[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by jrref

Sorry, Copper cable is susceptible to water, moisture, and all kinds of buried environmental attacks. Also, it's also susceptible to all kinds of emi/rfi interference expecially from lightning and cable systems need to be periodically powered from your home to the ISP which fiber does not. Known fact, fiber, overall is more reliable or Internet providers woould still be deploying copper cable which they are not. In fact, just the opposite.

The saying goes, "When you hear hoofbeats things horses not zebras," yet just the other day there actually was a zebra. Yes, copper is susceptible to some of those problems but they are zebras AND fiber is susceptible to many of them as well.

Cable systems need to periodically powered from your home? Sure, you have to provide power to the cable modem but you also need to provide power to the ONT. Where is the difference?

Providers are deploying fiber for cost and bandwidth. More fibers in a smaller space enables connecting more customers. I didn't write that fiber wasn't the best choice for new installations, I wrote that cable networks can be just as reliable.

Now are you saying Xfinity or Spectrum is just as reliable as Quantum? Different question. All three companies are very reliable just with the cable companies you are always getting promotions that you have to constantly re-negotiate. And the technology is totally different.

Yes, I am saying that in theory, the technology used by Xfinity or Spectrum networks can be just as reliable as Quantum. I am ALSO saying that in reality, service reliability (a function of the maintenance) is a consideration. I had zero problems with Xfinity service while I was a customer - Quantum can match that but they can't beat that.

Business practices and price are also considerations but are less important. If you only chase price then the phrase, "You get what you pay for," comes into play. I am not at all interested in renegotiating my price every year; in fact, I'm willing to pay a little more to avoid playing those games. Likewise, a company that gains a reputation for an odd interpretation of the term "price for life" is not attractive to me either.

As mentioned, when people reach out to me for help connecting to Quantum, a significant number say they are tired of the buffering at prime times, and this will vary depending on where you live here in the Villages, along with the need to reduce their monthly costs. The reduction comes with the internet service and getting rid of cable and moving to streaming.

Remember, cable is a "shared" connection with good download but terrible upload speeds where fiber is a "dedicated" connection with the same download and upload speeds.

As you know, both cable AND fiber are "shared" connections at some point. That point is different with the two technologies and the amount available for sharing is much higher with fiber but both technologies have limits. Proper provisioning can avoid ever reaching those limits.

The characteristics of fiber allows for higher upload speeds. This is not an issue for me but can be an issue for certain use cases (multiple camera feed stored in the cloud, recording OTA TV to the cloud, probably some gaming, etc).

The need for speed was mentioned. In many cases, cable subscribers sigh up for the higher speeds so when they sometimes get "slow-downs" during peak times they still have enough speed to do what they want. With fiber there is no need for that.

I think in many cases subscribers sign up for the higher speeds due to marketing. Many users on here have mentioned the 500Mbs or Gbps speeds they are paying for but few have ever mentioned why those speeds are needed. There aren't enough people in my household to watch all the televisions that it would take to utilize the bandwidth I currently have, I sure don't need to double that.

Quantum tells me their most popular plan is 940Mbps plan for $65. I have no idea whether that is true but I'm sure the statement drives people towards that plan. Their bottom tier plan is $45 for 200Mbps so look at that, I can get 370% more bandwidth for only $20. I can pay $0.23/Mbps or I can pay $0.07/Mbps - the more economical 940Mbps plan is the clear choice. But I am not using the entire 200Mbps, much less 940Mbps! If I only need a cup of milk then it doesn't matter that the price per ounce is cheaper if I buy the quart since I will be throwing most of it away. Paying extra to waste milk once doesn't make sense, doing it every month is foolish - the same goes for spending more to purchase bandwidth you will never use.

You have mentioned the slow-downs during peak times frequently. I have never seen that but I can imagine that it could happen with a poorly provisioned network - including a fiber network. Providers can offer higher speeds on fiber networks because the technology supports it and because they know the subscribers won't actually utilize it. However, as they route more and more subscribers through the same concentrator and as devices start utilizing more of the bandwidth even "dedicated" fiber networks will start to have slow downs. It will be interesting to see how long that takes.

Finally, did you know, one of the most common ways an induced lightning power surge can enter your home and damage and or destroy your sensitive electronic devices is through the cable line? It happens a lot and most do not know or install any surge protection on the incoming cable line to their home. The protector costs about $29.95 on Amazon.

Well, since there are only a few pathways for an induced lightning power surge to enter a home and since many homes here don't have metal gas lines, metal water lines, or telephone lines, the remaining pathways become "most common."

$30 is very small amount to pay to protect a $1,000 television but debatable for a $200 cable modem that might be covered by the provider. In all the years I've had cable into my home or satellite dishes sitting on the roof I have never had a problem with lightning but yeah, it does happen.