17 ms·

Please do. Had to go up to full gigabit down with xfinity to get 35 up. Next highest was 15 I think? Not that you can figure that out easily - their website doe

by nimos 6y ago

Please do. Had to go up to full gigabit down with xfinity to get 35 up. Next highest was 15 I think? Not that you can figure that out easily - their website doesn't list upload speeds. Or maybe it does - the website is terrible to navigate, slow and I got 404s off their main internet landing page. Anyhow at the risk of this turning into a multi page rant about comcast I'll cut back to upload speed. I see it as upload is for creation and download is for consumption. What do the cable companies want people to be doing? If you look at the popularity of twitch/youtube/(things I'm too old and unhip to know about) it is a direct threat to cable/traditional content creation. I'd wager the current state of affairs holds a lot of people back from getting into content creation, especially poorer/larger families who have to share a limited connection.

lettergram 6y ago
Reason I went AT&T fiber was actually the dual up and down. I get 1Gbps up which helps uploading photos, videos, etc.
- nimos 6y ago
  Choices were between xfinity and sonic dsl (25 down) for my building. Nob Hill SF. Tried to get monkeybrains or webpass to install in building but didn't hear back from either.
  - lettergram 6y ago
    I used to live in Alameda, internet is way better where I’m at now in rural Illinois tbh. I think the corruption in many places are what seriously hamper development of fiber networks.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
vondur 6y ago
I think the upload limit has something to do with the Docsis protocol that most of their equipment operates (cable TV) under. I believe that the newer version protocol (Docsics 4) should allow for much greater speeds, up and down. I have no idea how long it will take these companies to update to this version.
- nimos 6y ago
  My modem is docsis 3.1 which supports gigabit upload. 3 supported 200 mbit. Maybe something to do with intermediary infrastructure.
- mynameisvlad 6y ago
  The current widely deployed version, DOCSIS 3 supports up to 1Gbps down, 200Mbps up. 3.1 which isn't fully deployed but is available in most major markets is up to 10/1. I think the main issue is in how Comcast allocates the different channels. They prioritize download because it also serves TV customers, while upload is only used for Internet.
  - u801e 6y ago
    > 3.1 which isn't fully deployed but is available in most major markets is up to 10/1. By 10/1, do you mean 10 Gbps down and 1 Gbps up?
    - mynameisvlad 6y ago
      Yep. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS for the down/up of each version. The theoretical maxes are far higher than the current offerings.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    >I think the main issue is in how Comcast allocates the different channels. They prioritize download because it also serves TV customers, while upload is only used for Internet. Comcast has an inherent conflict of interest, in that they are a middleman for high margin TV subscriptions. Better internet obviates the need to purchase TV subscriptions from Comcast, so I would conclude they're dragging their heels on purpose.
conradev 6y ago
My understanding is that it is going to take a lot of capital investment from Comcast to fix that because their entire (copper) infrastructure is optimized around downloads. That is because the entire network was designed around cable TV, which is primarily downloading data. Newer fiber installations are better designed to handle uploads.
- tw04 6y ago
  Yes, DOCSIS does have a download/upload ratio. But DOCSIS 3.1 (required for gigabit down) has a 200Mbit upload limit, they are artificially capping it far lower and should have no issues supporting 100mbit up on a gig down plan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS
- joncrane 6y ago
  Maybe they can use the billions they got paid to upgrade their infrastructure from the government decades ago.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    I love how this myth has morphed over time. Not only did nobody get "paid billions to upgrade their infrastructure from the government." But even insofar as you assert that lifting rate regulations (where the government tell you what prices you can charge) is the same as "getting paid billions" that was for telephone companies, not cable companies like Comcast. But don't get facts get in the way of Political Truth (TM).
    - Jailbird 6y ago
      Leaving billions aside, they were granted local monopolies in many places due to their investment. One might argue they have not been good stewards of that responsibility.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        Those have been illegal since 1992. Almost none of the infrastructure in use today was built under those protections from competition.
justapassenger 6y ago
You’re overthinking it. I’ve worked at enough big companies to be 100% sure it’s not elaborate, long term evil plan to keep people from competing with them. They do that because it’s cheaper that way for them, and majority of users don’t complain.
- tw04 6y ago
  >They do that because it’s cheaper that way for them, and majority of users don’t complain. How is it in any way cheaper for them? You can't buy a network switch or router that's anything but symmetrical up/down. Comcast itself doesn't pay transit bandwidth, they strangled all the backbone providers out of existence and acquired them, they're all straight peering agreements, with some smaller players paying them. This is 100% a scheme to prevent consumers from hosting servers and video feeds.
  - jcrawfordor 6y ago
    The entirety of the equipment used by Comcast for cable internet delivery (modems and CMTS) are built for non-symmetric service because it is designed into the standard. Further, most cable carriers face technical constraints that prevent them rolling out service much faster than DOCSIS2.0 to customers (20mbps up) while downstream upgrades are much easier. The design of the cable system is fundamentally asymmetric, cable having formerly been a broadcast medium, and so upstream improvements generally require complete replacement of equipment in the field.
    - tw04 6y ago
      None of that is applicable to OP. He has gig down, that's DOCSIS 3.1 with a 200Mbit upload limit. Comcast is artificially limited upload speeds, it would cost them absolutely nothing to raise his upload to 200Mbit - the Modem and CMTS HAVE to support it in order to be DOCSIS 3.1 compliant. Ignoring the fact I don't think ANY of comcast's network is DOCSIS 2.0 and hasn't been for nearly a decade.
      - 6y ago
lacker 6y ago
I see it as upload is for creation and download is for consumption. Nowadays, I see it as upload is for Zoom, download is for everything. It used to be basically okay to have slow upload speeds, but in an era when everything from kindergarten to the workplace requires video conferencing, good upload speeds are more important.
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  I wouldn’t think kindergarten will still be on zoom when this legal change starts to have a measurable impact. Nor do I think many poor households even in the midst of the pandemic have someone working over zoom. So is the point of this legal change to ensure well paid employees can reap all the benefits of remote living but not have to bear all the costs?
  - briffle 6y ago
    Your forgetting medical virtual visits, which can allow people in rural areas (and people without reliable transportation) the ability to have conversations with their doctors. No more driving to the city, just to go over the lab results for the bloodwork you did 2 days ago. Not to mention, virtual visits with other groups that help the poor, such as apply for assistance.
    - bradleyjg 6y ago
      Why can’t you do that on a phone? I don’t live in a rural area and I’ve spoken to lots of doctors on the phone.
- linsomniac 6y ago
  Even at gigabit Xfinity service, when both my kids were on remote school video chats, and I was trying to do a work meeting, my work meeting was definitely struggling. Thankfully, 3-4 months ago I was able to get symmetric gigabit provided by the city, and that problem has been entirely resolved.
jcrawfordor 6y ago
Most cable carriers, prominently Comcast, have issues with legacy channel allocations (e.g. for the On Demand feature for legacy Motorola STBs) that conflict with the channel allocations required for the higher upstream speeds supported by DOCSIS 3.0 and 3.1. This results in a de facto situation of upstream speeds being constrained to only a very small portion of the up to 2gbps upstream capability of 3.1, due to only having typically 3 QAM channels for upstream. Unfortunately, eliminating these issues requires large-scale replacement of not just equipment in the field (nodes and amplifiers which are broadly all being replaced anyway to support Node+Zero architecture) but equipment in customer homes: the legacy STBs. Cable carriers have found in the past that getting people to turn these in to swap out for newer models is excessively expensive in customer goodwill, and less so cost, so there's a major technical disincentive to such a change.
- SaltyBackendGuy 6y ago
  Sounds like an operational risk on an RCM somewhere in the ivory tower. Instead it's cheaper to stay competitive through regulatory capture. I wish bribing politicians was more expensive than providing a better product </r>
  - ta8645 6y ago
    So we need to elect greedier politicians who wont accept a pittance as a bribe. </s>
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      Or just create a system that selects from a pool of already independently wealthy candidates.
      - LordDragonfang 6y ago
        People don't become "independently wealthy" by saying no to money, they do it by grasping at every bit they can. Wealth is positively, not inversely, correlated to greed. We literally just saw what happens when you put an "independently wealthy" in the oval office, he took a 10 million dollar bribe to greenlight an oil pipeline. Cap political donations per person and ban corporate donations. Money is not, and should not be legally considered, speech.
koolba 6y ago
> Anyhow at the risk of this turning into a multi page rant about comcast I'll cut back to upload speed. I see it as upload is for creation and download is for consumption. What do the cable companies want people to be doing? Fun fact: Comcast does not even show you the upload speed by default on their speed test page. You have to click an extra "details" section for it to run the upload part of the test. Otherwise you just see the single download number.
- katbyte 6y ago
  That’s what Shaw here in Canada does, even gigabit cable was also limited to 25 up until recently where it was bumped up to 100
- DrewRWx 6y ago
  To be fair, you also have to click on "details" on https://fast.com/ https://fast.com/ to see your upload. Other than aesthetics I can't think of why they would want to hide it.
  - toast0 6y ago
    Fast.com is Netflix, which doesn't have meaningful uploads, so they don't care.
sologoub 6y ago
Ditched Xfinity for AT&T fiber a year ago - symmetrical 1Gbps up and down is sooooo nice, well was anyways. Moved since and back in cable hellscape. They should just require that symmetrical connection is provided or at least is an option. After using it for a year, I’d gladly pay extra for it. 300/300 would probably serve most home applications well and 500/500 or 1Gbps/1Gbps for power users/demanding wfh.
- Frost1x 6y ago
  After being forced to live with cable most my life since shifting away from dialup, fiber has been an absolute joy. I pay for 400mbps through Fios but get something like 500d/300u. It's stable, no capping non-sense I've experienced and only slightly more per month (I think I pay 20% more than cable) yet service is significantly better (I think I have 2.5-5x download before and 10-20x upload rate). I have no desire to go back unless Verizon or one of its competitors decide to change drastically. What they're doing right now is fine, I don't even think about network service, it autopays and just works how I need it when I need it. First time I've been able to enjoy the pleasure of having fiber at home and not just work.
SkyPuncher 6y ago
> their website doesn't list upload speeds I believe they're required to publish something called a "rate card". If you search "[name] internet rate card", you should be able to find a PDF type document listing service and rates.
- nimos 6y ago
  Interesting - unfortunately less useful than the website. [0] Doesn't even list download speeds. Just has the ever so helpful names like "Blast! Pro+" and "Extreme Pro+". Admittedly there is one called "Gigabit". [0] https://comcaststore.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/wk/urc/585bc3605bcd10375b2cee90/high_res/UW0000053_sik_high_res.pdf https://comcaststore.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/wk/urc/585bc3605b...
  - SkyPuncher 6y ago
    Ah, bummer. My ISP (and several in my area) have all of their information clearly laid out in their rate cards.
fireball_blaze 6y ago
Basically, the cable company stance is "640k ought to be enough for anybody."

by nimos 6y ago

lettergram 6y ago

Reason I went AT&T fiber was actually the dual up and down. I get 1Gbps up which helps uploading photos, videos, etc.

nimos 6y ago
Choices were between xfinity and sonic dsl (25 down) for my building. Nob Hill SF. Tried to get monkeybrains or webpass to install in building but didn't hear back from either.
- lettergram 6y ago
  I used to live in Alameda, internet is way better where I’m at now in rural Illinois tbh. I think the corruption in many places are what seriously hamper development of fiber networks.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

vondur 6y ago

I think the upload limit has something to do with the Docsis protocol that most of their equipment operates (cable TV) under. I believe that the newer version protocol (Docsics 4) should allow for much greater speeds, up and down. I have no idea how long it will take these companies to update to this version.

nimos 6y ago
My modem is docsis 3.1 which supports gigabit upload. 3 supported 200 mbit. Maybe something to do with intermediary infrastructure.
mynameisvlad 6y ago
The current widely deployed version, DOCSIS 3 supports up to 1Gbps down, 200Mbps up. 3.1 which isn't fully deployed but is available in most major markets is up to 10/1. I think the main issue is in how Comcast allocates the different channels. They prioritize download because it also serves TV customers, while upload is only used for Internet.
- u801e 6y ago
  > 3.1 which isn't fully deployed but is available in most major markets is up to 10/1. By 10/1, do you mean 10 Gbps down and 1 Gbps up?
  - mynameisvlad 6y ago
    Yep. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS for the down/up of each version. The theoretical maxes are far higher than the current offerings.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  >I think the main issue is in how Comcast allocates the different channels. They prioritize download because it also serves TV customers, while upload is only used for Internet. Comcast has an inherent conflict of interest, in that they are a middleman for high margin TV subscriptions. Better internet obviates the need to purchase TV subscriptions from Comcast, so I would conclude they're dragging their heels on purpose.

conradev 6y ago

My understanding is that it is going to take a lot of capital investment from Comcast to fix that because their entire (copper) infrastructure is optimized around downloads. That is because the entire network was designed around cable TV, which is primarily downloading data. Newer fiber installations are better designed to handle uploads.

tw04 6y ago
Yes, DOCSIS does have a download/upload ratio. But DOCSIS 3.1 (required for gigabit down) has a 200Mbit upload limit, they are artificially capping it far lower and should have no issues supporting 100mbit up on a gig down plan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS
joncrane 6y ago
Maybe they can use the billions they got paid to upgrade their infrastructure from the government decades ago.
- rayiner 6y ago
  I love how this myth has morphed over time. Not only did nobody get "paid billions to upgrade their infrastructure from the government." But even insofar as you assert that lifting rate regulations (where the government tell you what prices you can charge) is the same as "getting paid billions" that was for telephone companies, not cable companies like Comcast. But don't get facts get in the way of Political Truth (TM).
  - Jailbird 6y ago
    Leaving billions aside, they were granted local monopolies in many places due to their investment. One might argue they have not been good stewards of that responsibility.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      Those have been illegal since 1992. Almost none of the infrastructure in use today was built under those protections from competition.

justapassenger 6y ago

You’re overthinking it. I’ve worked at enough big companies to be 100% sure it’s not elaborate, long term evil plan to keep people from competing with them. They do that because it’s cheaper that way for them, and majority of users don’t complain.

tw04 6y ago
>They do that because it’s cheaper that way for them, and majority of users don’t complain. How is it in any way cheaper for them? You can't buy a network switch or router that's anything but symmetrical up/down. Comcast itself doesn't pay transit bandwidth, they strangled all the backbone providers out of existence and acquired them, they're all straight peering agreements, with some smaller players paying them. This is 100% a scheme to prevent consumers from hosting servers and video feeds.
- jcrawfordor 6y ago
  The entirety of the equipment used by Comcast for cable internet delivery (modems and CMTS) are built for non-symmetric service because it is designed into the standard. Further, most cable carriers face technical constraints that prevent them rolling out service much faster than DOCSIS2.0 to customers (20mbps up) while downstream upgrades are much easier. The design of the cable system is fundamentally asymmetric, cable having formerly been a broadcast medium, and so upstream improvements generally require complete replacement of equipment in the field.
  - tw04 6y ago
    None of that is applicable to OP. He has gig down, that's DOCSIS 3.1 with a 200Mbit upload limit. Comcast is artificially limited upload speeds, it would cost them absolutely nothing to raise his upload to 200Mbit - the Modem and CMTS HAVE to support it in order to be DOCSIS 3.1 compliant. Ignoring the fact I don't think ANY of comcast's network is DOCSIS 2.0 and hasn't been for nearly a decade.
    - 6y ago

lacker 6y ago

I see it as upload is for creation and download is for consumption. Nowadays, I see it as upload is for Zoom, download is for everything. It used to be basically okay to have slow upload speeds, but in an era when everything from kindergarten to the workplace requires video conferencing, good upload speeds are more important.

bradleyjg 6y ago
I wouldn’t think kindergarten will still be on zoom when this legal change starts to have a measurable impact. Nor do I think many poor households even in the midst of the pandemic have someone working over zoom. So is the point of this legal change to ensure well paid employees can reap all the benefits of remote living but not have to bear all the costs?
- briffle 6y ago
  Your forgetting medical virtual visits, which can allow people in rural areas (and people without reliable transportation) the ability to have conversations with their doctors. No more driving to the city, just to go over the lab results for the bloodwork you did 2 days ago. Not to mention, virtual visits with other groups that help the poor, such as apply for assistance.
  - bradleyjg 6y ago
    Why can’t you do that on a phone? I don’t live in a rural area and I’ve spoken to lots of doctors on the phone.
linsomniac 6y ago
Even at gigabit Xfinity service, when both my kids were on remote school video chats, and I was trying to do a work meeting, my work meeting was definitely struggling. Thankfully, 3-4 months ago I was able to get symmetric gigabit provided by the city, and that problem has been entirely resolved.

jcrawfordor 6y ago

Most cable carriers, prominently Comcast, have issues with legacy channel allocations (e.g. for the On Demand feature for legacy Motorola STBs) that conflict with the channel allocations required for the higher upstream speeds supported by DOCSIS 3.0 and 3.1. This results in a de facto situation of upstream speeds being constrained to only a very small portion of the up to 2gbps upstream capability of 3.1, due to only having typically 3 QAM channels for upstream. Unfortunately, eliminating these issues requires large-scale replacement of not just equipment in the field (nodes and amplifiers which are broadly all being replaced anyway to support Node+Zero architecture) but equipment in customer homes: the legacy STBs. Cable carriers have found in the past that getting people to turn these in to swap out for newer models is excessively expensive in customer goodwill, and less so cost, so there's a major technical disincentive to such a change.

SaltyBackendGuy 6y ago
Sounds like an operational risk on an RCM somewhere in the ivory tower. Instead it's cheaper to stay competitive through regulatory capture. I wish bribing politicians was more expensive than providing a better product </r>
- ta8645 6y ago
  So we need to elect greedier politicians who wont accept a pittance as a bribe. </s>
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    Or just create a system that selects from a pool of already independently wealthy candidates.
    - LordDragonfang 6y ago
      People don't become "independently wealthy" by saying no to money, they do it by grasping at every bit they can. Wealth is positively, not inversely, correlated to greed. We literally just saw what happens when you put an "independently wealthy" in the oval office, he took a 10 million dollar bribe to greenlight an oil pipeline. Cap political donations per person and ban corporate donations. Money is not, and should not be legally considered, speech.

koolba 6y ago

> Anyhow at the risk of this turning into a multi page rant about comcast I'll cut back to upload speed. I see it as upload is for creation and download is for consumption. What do the cable companies want people to be doing? Fun fact: Comcast does not even show you the upload speed by default on their speed test page. You have to click an extra "details" section for it to run the upload part of the test. Otherwise you just see the single download number.

katbyte 6y ago
That’s what Shaw here in Canada does, even gigabit cable was also limited to 25 up until recently where it was bumped up to 100
DrewRWx 6y ago
To be fair, you also have to click on "details" on https://fast.com/ https://fast.com/ to see your upload. Other than aesthetics I can't think of why they would want to hide it.
- toast0 6y ago
  Fast.com is Netflix, which doesn't have meaningful uploads, so they don't care.

sologoub 6y ago

Ditched Xfinity for AT&T fiber a year ago - symmetrical 1Gbps up and down is sooooo nice, well was anyways. Moved since and back in cable hellscape. They should just require that symmetrical connection is provided or at least is an option. After using it for a year, I’d gladly pay extra for it. 300/300 would probably serve most home applications well and 500/500 or 1Gbps/1Gbps for power users/demanding wfh.

Frost1x 6y ago
After being forced to live with cable most my life since shifting away from dialup, fiber has been an absolute joy. I pay for 400mbps through Fios but get something like 500d/300u. It's stable, no capping non-sense I've experienced and only slightly more per month (I think I pay 20% more than cable) yet service is significantly better (I think I have 2.5-5x download before and 10-20x upload rate). I have no desire to go back unless Verizon or one of its competitors decide to change drastically. What they're doing right now is fine, I don't even think about network service, it autopays and just works how I need it when I need it. First time I've been able to enjoy the pleasure of having fiber at home and not just work.

SkyPuncher 6y ago

> their website doesn't list upload speeds I believe they're required to publish something called a "rate card". If you search "[name] internet rate card", you should be able to find a PDF type document listing service and rates.

nimos 6y ago
Interesting - unfortunately less useful than the website. [0] Doesn't even list download speeds. Just has the ever so helpful names like "Blast! Pro+" and "Extreme Pro+". Admittedly there is one called "Gigabit". [0] https://comcaststore.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/wk/urc/585bc3605bcd10375b2cee90/high_res/UW0000053_sik_high_res.pdf https://comcaststore.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/wk/urc/585bc3605b...
- SkyPuncher 6y ago
  Ah, bummer. My ISP (and several in my area) have all of their information clearly laid out in their rate cards.

fireball_blaze 6y ago

Basically, the cable company stance is "640k ought to be enough for anybody."