Slashdot

Comcast is another company whose commercials strike me as pure lies and misinformation based on a grain of truth

As a general rule of thumb never trust claims made in an advertisement. One of the great things about the Internet is that there are a plethora of sites out there that you can turn to get a better idea of how products and services really work. I rarely buy an expensive product or service these days without checking it out first.

Well, the problem is they advertise "speed" and "availability", neither of which are really decent metrics. Speed is a crap metric because it's a scalar (math) quantity, and most often is measured by peak, rather than average, or worst-case. And "Availability" depends entirely on the service level agreement. If the power goes out, does that count toward availability? No, because "they" can't control it. Routine maintenance on their network? Nope. Lightning strike? Nah. So they can say almost whatever they want and get away with it because of some clever word-play. You'll be careful to note that in these endless commercials about high speed internet from any company they're careful to never put any number in it except the phone number to call. So it's not so much that they're lying -- it's really more that they're speaking sweet nothings, which is perfectly legal (and disingenuous).

Us geeks know that network performance isn't a scalar (math) quantity. Bigger numbers don't mean shit. It's the matrix of bandwidth (in bytes), latency (in milliseconds), packet loss (a percentage), all averaged over a long enough time-frame (hour, day, week, month, or billing cycle) to account for all systemic variables (bandwidth caps, network load averages, etc) is what matters.

I suppose you could derive from this information a weighted index, but it would still be largely useless to the average consumer. The problem is when you get down to brass tacks, different users have different needs. A heavy game player's internet needs will likely be low bandwidth, but low latency. A few milliseconds of extra time, or a few lost packets, will make that user's experience very poor. Someone who has an internet-TV has a large need for bandwidth, but latency is not an issue (even if the transfer is delayed by hours it might not matter). And then there's the little old grandma who doesn't do anything but check her e-mail and read CNN. If it wasn't for latency problems, she could be using a modem and never know the difference between either. Especially if she installed Vista -- god, network latency is nothing when it takes 8 seconds to render the downloaded page.

Comcast delivers an acceptable experience to a certain class of internet users and has crafted their service accordingly. The problem is that this service isn't tiered or can be adapted to serve several different markets. There is only one service, one market, and if you don't like it--you may not have any other options. Comcast is constrained by a need to maximize profitability, minimize costs, and is using an infrastructure which they are unwilling (or unable) to modify to deliver an acceptable experience to a larger user-base. There's no competition in most of its markets, and hence no reason to invest in doing so. The lack of competition ensures that Comcast's prices will continue to inflate while the number of customers who receive an acceptable experience will fall.

The bandwidth caps being imposed now are not the (direct) result of TV-over-internet competing with its internet offering, and instead the logical result of a lack of competition with its internet service. Any business in the same position and market(s) as Comcast would be doing the exact same thing, because Comcast doesn't exist to bring internet to the masses, so we can all celebrate the information age and live in peace, tranquility, and gigabytes of free porn. They exist to make money for their shareholders.

And the reason why service is shit in so many parts of this country isn't because of Evil BigCorp and their profiteering ways, but rather;

a) Infrastructure costs are a very high barrier to entry into the market. The United States is a big place with a low population density (taken as a whole) compared to other geographical regions like, say, Japan. The cost per customer is higher because there's a lot more wire and

While to believe the commercials from the larger players, there will never be absolutely seamless coverage across the nation because ..

1. There are places nobody lives (or it's economically unfeasible to cover)
2. Transmit powers are 1/12 of what they were in the analog era
3. They can't just throw a tower up anywhere

Back when analog bag phones were the norm, I never found anyplace without coverage .. why? Because on analog they had a nominal 3 watt transmit power on the phone, which let you have towers dozens of miles apart and still get a reliable signal. Today's mobiles operate at .25 of a watt or less, and since the 3G spec devices currently at or becoming the norm are based on CDMA technology (CDMA or WCDMA/HS?PA), the transmit power will only go down based on the load of the tower. (Under CDMA, the transmit power decreases when the load rises, lowering the noise floor and allowing more devices on the tower, with the net effect of creating islands of service if the network has hot spots and they don't plan accordingly).

As far as towers and stuff are concerned, I remember reading an article from upstate new york about a stretch of state highway that had pristine views, and a very high mortality rate in the winter because nobody had cell service up that way. The local government bodies sued and cajoled the cell carriers to build coverage, but wouldn't let them put the tall towers up to allow service in an economically feasible way. Net result, no coverage and more death, but the view was still great.