9 ms·
Comcast won’t give new speed boost to Internet users who don’t buy TV service
- rb808 9y ago> Customers with 60Mbps Internet download speeds are being upped to 150Mbps; 150Mbps subscribers are going to 250Mbps; and 250Mbps subscribers are getting a raise to 400Mbps or 1Gbps. I'd be surprised that any regular household would notice being upgraded from 60 to 150Mbps.
- paleotrope 9y agoI upgraded from 100mb to 1g for 400 person site and no one noticed.
- NicoJuicy 9y agoTry the other way in a couple of months
- dboreham 9y agoThey might notice the corresponding upstream speed increases though.
- Sohcahtoa82 9y agoUnless they're uploading videos to YouTube on a regular basis (Or some other type of large file somewhere), no they won't. They already have enough bandwidth to stream to Twitch, so I really don't think the average user (or even a gamer) will notice.
- lotsofpulp 9y agoIt's very easy to notice who has crappy upload when you Facetime them, I imagine this applies to many families.
- Sohcahtoa82 9y agoI wonder how much of this is caused by the internet connection having crappy upload versus just having crappy WiFi.
- lotsofpulp 9y agoI would always bet on crappy upload. Residential internet is so garbage, it's tough for it to even sustain low latency 3Mbps upload in most areas, especially during evening hours when everyone is trying to upload. Facetiming someone with fiber vs not is like night and day versus someone sharing a tiny cable pipe with 2,000 other people.
- lotsofpulp 9y agoUnless it's fiber to the home, I doubt there's any difference. I assume they just make up numbers or relax some constraints so you can get "up to" some arbitrary bandwidth, but your latency will still be garbage, you still won't have upload, and you're still sharing the same pipe with your neighborhood.
- didibus 9y agoYa, I went from 100 to 250, and saw no difference. While my old apartment had 30MB fiber, and damn that was fast, way faster. Its all about consistency, ping and packet loss.
- lstamour 9y agoOn Rogers cable in Canada, I noticed the jump from DSL to cable, and from 25 Mbps cable to 150 Mbps, but that was accompanied by a modem change from plain old DOCSIS to DOCSIS 2. I didn’t notice the jump from 150 to 250 as much (at all) but the jump to gigabit was significant in that it increased upload speeds to 50 Mbps. The next jump was from gigabit over coax to gigabit over plastic optic from Bell Canada, with 100 Mbps up — asymmetric still, but it easily handled multiple requests at the same time with very low latencies to Bell-peered servers. I mention that because gigabit symmetric was again a jump I noticed, in that posting photos and videos became instaneous, but Bell not peering with TorIX the way Rogers does means most of my traffic to Toronto routes through New York or Chicago first as both Bell and TorIX have US peering arrangements. So not everything is perfect even with symmetric gigabit finally. I suspect my next speed increase will arrive when a third-party is finally able to use Bell’s fibre optic network at which point they might peer locally. I’ve contemplated running both Bell and Rogers for the pings, but I’d need somebody to give me BGP for the routing which is likely expensive...
- kpwags 9y agoThis seems rather anti-competitive. It'd just be a matter of time until Netflix, etc. only run well on the upgraded speed. Here's hoping someone takes this to the FTC and gets this stopped. I wish I were a little more hopeful.
- ProAm 9y agoIm very surprised this doesn't violate the bundling antitrust laws [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(antitrust_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(antitrust_law)
- paulgb 9y agoIANAL but my understanding is that bundling is only an antitrust violation when you have a monopoly. They were already offering cable/internet bundles in these areas with cost savings, so I don't see how this changes anything from the antitrust standpoint.
- craftyguy 9y agoThey are a monopoly in many areas
- jerrysievert 9y agomaybe in some areas, but where they're doing this in Oregon/SW Washington, they have enough competition to not be considered a monopoly. so, in these specific cases, it probably doesn't apply.
- stanleydrew 9y ago> It'd just be a matter of time until Netflix, etc. only run well on the upgraded speed. I don't think this is true. Netflix and co have an incentive to run well on the lowest common denominator connection. Sure you might not get 4K, but you can watch pretty much anything in their streaming library uninterrupted on 10Mbps of bandwidth.
- 9y ago
- mi100hael 9y agoCue the Simpsons meme: "Am I out of touch? No, it's the cord-cutters who are wrong!" Stupid tactics like this are only prolonging the inevitable (and signal incredibly poor, visionless management).
- randyrand 9y agoYou'd think they'd want to get the TV price/cost as low as reasonable to fight cable cutters.
- Sohcahtoa82 9y agoAlternatively, they should be acknowledging that they're becoming more of an ISP and less of a TV provider, consumers are less interested in traditional TV service, and that they need to adapt in some way.
- rconti 9y agoI already have to subscribe to Comcast's "basic" cable (which is what used to be called lifeline; it has nothing my antenna doesn't, not even the History Channel/Discovery Channel type stuff that used to be on 'basic). The reason is that they charge me less when I'm also willing to be a TV 'subscriber'. TV+Internet is cheaper than Internet alone. The cable box just sits in its cardboard box in the attic, I still use my antenna because the quality is better.
- didibus 9y agoSame for me. When I said I don't need the TV box, can you just not ship it to me, they were really confused. Said its automated so they can't not ship it. Its now in my closet still in the box.
- dawnerd 9y agoFrontier did that to me with their router. I run all ubiquiti gear and don't want their junk (or any fees they may charge me for "renting" it). They forced me to take it even after I refused to be paying. Year later haven't been billed for it yet. Such a waste. I have a feeling one day they'll try to use it as an excuse to bill me a lot.
- rconti 9y agoI've returned my Comcast cable boxes in the past, but then they just ship you a new one because they notice you don't have any equipment on your account. It doesn't cost me anything, but when I lose it and later cancel service, you can bet i'll be charged for it.
- DoubleCribble 9y agoWe canceled service and returned our Comcast box to the local office once a local WISP became available. A week later, a bill arrived in the mail charging us for the box. Apparently, the billing system doesn't first check the equipment return system and it took 45 minutes with Customer Service for the barely trained CS agent to figure out how to go off script and recognize the equipment was indeed already in their possession. After years of being over charged for under performing service, I can only hope for more WISPs to spring up and eat Comcast's lunch.
- _RPM 9y agoI pay 19.99 for ~30 Mbps internet only, no TV.
- bcheung 9y agoNot just high speed, I think I originally got the 40 Mbps plan and they made me get TV cable service when I just wanted Internet. I really don't understand why. They said they couldn't offer Internet by itself. The box isn't even plugged in and hasn't been for years. Everything is handled by a different department by them. I upgraded to the 1 Gbps cable plan and it wasn't just a different plan, it was a different department. They had to take the old modem back and get a new one even though it was already compatible with the newer speeds.
- stanleydrew 9y agoHonestly I don't think this is that big a deal even though it is a crappy thing for Comcast to do. Most services that cord-cutters use heavily (Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc.) are built to operate normally on LTE connections, where average bandwidth is something like 30Mbps. So 60Mbps is actually fine.
- zargon 9y ago"We've increased speeds 17 times in the last 17 years." My experience is that they increase the speed, and then a few months later they raise the price. Then I have to switch to a lower speed to get a price similar to what I was paying before. It's dishonest and sleazy.
- meesterdude 9y ago> It's dishonest and sleazy It's comcast™
- cptskippy 9y agoic™
- khedoros1 9y agoIn my area, with Cox, they raise the speeds on the upper tiers, but the prices on everything. 10mbps for $43, 30 for $64, 100 for $85, and 300 for $105. 10 is slow enough that I'd have to watch my downloads if my wife or kid were streaming something, and saves just $21/month from the 30 package. When I started using them about 8 years ago, I was single, and my tier was about 15mbps for about $30. I think the lower tier was about 5 for $20. If there were a viable competitor in the area, I'd switch to them for a couple years, then come back to Cox as a new customer and get the discounted rates. No such luck.
- kw71 9y agoMy very first Comcast cablemodem gave 10 mbits/sec due to living in the ghetto (no other data subscribers around) and @Home not having figured out how to set a rate limit in the docsis config. They never changed my service as long as I was on the system. When I moved to another system, a different company was managing their data service and I had a 3 mbits limit.
- trumped 9y agoThey increased my speed only once in the last 10 years... but they try to increase the price yearly (I usually cancel my service if they don't agree to keep the price the same, and sign up again at a later time to get the new subscriber discount (could be the same day))
- mmanfrin 9y agoI am so, so excited that I will be able to leave Comcast for good in November. Sonic, a local ISP, has been blitz building out fiber in the East Bay Area. Comcast is abusive of their monopoly status in areas and their demise cannot come quickly enough.
- csisvunit 9y agothe gigabit fiber? whats the speed? i entered my neighborhood and it only says up to 30 mbs is available. desperate to ditch comcast.
- mmanfrin 9y agoGigabit is gigabit; they have had copper ADSL for a while and that caps at around 30mbps, but they're building gigabit all over the east bay right now.
- FullyFunctional 9y agoI switched from Comcast (@ 300 Mb/s) to Sonic (@ 30 Mb/s) just to support them. I really wish Sonic well as they seem to be the last honest ISP left.
- ProfessorLayton 9y agoI also have Sonic in the East Bay, and it has been pricy and disappointing. It is rebranded AT&T FTTN, I'm subscribed to 50mbps but am lucky to get 24mbps @90/mo after associated fees. Still, its that or non-rebranded AT&T or Comcast with data caps.
- ngokevin 9y agoGetting 1000mbps up/down on Sonic for half the price in Richmond District in SF. Good service, no complaints.
- pmoriarty 9y agoThis is what I'm doing. Sonic's service should be starting to be installed in May in my area. The price for Sonic's gigabit service is going to be the same for me as what I'm paying for Comcast right now. It's great to finally see some competition in this field and have the opportunity to ditch Comcast.
- janaagaard 9y agoWhy don’t cable companies charge by megabyte used, instead of by speed? That way they would have an incentment to give you the fastest possible connection, since that would potentially mean, that you would be consuming more data. They might even give you a discount on your Netflix subscription. Is the current pricing structure simply because consumers have become so accostumed to playing a flat rate, or is there something else, that I am missing?
- gleenn 9y agoYou're assuming they are trying to make the service the best they can. They've obviously done the math and it's cheaper to charge people a flat fee. They don't really care how good their service is, or how fair it could be, just that they maximize profit.
- jbob2000 9y ago> Why don’t cable companies charge by megabyte used, instead of by speed? Because they can and do charge you for both and laugh all the way to the bank.
- rhino369 9y agoCustomers would hate having to consider how much data they are using.
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoThe rate would likely be relatively proportional: On average, with usage based pricing, people would pay about the same. But heavy Internet users would pay more and lighter users would pay less.
- zmarty 9y agoBandwidth is not a finite physical resource. The marginal cost to add more capacity is tiny. Their cost to serve is tiny. I HATE data caps.
- janaagaard 9y ago
- brobinson 9y agoI have a Comcast cable box sitting in my cupboard in the original packaging. I had to get it as part of a deal to get 300mbps internet for $95/mo (1 year contract). It's going to sit there in the original packaging until I cancel my service and return it, I guess.
- dcole2929 9y agoWhat I'm wonder is if Netflix has explored entering the ISP game. Google experimented with this a bit but has apparently bowed out, but I could see it maybe being a valid direction for someone like Netflix. ISPs are going to keep squeezing customers, and companies alike until something gives, because it's their one leverage point. They've all but lost the battle on cable television, especially as all the major sports leagues have begun their own streaming services. Netflix probably has the market cap to afford the upfront costs of rolling their own fiber, and I'd imagine they'd save millions just from not having to pay the cable companies fees for Fast Lanes.
- joezydeco 9y agoIf Google couldn't make it work, and by consequence made the other ISPs raise their defensive shields, why would Netflix try?
- escherplex 9y agoConfirmed my suspicions. FWIW in SW Florida after severing Xfinity TV service ties, the replacement with ROKU boxes, et al, DID result in significant throttling of internet connections even after the speed increases were announced by Xfinity. The home 'Blaster' package saw a reduction in large .mp4/.zip file download speeds from 12MB/s to 5. That was coupled with frequent connection drops while viewing ROKU content. And you could forget about 4K content. Miraculously, when an Xfinity app was installed on ROKU which required a supplemental CATV account, which conveniently Xfinity marketed at a 2 yr. super discount to undercut the DirectTV app package, the internet speeds increased from a throttled 5 to a consistent 15MB/s on non-VPN downloads (using IDM on Win7, similar results in Linux Mint). And 4K viewing was practical. Amazing! /s
- OnMyPhone 9y agoDid you do any testing with a VPN? When I was visiting someone in Atlanta GA, the speeds weren't good for what they advertised, but once I put on a VPN the speeds almost tripled. They just have internet through Comcast too, so I was wondering if something was up.
- escherplex 9y agoFrom here, a VPN with servers in Toronto yielded speeds of about 8 MB/s max for IDM, uGET, and qBittorrent, which is about 1/2 what non-VPN connections delivered. VPN servers in Netherlands delivered a little less than that.
- hourislate 9y agoI know this might be wishful thinking but I'm really hoping that 5G Wireless Technology or Elon's Satellite Internet Technology will be an alternative for people who currently don't have many alternatives and have to use some of these able companies for providers.
- dawnerd 9y agoI almost switched to comcast this month since Frontier is charging me ~150 for 150/150 fiber. Asked comcast what their upload speed was in my area and they didn't want to initially tell me, but eventually they said its only ~10mbps. I get faster on my phone so that ended that discussion real fast. They also seemed really confused why I thought 10mbps was too low. Edit: I'm in the area that would be getting this "new upgrade"
- aphextron 9y agoI would keep your symmetrical plan. Comcast upload speeds are anemic. I have their "Gigabit" service and while I do get a solid 900+ down, they cap my upstream at 50.
- dawnerd 9y agoYeah, that's what Im doing until there's a better option. It's sad frontier doesn't want to actually offer symmetrical gig. They've got gig here, but it's only at most 200 up for 300+ a month. Not a very good deal
- fossuser 9y agoIf you live in Palo Alto you can get a decent deal on gigabit internet service from Comcast, but it's really hard to actually get (or at least it was when I got it). It took multiple attempts since the phone sales people didn't know what it was. I wrote up detailed instructions here since there was very little information available online at the time: https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/6xc5e4/bay_area_gets_gigabit_comcast_internet_service/ https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/6xc5e4/bay_area_ge...
- bradlys 9y agoIf you can get it, go with AT&T. It's at least 500mbit up and down for only $80. It rarely ever hits over 800mbit but it's not like you can really know if it's AT&T or the other side (even when doing speedtests).
- proverbialbunny 9y agoComcast fiber isn't so obscure today. My neighbor has 1 gig symmetric, but it's something like $300 a month.
- fossuser 9y agoThey have 2gigabit pro fiber to the house available for around that price plus some installation fee. I ended up just sticking with the regular gigabit (over coax with modem) since I already had a fancy modem and it was only $99 (though I only get 35mbps up). The gigabit pro speed requires special fiber hardware plus an installation.
- hedora 9y agoI’ve noticed the “increased” data speeds are basically just to speedtest.net. We’re paying $75/month for >60MBit (can’t remember....) down, but we frequently get less than 6 to amazon and netflix. I tried to downgrade my service, and they said the lower speed data options (without “blast” in their name) are only for low income customers, despite the fact that they are clearly advertised if I’m logged out. Also, it is not just us. The average measured speed of comcast connections to netflix is 4mbps in the US. I don’t care that they’re ranked #1; it is well over an order of magnitude lower than what they advertise: https://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/country/us/ https://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/country/us/ I wish we had a decent WISP in Silicon Valley (sonic is through at&t here, so you have to use a crappy at&t router that somehow breaks two-level NAT...)
- ec109685 9y agoSan Jose has AT&T gig fiber for 80 a month, with no cap. Way better deal than Comcast.
- turc1656 9y agoDoesn't this violate standard vertical tying laws? "The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately. The company doing this bundling may have a significantly large market share so that it may impose the tie on consumers, despite the forces of market competition." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)