[jrref]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.


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 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).


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.



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.

Not to disagree with most of what you are saying, you have your own opinions on the topic but what most are missing is although you are correct, the service becomes shared at some point when it gets to the ISP, the buffering is occurring from the home to the ISP which is shared with cable and not with fiber. And buffering issues will depend on where you live in the Villages.

At the end of the day, most people here in the Villages are cost driven so they will tend to go with the cheapest solution and not necessarily the "better" solution. The cable companies know this and right now they are "taking a beating" so they play on this. The big problem with cable is the industry knew that customers would eventually cut the cord but the rate that this has been happening is faster than anyone imagined which is causing them to diversify by selling cell phone service, for example, in order to stay in business. I don't have a problem with Xfinity or Spectrum except for their business model where they try to bait you into signing up for a promotion then forever try to raise you to their full price rates. There are a lot of people who live here in the Villages who have the ability to re-negotiate with the cable companies but there are also a lot who don't have this ability and many of those are unfairly paying full price to subsidize those promotions. Just look at the folks in the Bonita area where these was not choice in providers untill recently. Almost all were paying full price for everything and no deals because the cable companies knew this area, for example had no choices for wired interner providers.

So, if you can get fiber at a reasonable price that meets your needs then that is the "best" service you can buy right now no matter what the cable companies offer you. And this was the initial question the OP was asking.