Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Comcast reluctantly agrees to stop its misleading "10G Network" claims

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 145 posts

Re: Comcast reluctantly agrees to stop its misleading "10G Network" claims

#131

Post by sschueller »

trogdor wrote: post #128
sschueller wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay CHF 64.75 (~USD 75) a month for 25gbit symmetric in Switzerland. I can not understand how they can get away with charging 200+ for 10G. That is nuts. But we have providers selling bullshit here too. One such provider claims 5G wireless is the equivalent of fiber. Sells 1gbit but actuall throughput is bellow 300mbit even with the best tower. Theoretical max is 2gbit but their equipment can't even do 1. Misleadin…

That kind of speed is wild. What kind of switching hardware does 25 gigabit symmetric require? Do you have 25GbE to Thunderbolt adapters for your computers?

Only to the router right now: https://sschueller.github.io/posts/wiring-a-home-with-fiber/

Rest of the network is 10G.

Re: Comcast reluctantly agrees to stop its misleading "10G Network" claims

#132

Post by askiiart »

rconti wrote: post #11
starttoaster wrote: post #10

I thought it was pretty well understood, to anybody paying attention at least, that there have been no official 6, 7, 8, or even 9G mobile networks yet, so of course 10G was a slightly quicker name for 10Gbps networking. It's maybe not an industry standard, but colloquially many datacenters will call a 10Gbps-capable network switch a "10G switch." This seems like an extension of that colloquialism to general consumer…

| to anybody paying attention at least Maybe they don't think you should have to follow the industry to know what a company's advertising means? It pissed me off to no end to hear the monopolist advertise their "10G network" ("with speeds starting at 200Mbps") It was CLEARLY meant to mislead.

It wasn't long ago that 5G was the new shiny thing, and I remember that the flood of ads for cell carriers were constantly saying that they had the newest 5G ultra-wideband tech or whatever. Even the vast majority of my relatives know that 5G is the latest *G thing. Very few people would miss 4 G's.

I hate to advocate for Comcast of all companies, but I'm actually on their side for once. They definitely should've had their employees explain what it meant to people if they seemed unsure, which I have serious doubts about, and saying they have a "10G network" when availability for 10G is very limited is rather dubious, but calling 10Gbps internet "10G" is fine with me.

If we're gonna go after ISPs for shady shit, why not go after Spectrum for not listing their upload speed anywhere, not even for their business plans? Comcast at least lets you see what you're actually buying before paying, but with Spectrum you just have to try it out or do some google-fu to find a PDF listing the upload speed for some* of their business plans, and then just hope that ths speeds are the same on the nearly-equivalent consumer plans.

Re: Comcast reluctantly agrees to stop its misleading "10G Network" claims

#133

Post by nativeit »

Schnitz wrote: post #112
datway wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast’s behavior often depends on whether there is broadband competition in a local market. That would explain your experience and the other guy’s.

This! 2 weeks ago my internet started dropping for 1-2 minutes at a time, 3-5 times per day. The modem status page tells the tale, millions of uncorrectable errors, SNR below spec on several channels, and the event log shows all the disconnects. Neither their chatbot, nor the first level human support however will entertain any possibility except it being an issue with "the website you are using" or "your TV" or "you…

At this point, whether I’m speaking to my ISP or Amazon, I tend to demand a supervisor immediately, and in many cases, a supervisor’s supervisor. I refuse to speak to someone whose entire job is to _prevent_ me from receiving effective support.

Re: Comcast reluctantly agrees to stop its misleading "10G Network" claims

#134

Post by lotsofpulp »

trogdor wrote: post #130
lotsofpulp wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know how coax internet works, or how the channel allocations work, but it seems to me if they can offer 2Gbps/200Mbps already why can't we opt for a channel reallocation and get like 1Gbps symmetrical, or at least 1Gbps/500Mbps or something? Because they cannot actually offer it, it is all marketing bullshit. Always assume coaxial upload bandwidth is slim to none. They probably just advertise a burst speed…

How do burst speeds work? What is happening when you get, like, 10X faster upstream speed - for an instant - and then it drops back to its normal crawl?

I assume they take it from the neighbors, which is why you never see coaxial cable internet providers advertise upload bandwidth. They only ever state download, and even then, those are also burst speeds, so you assume if you buy 100Mbps down from coaxial you only get 50Mbps or less sustained.

Because they are heavily oversubscribed and don’t want to invest in fiber infrastructure to increase capacity.

Re: Comcast reluctantly agrees to stop its misleading "10G Network" claims

#136

Post by kevingadd »

niuzeta wrote: post #107
kevingadd wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They thanked me for my loyalty as a business class customer when I moved by charging me money for equipment I had returned + continuing to bill me after I cancelled and had moved away from the location. I ended up having to go through a local regulator to bludgeon them into submission, at which point an upper management level Comcast employee called me on the phone and begged me to sign a paper to make the regulatory…

> I ended up having to go through a local regulator to bludgeon them into submission I would love to hear more in details on this. I feel like I am going to have to do something like this but not sure where to begin the research.

I forget exactly what I did, but it was an FCC complaint. Here's what one of Comcast's executive customer relations officers sent me after the FCC complaint was processed (with parts removed):

I am writing in response to the FCC file received in our office on December 2, 2014 regarding your request for the disconnection of your Comcast Business Service. I apologize for the inconvenience and frustration this has caused.

I have forwarded your concerns to the Business Services Group and you should be contacted by a representative concerning this issue. If you have any further questions, please contact me at ----------, ext. ------- and I will be happy to forward any questions or concerns you have to the correct group. Thank you for your time.

Re: Comcast reluctantly agrees to stop its misleading "10G Network" claims

#137

Post by [deleted] »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #127
epcoa wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These numbers are from the FBA themselves, I don’t see how it is in their interests to lie that way (they have anticonsumer reasons for not doing so, this is not a defense). I’m more inclined that you’re experiencing sampling bias. Infrastructure is clustered - fiber or anything like that is not “few and far between”. More like large swaths have coverage within deserts. If you’re always looking two doors from the hou…

> These numbers are from the FBA themselves, I don’t see how it is in their interests to lie that way. I’m more inclined that you’re experiencing sampling bias. Infrastructure is clustered - fiber or anything like that is not “few and far between”. More like large swaths have coverage within deserts. If you’re always looking two doors from the house in the desert, it too does not have water. I don’t know why they wou…

[deleted]

Re: Comcast reluctantly agrees to stop its misleading "10G Network" claims

#138

Post by robbiewxyz »

It's discouraging that the goalposts (Overton window?) have been shifted so far that "company reluctantly agrees to stop harmful actions" is where we all pack up and go home. Like that's table stakes right? How about forcing them to divest the entire product line that benefited from misleading branding? Then we can claim a win.

My current mindset is that campaigning for legislation to override e.g. Citizens United is the only hope of reversing this trend. Does anyone have other suggestions on other ways forward to stem the escalation of US corporations' abuse of the rest of us?

Re: Comcast reluctantly agrees to stop its misleading "10G Network" claims

#139

Post by deepfriedchokes »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #102
deepfriedchokes wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulatory capture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture In Capitalism, eventually capital owns everything.

That's true by definition in all systems, since capital consists of all the stuff that can be owned. It's not very interesting; tautologies tend not to be.

Mate, I think you’re being a bit pedantic, which doesn’t add anything to the conversation.

Re: Comcast reluctantly agrees to stop its misleading "10G Network" claims

#140

Post by dcplaya »

happytiger wrote: post #65
smegger001 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought my own router and modem before I signed up for their service as they were the only internet provider in my apartment building at the time. I viewed it as a preemptive measure against bullshit equipment rental fees. Everytime I have had to interact with them since they have tried offer me extra services (none of which I want) for free or reduced price if i would use their shitty box.

Did you get hit with the “no bandwidth cap” if you use their equipment or the $15 a month charge for using your own equipment or a combination thereof? Because that’s their official policy in many places (it’s insanely unethical and barely hidden consumer exploitation of fees).

I have that where I am... Total bullshit. But I make sure I use it as much as I can, download tons of stuff to just delete it 30 seconds later.
Post reply on HN