3 ms·

I don't understand any of this comment. What is the 3Mbit/sec in reference to? I get significantly faster speed than that all the time. Edit: Oh, you're trying

by dpark 10y ago

I don't understand any of this comment. What is the 3Mbit/sec in reference to? I get significantly faster speed than that all the time. Edit: Oh, you're trying to assert that bandwidth==cap subdivided to the second level. No, that's absurd. I don't understand how switching to a local DSL provider would benefit me. I don't like Comcast at all, but cutting my typical bandwidth by more than 75% doesn't seem like a net gain. I like Netflix more than I hate Comcast.

mindslight 10y ago
First, the bulk of consumer use does not require high instantaneous bandwidth. And from what I recall, cable companies generally throttle those uses anyway! But the real value of the comparison is seeing exactly what game cable companies are playing. Their last-mile links happen to have higher bandwidth, but really they do not want to actually carry the corresponding traffic. So they advertise the irrelevant speeds in big print, and then do everything they can to restrict the actual service provided. Meanwhile I'm consistently doing >2TB/mo on DSL. Don't let CableCos' misleading advertising fool you, the US's last-mile communications infrastructure basically stagnated two generations back. Competition between cable and DSL is the official national policy, and moves like this one make it quite clear that they are providing similar service. If you're in an area that still has a CLEC, you might even find a provider that actually has technical people answering the phone!
- dpark 10y ago
  > First, the bulk of consumer use does not require high instantaneous bandwidth. The bulk of consumer use also doesn't require high usage caps so this is an extremely noncompelling argument. My house also does a ton of streaming and I do a lot of remote desktop. I do care about decent peak throughput. > And from what I recall, cable companies generally throttle those uses anyway! Maybe? I'm super in favor of net neutrality but I also recognize that throttled cable internet is still faster than unthrottled DSL. > Meanwhile I'm consistently doing >2TB/mo on DSL. So by your math, a whopping 6Mbps.

by dpark 10y ago

mindslight 10y ago

First, the bulk of consumer use does not require high instantaneous bandwidth. And from what I recall, cable companies generally throttle those uses anyway! But the real value of the comparison is seeing exactly what game cable companies are playing. Their last-mile links happen to have higher bandwidth, but really they do not want to actually carry the corresponding traffic. So they advertise the irrelevant speeds in big print, and then do everything they can to restrict the actual service provided. Meanwhile I'm consistently doing >2TB/mo on DSL. Don't let CableCos' misleading advertising fool you, the US's last-mile communications infrastructure basically stagnated two generations back. Competition between cable and DSL is the official national policy, and moves like this one make it quite clear that they are providing similar service. If you're in an area that still has a CLEC, you might even find a provider that actually has technical people answering the phone!

dpark 10y ago
> First, the bulk of consumer use does not require high instantaneous bandwidth. The bulk of consumer use also doesn't require high usage caps so this is an extremely noncompelling argument. My house also does a ton of streaming and I do a lot of remote desktop. I do care about decent peak throughput. > And from what I recall, cable companies generally throttle those uses anyway! Maybe? I'm super in favor of net neutrality but I also recognize that throttled cable internet is still faster than unthrottled DSL. > Meanwhile I'm consistently doing >2TB/mo on DSL. So by your math, a whopping 6Mbps.