{also technically worded}
>Hmm, Cable Modems are a nice idea...but when they catch on they will suck
>big time. xDSL (ie. ADSL) will come out right about the time that people
>realize that cable modems are junk. Reasons for this:
ADSL is *still* going to be slower than a cable modem. Plus, you're still
going
to be paying per-minute charges to the phone company. At least with our
service, for one flat rate you get unlimited useage.
>1. With a cable modem you share your bandwidth with your nieghbor...so
>when you next door nieghbor is downloading a 50MB video clip your
>performance will suffer.
No. Maybe with some companies that do a half assed job of it, but we have
enough bandwidth to go around. Plus, we only have something like 50 people per
node. We have 5,000 people online in North/Central NJ and Monmouth County. No
one has yet complained. Plus, we are prepared to upgrade if and when the need
arises. Remember, one connection point isn't serving all of the users - only a
handful.
To quote the webpages (
<http://www.comcastonline.com/>http://www.comcastonline.com )
>
> As users increase how will my connection be affected?
> Because all internet connections require sharing of network bandwidth at
some
> point, additional users can lower speed. However, Comcast@Home has a better
> architecture than any telephone Internet access. In addition, because we
> don't require you to buy modems, we can implement speed improvements for you
> without requiring that you spend any additional money. These constant
> improvements in cable modem technology and our aggressive performance
> monitoring will ensure you will always have speed orders of magnitude beyond
> a traditional telephone modem.
>
> Will I be able to maintain speed during rush hour?
> Comcast@Home is more than just a cable modem connection to the often
> bottlenecked Internet. Through the use of @Home's proprietary network
> technology, we can maintain high speed connections that are consistently as
> well as considerably faster than dial-up or ISDN offerings at highly
> competitive prices.
For an even more technical explanation:
<http://www.home.com/corp/network.html>http://www.home.com/corp/network.html
>2. Most cable systems in the US are still pretty much monodirectional,
>meaning you can only send data or recieve data one way (usually recieve).
>So many Cable Modem users may also find them selves using thier phone line
>to send data.
*IF* your cable company does it that way, then yes. Their cable modems
wouldn't
be as good as our service. However, many cable companies will have to start
upgrading to bi-directional soon - if only to offer interactive TV, etc. Even
then, your downloads will still be faster than a xDSL connections. And your
uploads (of which might only be a few mouse clicks, and email...) would of
course be the standard 28.8/33.6/56k. I don't know much about the mono
directional system, since we offer bi-directional.
>3. They have poor security, little Johnny down the street can get his
>Packet Sniffer to hijack your information more easily and faster.
And what's stopping him from doing that over your dialup? I can only speak for
my service, but I know that we have measures to stop that.
>4. Cable Companies oversell thier bandwidth. They provide you with a 5MB
>modem, but they have a $80,000/month T3 (45MB) bill to pay (including local
>loop). So in order to make money on that they will really oversell that
>line, again your performance suffers.
You don't know what you're talking about. Maybe *your* cable company does
that,
but we don't. All we do is provide the infrastructure, the @Home network
handles the bandwidth and net security issues.
>5. Oh and of course you Cable Company provides the techincal
>support...yeah I might want them telling me how to fix my problems...for
>those of you that have had problems with your CableCO, you know what I mean.
Oh, and you want some ISP lackey telling you how to fix your computer? And who
hasn't had problems with their phone company? I'll wager that your phones go
out
more often than your cable does. Oh... how reliable is ISDN? Oh, and how much
do you pay a month for it?
*Even IF* cable modems dropped to ISDN speeds, you're still ahead because
1) You don't have to buy the ISDN Modem ($150-$200)
2) You don't pay per minute charges (usually .02 a minute)
3) You don't have to deal with the baby Bells
>6. Cable companies will start 'limiting' your speeds...but they will
>provide burst speeds at offday times (1AM-3AM). This is how they get around
>4, but you still end up with a different result.
You know so much about this. Where are you getting your information from?
>So why is xDSL better? because it isn't subject to 1,2,3 or 5. And
>depending on how responsible your ISP is when xDSL comes out, he won't
>oversell his bandwidth either. Reasons against xDSL:
You forget that it's also slower.
Why is your ISP suddenly so responsible?
>1. Distance limit. Most xDSL modems must be 18,000ft or closer to the
>telephone switch in order to get decent speed. This isn't really a problem
>except for the 45% of US residents and don't live in cities or the suburbs.
>The other 65% of US residents will have no trouble with xDSL.
Oh great, so nearly *half* of the nation won't be able to use it. Hmm.. cable
has no distance limit! =) And a larger chunk of people have cable in their
area.
>2. Finding an ISP to support it. This will be tough at this time, but by
>the time xDSL comes out I don't think it will be a problem. Cable Modem
>equipment is more expensive and less upgradable than xDSL
>equipment...another plus for xDSL. So don't expect your little ISP to do
>xDSL right from the getgo...he'd go bankrupt.
How is the equipment less upgradable?
>IMHO, niether 1 nor 2 is as drastic as 1 thru 5 reasons against using a
>Cable Modem. #1 and #2 will eventually be nullified once xDSL is popular
>enough and the telephone companies ad new switches.
Yeah... It'll catch on, just like ISDN did - as a toy for the rich.
>At $40 a month you would need 4000 people to use it just for the cable
>company to pay its T3 bill each month. Lets say that they do get 4000
>people, thats 20000MB of data that they would possibly have to handle, and a
>T3 only handles 45MB. So now you see will see speeds even lower than your
>current modem. Of course inorder for them to make a profit and buy new
>equipment they will need more than 4000 customers.
We're not leasing a T3! Microsoft just invested $25M in ComcastOnline. I don't
know how they make their money, but they do, and their stock is doing pretty
well. Remember, Comcast only supplies you with the connection, not the net
access. @Home has ways of making their money.
>Ben its nice while it lasts...but unfortunatly many people will buy into the
>Cable Modem idea and get very angry that it sucks. In my area Lower Bucks
>Cablevision has no plans for Cable Modem Internet Access at all. I don't
>blame them...
If you haven't seen it, or worked on it, then you might think that. I've seen
with my own eyes what it can do. I've seen the setup, I've read the tech
papers
on it. It will blow away ADSL (which isn't even around yet) both in speed and
price. It surely blows away dialup ISPs and ISDN now.
But, you admittedly need a cable company that does it the right way - and is
comitted to the project. Comcast has dumped huge sums on money into this
project - I don't think that they're going to eff things up.
>Wait for xDSL! Or some new technology! ;-)
Blah. You mean, wait to send baby Bell checks of upwards of $100 a month for
internet access? No thanks.
(This is my last post to the list on this matter.)
BEN RUSET - http://www.monmouth.com/~bruset
Safety Fast & MG Cars Webring - http://www.infi-pos.com/~oasis
|