Time Warner Cable: Demand Not There for Google Fiber
dslreports.com
dslreports.com
Based on the amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth surrounding Google's initially small fiber roll-out, I would say that demand is, in fact, there.
That said, by being a virtual monopoly in many of their markets, Time Warner's management might live in some sort of echo chamber. They very well might not recognize "demand" if it was staring them in the face. I'd also argue that the limited consumption of Time Warner's higher-speed offerings might have more to do with their overall QoS than lack of demand. How many people would buy a $50 steak at McDonald's, given their experience with McDonald's $5 hamburgers?
Not virtual. Actual. I, like 80% of the US, have no choice in my cable/Internet provider.
> I'd also argue that the limited consumption of Time Warner's higher-speed offerings might have more to do with their overall QoS than lack of demand.
When you choose the speed for your Internet package on Time Warner, you're literally choosing how much you want to donate to them each month in exchange for whatever speed they feel like giving you. In fact, when you go log into your account online, they make it almost impossible to see what speed you're paying for (and they certainly don't tell you in your bill).
Amusingly, they also implement DNS-based throttling, as my roommate and I found out one evening. The solution is obvious, though not for non-techies.
Just to be clear, they're delaying the response time of their own DNS servers as a method of throttling?? If that's what you mean, it fails on several levels (use a different DNS, only works on first lookup, does nothing for large file downloads, etc.)
Please tell me I'm reading this wrong.
Yes, it's really pointless.
> use a different DNS
That's how we first realized that this is what was happening (we spent some time testing this out to confirm it). It's impossible to say for sure on our end, but it seemed that was the case (as opposed to their DNS servers simply being overloaded, for example).
Amusingly, the trigger is downloading large files - we were downloading an Ubuntu ISO at the time (> 1 GB) that we first noticed this happening.
Sadly, I have to agree with Time Warner. While gearheads like myself (a sometime work-from-home software engineer) have a constant craving for the fastest internet speed, the general population cares more about keeping costs low. So for a typical family with a laptop or two, and maybe an XBox and a tablet, 6Mbps might suffice. In our house, we have 4 Android tablets, 3 Android phones, 1 iPad, 2 laptops, 2 desktops, 1 media player, 1 Skype video phone, and a security camera DVR that streams over IP all using the same internet connection.
I live in an area where Time Warner offers 50Mbps internet, so I took advantage of it. I previously had 24/3Mpbs AT&T U-Verse, which was the fastest internet available in my old neighborhood. But even among techies, I think we're atypical...a simple poll of 6 of my coworkers revealed that most had 6Mbps or slower connections, and these are all software engineers. One was considering getting 18Mpbs U-Verse, but he hasn't yet.
So it looks like the demand just isn't there yet.
Same here, at least for home use. I mean, I like the idea of ludicrous speed downloads, but in terms of my day-to-day life, an extra 50 or 100 or 1000 MB of bandwidth isn't going to make much difference to me. I rarely, if ever, find myself constrained by my home broadband connection (which is, indeed, TWC).
I got a postcard in the mail from them just last night, announcing that they've increased my bandwidth by 50% with no rate increase, and instructing me to reboot my cable modem to see the new speed. I didn't even bother to do the reboot, since it just isn't terribly useful to me. I'll bother to do it when I happen to be in the room where the modem is.
This refrain reminds of feature-phone users in 2005, before the iPhone, Android, or the mobile web in it's current form. Many people saw the appeal of smartphones, but professed they just didn't think they'd use them all that much.
I'd agree with that. I'm not saying there won't ever be a need for the extra bandwidth, just agreeing that there probably isn't widespread demand for it right now.
Many people saw the appeal of smartphones, but professed they just didn't think they'd use them all that much.
Heh, now there's a mindset I can't understand. I was champing at the bit for what we'd now call a smartphone, in like, 2000. I desperately wanted a phone sized device with a real browser and ubiquitous wireless broadband. It sucks that it took so long for it to happen. Actually, to that point, there is where I'd appreciate more bandwidth... my 4G (or so-called 4G) wireless data connection. :-(
But at least offer decent upstream to match it. The simple fact is that you often get barely enough upstream to transfer the TCP ACKs needed to utilize your downstream. It's the television model translated to the Internet, where consumers are just that: people consuming data and content. Not creating them.
(I have a gigabit fiber connection myself and it hasn't made all that much of a difference in my day-to-day life)
- Streaming games
- 4K TVs
I am sitting at 50 Mbps and when I have two Netflix streams going + background downloading of something on steam you could see how my connection would slow down. Obviously I am an edge case but remember more consumers are going to turn what seems like an edge case now into the norm.
In these situations folks who can't compete should just be quiet and figure out a plan. But they aren't, and often they don't. Sales folks are particularly hard pressed to say "Yup, that is a much better product than I've got to sell here." in part because their salary depends on them not saying it.
Prior to Google Fiber, I would not have seriously considered moving to Kansas City, even though my sister lives there. That goes from non-starter to 'hmmm....' which means a lot more to Kansas City than it does to Comcast. And ultimately, it is towns and cities that Comcast has to worry about, not the 'lack of demand' they profess to observe.
I know this is a played out quote, but this is essentially the same circumstance. You could go further and even say that there wasn't any demand for the Internet at all. Until we had it.
True be told, Internet infrastructure is probably more important than transportation infrastructure. Having said that, a 16 year old with high speed Internet access bares more fruit than a beginners permit, in my experience. Fast Internet transcends a community.
At my old apartment I had 50mbps Time Warner (Rochester, NY). At my new apartment I, I have 105mbps Comcast (Charleston, SC).
Whether they'll ever offer 1gbps, I don't know, but 105mbps isn't exactly the 5mbps average that the rest of the country has either.
I have a 120Mbps residential connection. I's more than sufficient for me, and I'm probably in the 99th percentile in terms of residential bandwidth use.
Is there a technical reason that modern cable-Internet bandwidth is asymmetric? My download rates are acceptable for me, and if the upload rates were the same I'd be happy.
The former is how Googlers work. I suggest GNU Screen + tramp.
There is a very good reason, so they can get more money out of you to buy the faster/larger service.
- There is significantly less spectrum available for upstream channel use than downstream channel use. (Something like 37 MHz vs. 500-800 MHz.) This means cable operators have to be very frugal with upstream channel allocations and can't reasonably bond together enough upstream channels w/ DOCSIS 3.0 to give everyone symmetric up/down speeds.
- Upstream channels are a shared medium using TDMA (time division), which introduces overhead to prevent multiple transmitters (cable modems) from transmitting on top of one another. However, even if your cable modem was the only device on the network, it wouldn't get all of the available upstream timeslots for sending data.
- Upstream channels use a less spectrally efficient modulation scheme than downstream channels in order to keep bit error rates low. (The upstream channels are noisier than the downstream channels.) Given identical channel widths, worse spectral efficiency means fewer bits per symbol means less data sent per time unit.
First, the spectrum allocations were originally driven by the need to deliver video signals that were compatible with analog TVs. Now that TV's are going digital, this might change the requirement for the traditional frequency split for upstream/downstream.
There is no "physical" reason why you couldn't have a 400Mhz upstream range that matches a 400Mhz downstream frequency range. There isn't anything special about coax. It's just RF in a constrained medium.
But they don't.
I think that comment pretty much sums up the mentality of the teleco monopolies. They are artificially constraining the supply of bandwidth.