly superior. The only rational reason to have cable if fiber is available is if it's significantly cheaper.


Yep, that's exactly the reason why I've kept Comcast even though AT&T Fiber has been available here for a couple of years now. It's not like the latency on cable is bad, I routinely get ~20ms pings to gaming servers which is good enough for me.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Rational humans would sign up for fiber as soon as they could. But humans aren't rational.





Bigg said:


> The only rational reason to have cable if fiber is available is if it's significantly cheaper.





Bigg said:


> Wow, that's cheap.





Bigg said:


> Also incredibly cheap.





Bigg said:


> It's rational to have cable if it's significantly cheaper


...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

slowbiscuit said:


> Yep, that's exactly the reason why I've kept Comcast even though AT&T Fiber has been available here for a couple of years now. It's not like the latency on cable is bad, I routinely get ~20ms pings to gaming servers which is good enough for me.


Yeah. And I think online gamers (which I'm not) are about the only folks who really care about very low pings. I checked mine today on AT&T Fiber and it was 6 ms. Of course, for the stuff I do, I can tell absolutely no difference in that ping versus what I used to get on Comcast (which I think was around 3-4x higher).

I've been fortunate to have two wired broadband providers at my home for years now. I've jumped back and forth between Comcast and AT&T (formerly Uverse, now Fiber) to get new customer deals.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> ...


That's an unusual situation. In most cases, cable is barely cheaper than fiber, so switching to fiber is the rational thing to do. The cable companies don't care about competing, they're just milking their captive customers for all they're worth.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Bigg said:


> That's an unusual situation. In most cases, cable is barely cheaper than fiber, so switching to fiber is the rational thing to do. The cable companies don't care about competing, they're just milking their captive customers for all they're worth.


It's a very common situation, especially with older people. MANY people do not stream, still have cable or DirecTV, and only use internet for casual use. They would have no idea that fiber was even available, and if they did may just not want to deal with it. My realtor I bought my house from had 20 Mbps DSL when fiber was available. She called and asked if she should get fiber instead of replacing her DSL modem that was damaged in a power outage. She didn't know what fiber even was.

Not everyone is techy.


----------



## pl1 (Jan 18, 2007)

Adam1115 said:


> It's a very common situation, especially with older people. MANY people do not stream, still have cable or DirecTV, and only use internet for casual use. They would have no idea that fiber was even available, and if they did may just not want to deal with it. My realtor I bought my house from had 20 Mbps DSL when fiber was available. She called and asked if she should get fiber instead of replacing her DSL modem that was damaged in a power outage. She didn't know what fiber even was.
> 
> Not everyone is techy.


So, to chime in here, many people just leave it be: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", unless there is a substantial reason. Especially if you are working and don't have someone home all day. Who can cut into their job for the two (or more) days of hassle that you might endure?

Having just gone through an install of FIOS, I can assure you, it is not always smooth. I am retired, so I was able to call them during the slow hours and get pretty good support. But I was still on the phone for a long time with cableCARD support. Plus, the installer messed up and did not leave the included STB. He had to come back with it. So, the prospect of an installation means you might have to be available all day. I mean, Everyone has heard of these types of stories and many would rather not have to deal with them, so they stay put. (I guess I'm talking about myself here.)

For me, it is the ever increasing rates of the streaming services. For example, Fubo raised prices again so it is now $65 + $5 RSN + I was paying $8 to get NHL channel, so $78/Mo. I'm getting everything and more including the NHL channel for $76/mo. I can tolerate the missing features and the hiccups of streaming IF I'm saving $50/mo. But, if the prices are no better than Cable or Fios, I'd prefer the TiVo interface ALL DAY LONG. (If only I didn't have to deal with the cableCARDs. That's what sucks.)

EDIT: And it doesn't hurt going from 25 Mbps/3 Mbps to 300 Mbps/300 Mbps for $39.
EDIT: And no data caps is another plus!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> It's a very common situation, especially with older people. MANY people do not stream, still have cable or DirecTV, and only use internet for casual use. They would have no idea that fiber was even available, and if they did may just not want to deal with it. My realtor I bought my house from had 20 Mbps DSL when fiber was available. She called and asked if she should get fiber instead of replacing her DSL modem that was damaged in a power outage. She didn't know what fiber even was.
> 
> Not everyone is techy.


Sure, there are some people who live under rocks for extended periods of time. If a neighborhood is wired for FiOS, that's a pretty big deal, a lot of people are going to switch, and are going to talk about it, even if it's unclear that work being done in the neighborhood is for FiOS and not something else.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

So if you want to know where AT&T is with broadband, to them 10 Mbps is good enough.



> AT&T is lobbying against proposals to subsidize fiber-to-the-home deployment across the US, *arguing that rural people don't need fiber and should be satisfied with Internet service that provides only 10Mbps upload speeds.*
> 
> AT&T Executive VP Joan Marsh detailed the company's stance Friday in a blog post titled "Defining Broadband For the 21st Century." AT&T's preferred definition of 21st-century broadband could be met with wireless technology or AT&T's VDSL, a 14-year-old system that brings fiber to neighborhoods but uses copper telephone wires for the final connections into each home.
> 
> ...


AT&T lobbies against nationwide fiber, says 10Mbps uploads are good enough

So AT&T doesn't want the federal govt. to define standards which would bring competition to its crappy Uverse product.

And Comcast is even worse since it mostly schleps 5 Mbps uploads for it's offerings.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> So if you want to know where AT&T is with broadband, to them 10 Mbps is good enough.
> 
> AT&T lobbies against nationwide fiber, says 10Mbps uploads are good enough
> 
> ...


I have to say that the push to roll out broadband to every home in the country with equal download and upload speeds doesn't make sense to me. I get that FTTH is the best possible type of connection but does it make sense to spend taxpayer dollars (or shareholder dollars) on that type of connection across the vast expanses of the country where exurban/rural dwellers live? That's very costly.

It's clear that the average broadband consumer uses way more downstream than upstream bandwidth. And I understand that as videoconferencing, telemedicine, etc. increase, upstream demands will increase. But only to a certain extent if we're being realistic. A downstream/upstream ratio of 5:1, as AT&T is calling for, seems pretty reasonable and future-proof to me.

If I had to choose between bringing reliable, affordable 100/20 broadband (fiber to a distribution node, with some other medium used for the last leg) to 1,000,000 homes currently without broadband access versus reliable, affordable 1000/1000 fiber broadband to only 100,000 homes, with both options requiring the same amount of taxpayer funds, I'd definitely opt for the former. It would make a far greater positive collective impact than the latter in terms of closing the digital divide.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Well it just so happens that VDSL has 10 Mbps uploads.

So the blog post was mainly about endorsing the decisions they made years ago.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> Well it just so happens that VDSL has 10 Mbps uploads.
> 
> So the blog post was mainly about endorsing the decisions they made years ago.


Well they're not going to get federal funds now for VDSL networks that they built out years ago.

AT&T's CEO recently stated that they have FTTH currently rolled out to about 30% of their footprint. And, as one would expect, it's available in the most densely populated areas, i.e. cities and select nearby suburbs. Their plan now is to keep rolling it out to about another 30% of addresses in their footprint, filling in those remaining areas in cities and suburbs that don't already have it. In most of those neighborhoods, it will be an upgrade from FTTN VDSL ("Uverse") to FTTH.

But he stated that he doesn't foresee them trying to expand FTTH out to the remaining 40% of addresses, i.e. the exurban/rural parts of their footprint. Too costly. I think their plan will be to do fixed 5G/4G wireless service in those areas, to the extent that AT&T serves them. (Looks to me like T-Mobile and Verizon are more dedicated to rural fixed wireless than AT&T, and of course, LEO satellite broadband from Starlink and Amazon are also on the horizon.)

IDK, I guess it's *possible* that, based on the recent comments about 10 Mbps upload speeds, AT&T might consider expanding FTTH VDSL out into the hinterlands if they got some federal subsidies. But I really kinda doubt it. Those old copper phone lines are falling into disrepair everywhere and my understanding is that the electronics that go into the Uverse DSLAMs (the "lawn fridge" nodes where fiber hands off to copper) are no longer being manufactured. The whole system is getting kinda rickety and decrepit.

I think the comment was really about saying, "We'd like to get some federal money to roll out fixed 5G/4G wireless service to rural areas but it's not going to have equivalent upload and download speeds and even the download isn't going to hit 1 gig."


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

They ran electricity, they ran copper, they can run fiber. Might take the new infrastructure bill to get it done but there's no excuse not to do it for anyone that already has electricity. I'm sick and tired of all the excuses from these companies that have been subsidized for YEARS.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Biden announced a $100 billion broadband plan.

Biden broadband plan will be hated by big ISPs, welcomed by Internet users

Means AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc. will be going to war with the administration.

The plan touts things like municipal broadband, which Republicans have tried to prohibit. They will say free market should build out broadband, govt. shouldn't get involved.

Of course that's why the broadband situation in the US is so great.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

slowbiscuit said:


> They ran electricity, they ran copper, they can run fiber. Might take the new infrastructure bill to get it done but there's no excuse not to do it for anyone that already has electricity. I'm sick and tired of all the excuses from these companies that have been subsidized for YEARS.


AT&T ran conduit then pulled fiber on the main road outside my development...nearly 4 years ago.

Still waiting to see if they think it's worth it to extend it into my neighborhood...the wealthier parts of the city have had AT&T fiber for years now.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wco81 said:


> And Comcast is even worse since it mostly schleps 5 Mbps uploads for it's offerings.


They offer 35mbps over almost all of their footprint. But even they would have to upgrade to mid- or high-split it order to meet the 100mbps standard.



NashGuy said:


> I have to say that the push to roll out broadband to every home in the country with equal download and upload speeds doesn't make sense to me. I get that FTTH is the best possible type of connection but does it make sense to spend taxpayer dollars (or shareholder dollars) on that type of connection across the vast expanses of the country where exurban/rural dwellers live? That's very costly.


So the thing is, in rural areas, fiber is the only practical way to do it. VDSL is too slow, and cable isn't going to be economical to reach over long distances with low customer density. So at that point, it doesn't really matter if you set the goal at 25mbps symmetrical or 10gbps symmetrical, it costs basically the same to roll it out.

The other thing here is that the government really should be doing loans, not subsidies, as fiber is profitable, or at least can break even in all but the most extremely rural areas when run by competent ISPs. The subsidies to get the last few extremely rural areas should be relatively miniscule in the whole scheme of things.

But what doesn't make sense here is the 100/100 requirement nationwide. Are they going to actually get cable providers to get off their duffs and offer higher upload speeds? Or subsidize lazy telcos to finally build out fiber to all of their urban/suburban customers when that should have been done with private money a decade ago?



> It's clear that the average broadband consumer uses way more downstream than upstream bandwidth. And I understand that as videoconferencing, telemedicine, etc. increase, upstream demands will increase. But only to a certain extent if we're being realistic. A downstream/upstream ratio of 5:1, as AT&T is calling for, seems pretty reasonable and future-proof to me.


I wouldn't argue with the premise of that, but in order to get to a reasonably balanced speed tier, you're either on mid- or high-split HFC, or you're on fiber. The exception to that would be MDUs with G.Fast, where they can offer tiers like 500/100, but that's almost fiber, as they're bring fiber into the building.



> If I had to choose between bringing reliable, affordable 100/20 broadband (fiber to a distribution node, with some other medium used for the last leg) to 1,000,000 homes currently without broadband access versus reliable, affordable 1000/1000 fiber broadband to only 100,000 homes, with both options requiring the same amount of taxpayer funds, I'd definitely opt for the former. It would make a far greater positive collective impact than the latter in terms of closing the digital divide.


But it doesn't work that way. You're talking about VDSL within maybe 3kft of the VRAD/IRAD/RDSLAM, which doesn't help many suburban customers, much less rural customers. Once you go to fiber, why stop at 100mbps? Just go to 10gbps at that point unless part of the plan is to increase the speed on existing HFC connections, where tiers like 2000/100 are possible with plant rebuilds.



NashGuy said:


> IDK, I guess it's *possible* that, based on the recent comments about 10 Mbps upload speeds, AT&T might consider expanding FTTH VDSL out into the hinterlands if they got some federal subsidies. But I really kinda doubt it. Those old copper phone lines are falling into disrepair everywhere and my understanding is that the electronics that go into the Uverse DSLAMs (the "lawn fridge" nodes where fiber hands off to copper) are no longer being manufactured. The whole system is getting kinda rickety and decrepit.


U-Verse was a decent idea that was never fully implemented properly, doesn't work in all situations, and now is obsolete. The only use left for copper is for in-building MDU installations of G.Fast.



> I think the comment was really about saying, "We'd like to get some federal money to roll out fixed 5G/4G wireless service to rural areas but it's not going to have equivalent upload and download speeds and even the download isn't going to hit 1 gig."


I think they realize that they can't milk ancient copper lines if a new ISP comes along with government subsidies or loans and offers 10gbps service.



slowbiscuit said:


> They ran electricity, they ran copper, they can run fiber. Might take the new infrastructure bill to get it done but there's no excuse not to do it for anyone that already has electricity. I'm sick and tired of all the excuses from these companies that have been subsidized for YEARS.


Yeah, except for rural co-ops that actually need loans to build fiber, I'd like to see AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, Centurylink, Consolidated, etc, forced to go 100% FTTH/FTTB on their own dime, but I don't think we have politicians with the backbone to do that type of thing today.



wco81 said:


> The plan touts things like municipal broadband, which Republicans have tried to prohibit. They will say free market should build out broadband, govt. shouldn't get involved.


Well the hypocrite party claims that we should have a smaller federal government, and allow local governments to do their own thing locally, and then turns around at the state level to try and stop local government from doing their own thing locally.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> They ran electricity, they ran copper, they can run fiber. Might take the new infrastructure bill to get it done but there's no excuse not to do it for anyone that already has electricity. I'm sick and tired of all the excuses from these companies that have been subsidized for YEARS.


About 10 to 15 years ago I watched with excitement as Verizon was deploying fiber on the polls on the street outside my development. I got more excited as they got closer, but that turned to disappointment once I saw that they just kept going passed my development. I never got the option for FIOS, even though the fiber lines are less than 1/4 mile from me.

Note, this was shortly after they lobbied to create a state-wide franchise agreement.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

morac said:


> About 10 to 15 years ago I watched with excitement as Verizon was deploying fiber on the polls on the street outside my development. I got more excited as they got closer, but that turned to disappointment once I saw that they just kept going passed my development. I never got the option for FIOS, even though the fiber lines are less than 1/4 mile from me.
> 
> Note, this was shortly after they lobbied to create a state-wide franchise agreement.


US Internet has a lot of fiber in South Minneapolis. When the Super Bowl was downtown, they had a contract to supply internet capacity. By a delightful coincidence, the street that connects their South Minneapolis area with the Vikings stadium is the one the apartment building my office is in is on. Which means that building was hooked into their network, and because I manage a number of buildings in their service area, I get free internet in my office. And considering before I was paying for Century Link DSL (imagine how much it sucked, then multiply that a few times), I'd say I got a pretty good deal out of it!


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> So the thing is, in rural areas, fiber is the only practical way to do it.


That's simply not true. A combination of fixed wireless and LEO satellite technologies is absolutely viable for connecting a lot of the less densely populated parts of the country. I'm not saying that either medium is as good as FTTH (nothing is) but the question always is about cost vs. benefit. The economics of running fiber across the nation's vast open spaces to every address in the country is probably not economically justifiable when there are other "good enough" options.



Bigg said:


> But what doesn't make sense here is the 100/100 requirement nationwide.


No, it doesn't make sense for a range of reasons. A requirement that federal funds be restricted to broadband deployments that meet at least, say, 100/20 would make sense to me. But not 100/100.



Bigg said:


> I think they realize that they can't milk ancient copper lines if a new ISP comes along with government subsidies or loans and offers 10gbps service.


Based on multiple instances of their words and actions over the past few years, I think AT&T has internalized the fact that DSL service over their ancient copper lines is dying. They know that those with any other viable alternative -- cable, fixed wireless, and soon, LEO satellite -- have dumped DSL, because it's just an inferior product for the money. My understanding is that they don't even sell their low-speed DSL (not VDSL) to new accounts any more. Neither AT&T or Verizon want to keep those old copper lines up and running. They're eager to ditch them.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> That's simply not true. A combination of fixed wireless and LEO satellite technologies is absolutely viable for connecting a lot of the less densely populated parts of the country. I'm not saying that either medium is as good as FTTH (nothing is) but the question always is about cost vs. benefit. The economics of running fiber across the nation's vast open spaces to every address in the country is probably not economically justifiable when there are other "good enough" options.


Fixed wireless or LEO are not replacements for actual wired broadband access. There is no reason, other than policy failure, to not have fiber to every house that's on the electric grid. It's just not that expensive, especially if structured as a loan, not a subsidy. LEO or fixed wireless makes sense for off-grid remote locations or other applications.



> No, it doesn't make sense for a range of reasons. A requirement that federal funds be restricted to broadband deployments that meet at least, say, 100/20 would make sense to me. But not 100/100.


1000/35 makes sense as the MSOs are already meeting that, and fiber can meet it easily. I still can't figure out if this is supposed to apply to the 60% or so of the US that currently has 1000/35 or similar through cable, or only to areas that currently have less than that. If they want 100mbps uploads, that would force cable to get off their duff and do some upgrades.



> Based on multiple instances of their words and actions over the past few years, I think AT&T has internalized the fact that DSL service over their ancient copper lines is dying. They know that those with any other viable alternative -- cable, fixed wireless, and soon, LEO satellite -- have dumped DSL, because it's just an inferior product for the money. My understanding is that they don't even sell their low-speed DSL (not VDSL) to new accounts any more. Neither AT&T or Verizon want to keep those old copper lines up and running. They're eager to ditch them.


The issue with ATM-based ADSL is that they can't get the parts anymore, and they were too lazy/incompetent to do even the most basic of upgrades and throw IRADs in place of those RDSLAMs to offer up to 100mbps service via VDSL2 or ADSL2+. This is another AT&T-specific issue. They have institutional ADD. They haven't actually completed an upgrade in probably several decades. They didn't finish 3G before doing 4G, at one point they had 2G and LTE butted up against each other, they raced to finish upgrading 2G towers to 3G right before they shut 2G down, now they're doing 5G while they still have pockets of 3G and fake 4G that haven't been upgraded to LTE. Same for wireline. They never finished building out DSL before starting U-Verse, and didn't finish U-Verse before doing fiber, and now they're just sort of jumping around with fiber willy nilly, and I've heard many, many anecdotal reports of them half finishing fiber installs and then leaving to sit for years, sometimes coming back to finish them, and sometimes not. This is a company that institutionally can't complete anything.

The problem is, they want to just abandon those customers instead of actually taking a longer term approach and running GPON fiber to each and every one of them. GPON fiber is profitable if you look at things over a telco timescale, but these companies are looking at telco investments over the period of a couple of years, which is just idiotic, as telcos are supposed to be looking over a 30-year time horizon. FiOS was profitable in 11 years, and the cost to install fiber has gone way down since then, so all but the most rural areas should have a decent ROI in 15-20 years.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> That's simply not true. A combination of fixed wireless and LEO satellite technologies is absolutely viable for connecting a lot of the less densely populated parts of the country. I'm not saying that either medium is as good as FTTH (nothing is) but the question always is about cost vs. benefit. The economics of running fiber across the nation's vast open spaces to every address in the country is probably not economically justifiable when there are other "good enough" options.


And yet we did it twice, with power and POTS. These same poles can have fiber. I've never understood why the power co's didn't take it on themselves, they work on poles in the boonies all the time (yeah I know some areas have done it, but I think the stupid 'free market' crowd has legislated a lot of others from getting into cheap internet). And so we're left with a few rent-seeking oligopolies that have cried wolf while reaching around the back end for subsidies then under-delivering.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

slowbiscuit said:


> And yet we did it twice, with power and POTS. These same poles can have fiber. I've never understood why the power co's didn't take it on themselves, they work on poles in the boonies all the time (yeah I know some areas have done it, but I think the stupid 'free market' crowd has legislated a lot of others from getting into cheap internet). And so we're left with a few rent-seeking oligopolies that have cried wolf while reaching around the back end for subsidies then under-delivering.


Decades ago, when the electrical grid and POTS networks were built, were there less expensive ways of extending electrical service or POTS service to homes? It was done the way it was done -- with miles and miles of wiring -- because that was the only option.

Look, if rural co-ops want to build out FTTH service in their counties with help in the form of government grants (or loans) that cover part of the infrastructure cost, then great. And to the extent that laws or regulations exist that stand in the way of that (and there are), then get rid of them.

All I'm saying is that connecting every single home in the nation with fiber probably isn't the most efficient use of money (whether private or taxpayer-funded) to ensure nationwide availability of decent broadband service. We've already got one LEO satellite consumer broadband provider (Starlink) partially operational, with another major one (Amazon) on the way. Rather than trying to wire up the most rural/costly-to-reach X% of the US population, why wouldn't we look to those providers as the solution (similar to how, in the 90s, we looked to DBS as opposed to coaxial cable TV to reach them)?


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

Laying fiber to every home in the nation one time, is likely cheaper than building, launching and maintaining 100,000 or more satellites in orbit for decades.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

osu1991 said:


> Laying fiber to every home in the nation one time, is likely cheaper than building, launching and maintaining 100,000 or more satellites in orbit for decades.


And likely more reliable, over decades.

Space debris poses growing threat to satellite infrastructure | Global Resilience Institute


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Anyone who thinks any company is going to spend money wiring the country should just look at what Verizon did after Sandy destroyed all the copper wires in certain areas. They abandoned the lines and replaced them with wireless technology.

Sandy pushes Verizon to turn landlines wireless


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

morac said:


> Anyone who thinks any company is going to spend money wiring the country should just look at what Verizon did after Sandy destroyed all the copper wires in certain areas. They abandoned the lines and replaced them with wireless technology.
> 
> Sandy pushes Verizon to turn landlines wireless


Basically. If you leave it to free enterprise, they just want to spend the least to keep the highest revenues streams going.

So they will build out enough, to say that they've invested, that government entities shouldn't get involved in the free market, etc.

Then lobby at the state level to block frustrated cities who try to roll their own.


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

osu1991 said:


> Laying fiber to every home in the nation one time, is likely cheaper than building, launching and maintaining 100,000 or more satellites in orbit for decades.


It has been estimated by some that it would be in excess of half a trillion dollars to install fiber to every residence in the US based on current industry construction estimates for a new national open access lit fiber infrastructure. Now, of course, some places would be cheaper, and some more expensive (and some places would be so expensive to install to that the location should just be marked unserviceable). Ongoing costs to pay for the various infrastructure maintenance/support would be in the order of magnitude of 10% of the build out costs. These are all rough estimates with large error bars, and also presumes that people will not have the option to say no to service (saying no saves some construction costs, but increases the costs per person to maintain the infrastructure (there are various fixed costs) if a lot of people decide to say no).

If one actually wanted to pursue such options one would actually have to hire a firm to product an accurate estimate, and then get the US congress to agree to spend that kind of money to do it.

It should be noted that San Francisco, a few years ago, estimated that just for their city it would cost around $2 billion for the install, and even their paid consultants admitted that it was likely to cost nearly double that due to various risk factors that they agreed were unlikely to be able to be mitigated (the ones that were most laughable were that they said that (in their most optimistic plan) the local, state, and federal agencies would not require all the usual permitting and approvals and construction offsets and that no resident would object to the plan and file lawsuits to delay or stop the work).


----------



## southerndoc (Apr 5, 2003)

Didn't Biden commit to $100 billion? So basically a fifth of the amount? That should buy a lot of homes fiber optic service.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Not to mention that expensive big city rollouts should not be the intent of this plan, it's rural and exurban areas that have been shafted. Cities liker Frisco are often their own worst enemies with way too many regs and fees for companies to want to expand access with them.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

Rural areas could at least have it run along the highway...read of one rural user who already had his drop at the highway...he upgraded the coax cable ran back to the house (over a mile) by trenching in new, armored fiber cable (IIRC, 8 pair) with his tractor.


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

southerndoc said:


> Didn't Biden commit to $100 billion? So basically a fifth of the amount? That should buy a lot of homes fiber optic service.


Only if they choose the locations wisely. If they spend it on the most expensive locations to service it will serve very few. The question (which will be hotly debated) is do you choose to deliver the greatest good to the greatest number, or do you do something else?


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

I'm i the SF Bay Area and fiber penetration is low here.

I support not leaving rural behind but the bang for the buck is in the urban/suburban areas, which still have low fiber penetration.


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

slowbiscuit said:


> I support not leaving rural behind but the bang for the buck is in the urban/suburban areas, which still have low fiber penetration.


When one is looking at cost per served residence, the cheapest (and fastest) to build is almost always medium density single family residences with aerial cabling (perhaps some typical suburb). Rural and urban (especially MDUs) tend to be the most expensive (for completely different reasons), with extremely large bumps occurring for some specific cases in these two groups.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Decades ago, when the electrical grid and POTS networks were built, were there less expensive ways of extending electrical service or POTS service to homes? It was done the way it was done -- with miles and miles of wiring -- because that was the only option.


And FTTH is the only way to deliver consistent, reliable internet connectivity across the country. Why should people in rural areas be left with substandard internet access? Technology wise, we're quickly approaching a point where some of those areas will no longer need an electric grid, as off grid will be more reliable and cheaper anyway, but they do need wired FTTH service.



> All I'm saying is that connecting every single home in the nation with fiber probably isn't the most efficient use of money (whether private or taxpayer-funded) to ensure nationwide availability of decent broadband service. We've already got one LEO satellite consumer broadband provider (Starlink) partially operational, with another major one (Amazon) on the way. Rather than trying to wire up the most rural/costly-to-reach X% of the US population, why wouldn't we look to those providers as the solution (similar to how, in the 90s, we looked to DBS as opposed to coaxial cable TV to reach them)?


It's actually rather efficient, if implemented properly, with loans to all but the very hardest to reach areas. The cost of subsidizing loans for co-ops to put in fiber is relatively miniscule compared to the benefit.



osu1991 said:


> Laying fiber to every home in the nation one time, is likely cheaper than building, launching and maintaining 100,000 or more satellites in orbit for decades.


The other problem is that satellite capacity will go to higher value uses, like commercial customers, RVs, trains, boats, busses, airplanes, etc.



wco81 said:


> Basically. If you leave it to free enterprise, they just want to spend the least to keep the highest revenues streams going.


No, not really. They want to do the cheapest thing now, regardless of how much they are shooting themselves in the foot later on. This country is riddled with short-term thinking. Just do it the cheapest way today, worry about tomorrow tomorrow. If the private companies were thinking on the proper timescales for their industries, we'd have universal fiber everywhere now by private companies like AT&T and Verizon, and that hasn't happened.



CommunityMember said:


> It has been estimated by some that it would be in excess of half a trillion dollars to install fiber to every residence in the US based on current industry construction estimates for a new national open access lit fiber infrastructure.


That's utterly ridiculous. $160B is a reasonable estimate, and most of that can be done via loans that will be paid back, and most of those are overbuilding cable. Only the few most extreme far reaches of the system would need a subsidy as opposed to a loan, so it quickly becomes quite manageable. I don't know what the legal mechanism would be, but AT&T, Verizon, Centurylink, Frontier, and Consolidated shouldn't even be getting government loans, they should get private money to build 100% fiber.



CommunityMember said:


> Rural and urban (especially MDUs) tend to be the most expensive (for completely different reasons), with extremely large bumps occurring for some specific cases in these two groups.


In many ways, you're spot on here. The difference is that many MDUs are quite lucrative, as once you get over the initial install costs, you've got a whole ton of customers in a small area, versus rural where they're spread out and often aren't the most lucrative customers to begin with.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

This article does a good job of summing it up:

Biden's $100B broadband plan raises four big questions | Light Reading


----------



## southerndoc (Apr 5, 2003)

I'm confused with my current offering. AT&T offers "fiber" service up to 100 Mbps to my home. The small green poles in our neighborhood all have "fiber optic" on them. Yet, I'm not offered gigabit service.

Does AT&T need to run additional lines to allow for this or is this an issue with a switch somewhere that needs to be upgraded?


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

southerndoc said:


> I'm confused with my current offering. AT&T offers "fiber" service up to 100 Mbps to my home. The small green poles in our neighborhood all have "fiber optic" on them. Yet, I'm not offered gigabit service.
> 
> Does AT&T need to run additional lines to allow for this or is this an issue with a switch somewhere that needs to be upgraded?


Most likely this is a FTTN VDSL deployment (Fiber To The (VDSL) Node, and copper to the residence). Depending on AT&T's specific architecture/deployment in your location the work and cost to provide gigabit FTTH can vary greatly. AT&T has announced upgrades for some locations from VDSL to FTTH over the next year or so, so you might check with your local city/town to see if you are fortunate enough to be among those locations, or whether you need to plan to move if you it need it sooner.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

southerndoc said:


> I'm confused with my current offering. AT&T offers "fiber" service up to 100 Mbps to my home. The small green poles in our neighborhood all have "fiber optic" on them. Yet, I'm not offered gigabit service.
> 
> Does AT&T need to run additional lines to allow for this or is this an issue with a switch somewhere that needs to be upgraded?


That sounds like VDSL, not fiber. They often lie about offering fiber where they don't. What's the upload? That would tell us for sure. Probably 20mbps on VDSL.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

CommunityMember said:


> Most likely this is a FTTN VDSL deployment (Fiber To The (VDSL) Node, and copper to the residence). Depending on AT&T's specific architecture/deployment in your location the work and cost to provide gigabit FTTH can vary greatly. AT&T has announced upgrades for some locations from VDSL to FTTH over the next year or so, so you might check with your local city/town to see if you are fortunate enough to be among those locations, or whether you need to plan to move if you it need it sooner.


My BIL in the San Francisco Bay area (Livermore) reports that Comcast contractors have started laying fiber on their neighborhood streets in recent weeks. He sent me an excited text (We're getting fiber!); I told him that's great news but not to expect it to result in FTTR unless Comcast is staging a limited test in their neighborhood. Rather, I would guess it's either a maintenance-dictated upgrade to deteriorating coaxial lines or preparation for FDX HFC service.


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

chiguy50 said:


> Rather, I would guess it's either a maintenance-dictated upgrade to deteriorating coaxial lines or preparation for FDX HFC service.


Comcast installs fiber all the time for node splits to increase capacity, and over the last year the demands for capacity have increased substantially (the Comcast plant teams have had to do in a very short time what had been planned for over many years). As you say, the fiber is far more likely for Comcast's needs, not FTTH (as I recall, the largest employer in Livermore moved to a mostly remote workforce a year ago). However, after the fiber is installed, one is far more likely to be closer than the required 1/3 mile from an available fiber splice point such that they can order Gigabit Pro (which is Comcast's business Metro-E service at "residential" pricing), so there is that.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Bigg said:


> This article does a good job of summing it up:
> 
> Biden's $100B broadband plan raises four big questions | Light Reading


From that article:

_4. Is broadband a utility?

Herein lies the fundamental question facing lawmakers voting for Biden's plan. And their answer - whether through this vote or future votes - will help to shape the outline of the US broadband market for decades to come.

*"With the 1936 Rural Electrification Act, the federal government made a historic investment in bringing electricity to nearly every home and farm in America, and millions of families and our economy reaped the benefits. Broadband Internet is the new electricity," according to Biden's plan.

Some believe that kind of thinking is exactly what is needed.*

"The reference to electrification implies that much of the funding for modernizing the network might come in the form of low-interest federal loans given to community-based organizations," wrote Doug Dawson with CCG Consulting. "This same plan for electrification spurred the formation of electric cooperatives and would do something similar now. I favor this as the best use of federal money because the cost of building the infrastructure with federal loans means that the federal coffers eventually get repaid."

But if broadband is a public utility, along the lines of electricity, then it would likely be carefully managed by state or local officials.

On the one hand, such an approach could spur the delivery of speedy networks to remote and rural users. On the other, it could squelch private investments in technologies ranging from Massive MIMO to low Earth orbit satellite broadband.
_
Yes, 1000 times yes. This is the fundamental issue that has failed with a so-called 'free market'. Way past time to declare that it's a utility.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Well increasingly people bank online, search for jobs online, get education/training online.

and now, they’re scheduling covid vaccines online.

online access is pretty crucial now. And these days you need a certain level of speed for these services, even if you’re not streaming 4k HDR video all the time.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

T-Mobile announced a nation-wide home 5G service with 100/35 speeds and no data cap. Comcast really has no excuse.

T-Mobile 5G home Internet: $60 a month, 100Mbps speeds, and no data cap


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

morac said:


> T-Mobile announced a nation-wide home 5G service with 100/35 speeds and no data cap. Comcast really has no excuse.
> 
> T-Mobile 5G home Internet: $60 a month, 100Mbps speeds, and no data cap


Verizon is doing it in Denver, but nothing in the suburbs. I'd sign up for 5G to the home in a heartbeat.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

morac said:


> T-Mobile announced a nation-wide home 5G service with 100/35 speeds and no data cap. Comcast really has no excuse.
> 
> T-Mobile 5G home Internet: $60 a month, 100Mbps speeds, and no data cap


I've never seen any latency numbers posted though which is an important criteria for me working from home and remote displaying. (I get < 20ms latency to work now via Cox). My guess is it would be quite significantly worse than wired. Plus from my home I get 1 bar now for T-Mobile 4G LTE so no probably no hope for 5G which has shorter ranges.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

moyekj said:


> I've never seen any latency numbers posted though which is an important criteria for me working from home and remote displaying. (I get < 20ms latency to work now via Cox). My guess is it would be quite significantly worse than wired. Plus from my home I get 1 bar now for T-Mobile 4G LTE so no probably no hope for 5G which has shorter ranges.


 Never mind. Just saw in link provided some measure of latency:
"Latency is typically between 21 and 35ms, T-Mobile said."


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I am eligible for the T-Mobile 5G home internet, I live across the street from a 5G tower, but I got Cox down to $53/mo I think so I have no reason to get it. I'd pay more for fiber, but not wireless.

Internet is more of a utility than electricity at this point. You can generate and store your own power, but you can't just make your own ISP out of nothing. In fact, there are households in Vermont that are off the grid except for fiber internet.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I got Cox down to $53/mo I think so I have no reason to get it.


Eliminating the data cap would be a good "reason" for me! Though, I'm good until end of this year here in the Northeast.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Latest anecdote on why we should incentivize local co-ops and ISPs to run fiber as a utility, bypassing the 'free market'.

Comcast nightmare: Six months without Internet despite $5,000 payment


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Latest anecdote on why we should incentivize local co-ops and ISPs to run fiber as a utility, bypassing the 'free market'.
> 
> Comcast nightmare: Six months without Internet despite $5,000 payment


That story reminds me of when I moved into a newly constructed home about 20 years ago and tried to get Comcast to hook up my Internet. Since I was moving from a Comcast region, they told me I could just take the modem I was renting to my new house. When I got there my modem would never lock. This was back when they were Comcast @home so the lines were Comcast and the ISP was @home, but run by Comcast. They kept sending out techs who kept telling me the problem was on the backend.

It took a month to get things working and I was never told what the problem was, but I'm guessing someone badly misconfigured something. Their customer service hasn't improved since then. If anything it's gotten worse.


----------

