AT&T FastAccess DSL vs. Comcast High-Speed Internet

If you want high-speed Internet for your home or business in the Atlanta area, there are basically two major players--AT&T and Comcast. Sure, if you're lucky enough to live in the right area, you might get by with and 4G cellular connection or even 3G alone, but those options are best for lite or individual users.

So what are the pros and cons of each service? AT&T's entry level services start pretty cheap at about $20. Even at the high-end the service is still less than $50. And my experience has been that FastAccess DSL is both consistent and reliable. The reliability means that you'll have nearly 100% uptime and that your Internet access won't be affected by storms and the like. If your POTS phone is operative, your DSL likely will be too. And the consistency means that you can expect to get roughly the same speeds from your service around the clock regardless of what your neighbors are doing online at the time.

On the other hand, Comcast High-Speed Internet is wicked fast. It may be the fastest Internet service that I've ever personally used, commercial or residential. By eliminating several analog television channels (which has it's own drawbacks) Comcast has been able to free up bandwidth for more digital and high-definition channels. They've also been able to increase their top tier speeds to an advertised 50 Mbps downstream and 10 Mbps upstream using DOCSIS 3.0. They have branded this service xfinity.

Using speedtest.net, I was able to clock xfinity downloads at over 61 Mbps down, although I only got about 4.6 Mbps up.  Of course this is still an order of magnitude faster than the same test on FastAccess DSL which got 5.74 down and 0.43 up. Interestingly, the two services were far more even on pingtest.net, with both having ping times of around 25 ms and jitter in the 10 ms range. Again, the DSL scores showed far less variance than the cable scores.

So what's the downside of xfinity? Well, for starters it's expensive. Outside of the introductory rate, the top tier service will cost you $90-$100 per month. And with 100 Mbps downstream in the works, that top tier will only get more expensive (though I suspect very few people will need it). Also, the cable Internet service was not quite as reliable as the DSL connection. Not only do the speeds vary a lot above and below what's advertised, but the connection drops during the day for a few minutes at a time. It's a minor nuisance depending on what you're doing at the time, but it seems that it is a common occurrence among cable modem users.

Finally, Comcast has a fixed bandwidth cap of 250 MB per month regardless of which plan you use. That may be fine when you're surfing along the Internet at 8 Mbps, but at 60+ Mbps it's possible to eat up 250 GB in about a week of consistent use. Telling people that their limits don't increase with their speeds is like telling a 16-year-old that you're upgrading him from a bicycle to a car but that he can still only ride around the neighborhood. In contrast, AT&T has no monthly limit that I've seen. I suspect that AT&T's infrastructure is less prone to one heavy user consuming all the bandwidth.

Comcast gave me a call and warned me that my use was excessive this past month and that another infraction could get my service terminated. Now I'll have to decide whether to upgrade to a more expensive business class service which has no caps but includes a number of extras that I'm not interested in or to just downgrade to a slower speed or DSL. Admittedly, I think it would be hard to leave sustained speeds that are 10x what I've been accustomed to, but unless Comcast realizes that 250 GB was an adequate cap back in 2007 but now needs updating, I may have little choice but to go back to DOCSIS 2 or DSL.

Windows 7 vs. Snow Leopard

Windows 7 was released for general availability today, and there has been no shortage of digital ink extolling the virtues of the new operating system.  The reviews have been mostly favorable and indicate that Windows 7 should be a marked improvement over it's immediate predecessor, Windows Vista.  Not surprisingly, this has led to a countless number of comparisons between Microsoft's latest release and Apple's Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, which was released less than two months ago.  Most of those comparisons, like this CNET Prizefight, give kudos to both operating systems, but give the nod to Snow Leopard.  And I have to ask--are they running a different operating system than I am?

I have been running various betas and release candidates of Windows 7 for almost a year now.  And I have only one problem with it (which I'll mention below).  I haven't had any blue screens of death or system crashes, nor have I had any application crashes.  The somewhat annoying user access control dialogs of Windows Vista have been nearly eliminated.  And the application compatibility seems to be even higher than it was with Vista.  I was able to get Serious Sam running, a game that hasn't worked properly since Microsoft released Windows XP Service Pack 3.

My one problem with Windows 7 has been with the lack of drivers for the new system.  I'm a bit of a packrat (my wife would say that's an understatement), so I am still using hardware from the early 90s, e.g. my HP LaserJet 6L parallel printer.  Unfortunately, there's no driver for that printer on the Windows 7 disc, and neither HP nor Microsoft seem to have any interest in releasing one.  And while that's a bit disappointing for me, it's also completely understandable from a business perspective not to support hardware that's 15 years old.  My printer remains hooked up to an older laptop that actually has a parallel port and just enough memory to run Windows XP.

Contrast this with my experience using Snow Leopard on two computers.  I've already had a few total system failures through kernel panics, something that never happened to me over the three years that I was running 10.4 Tiger or 10.5 Leopard, even on non-standard (read, hackintosh) hardware.  Applications crashes seem to happen to me a few times a week.  Sure, I used to have to restart Firefox, a notorious memory sieve, after running it continuously for weeks at a time.  But now it happens with Cyberduck, muCommander, VLC--you name it.

And that doesn't even include the applications that no longer work since the upgrade.  VLC required an update after I upgraded to Snow Leopard.  My CLEAR drivers still don't work (though I blame the Clearwire/Motorola folks for that).  Current reports suggest that Apple won't support Boot Camp for Windows 7 across their entire line of Intel-based Macs.  I can't imagine the furor that would erupt if Microsoft or vendors stopped supporting four-year-old hardware.

Don't get me wrong, Snow Leopard is an incredible operating system with an interface that has lines as clean and modern as an Apple store.  And I still run my Macs continuously for weeks at a time without a reboot necessary.  But when compared directly against Windows 7, I find Microsoft's OS to be just as elegant and even more stable than Snow Leopard.  I still see that Mac OS "wait for it" spinning beach ball more than I like.  So in a head-to-head comparison (which I don't necessarily find to be especially valuable) I would have to give the nod to Windows 7 based on my own anecdotal experience.

Ironically, when I'm doing computationally intensive browsing tasks, I actually find myself using Linux a lot more these days.  Not only is it very stable, but the multitasking is nice and smooth, even under a load.  It seems to make good use of limited resources even on older systems.  It doesn't have the application support that Windows and Mac OS have, but it provides an A-1 user experience.

My Problem With Apple

The New MacBook (Oct 2009)I've been a Mac user for a little over three years now.  In fact, I daresay that my fingers spend as much time on the keyboard of my MacBook as they do on any other computer.  I'm not an expert, but I am comfortable with Mac OS X and can get all but the most specialized computing tasks done with it.

And I really like Mac OS X.  I've been a UNIX user in some capacity for decades now, so the file structure and command-line Terminal are very comfortable to me.  Mac OS is a rock solid operating system.  I routinely run my MacBook for a month at a time, putting it to sleep between sessions, and usually only doing a reboot after installing a system update that requires it.  Mac OS leans on it's tried-and-true BSD heritage to create a remarkably sound computing experience.

But it's not an experience that comes cheap.  Many journalists have compared Macs to luxury vehicles like BMWs and Lexuses, where you pay not just for the functionality of the vehicle but also the refinement and attention to detail.  There's also an element of prestige that isn't bequeathed upon the owners of say, a Chevrolet or Kia.  Those comparisons to luxury vehicles are apropos.  Apple has long been recognized for it's outstanding design in everything from its iPod line all the way up to its Mac Pro towers.  The hardware and the software are well-designed and well-integrated.  The latter is what gives Macs their legendary stability, and the company charges a premium for it.

I don't necessarily mind paying that premium for a quality product.  As the kind of guy who will own multiple computers at any given time, it's okay to me that one or two of them are pricier models from the Mac lineup.  It's hard to argue against the design superiority of the Mac even if its actual dollar value is debatable.  But I hate feeling like my choice for that superior design comes at the expense of raw power.  I consider myself a power user.  If I have a faster CPU, I'll throw more processes at it.  If I have a larger hard disk, I'll store more files on it.  Give me a bigger monitor, and I'll open enough windows to make your head spin.

So I'm always left wanting when I see a new lineup of Macs emerge that don't use the latest CPUs, GPUs, or hard disks, especially when PC-style laptops have already had better technology on the market for months.  It would be like BMW having a 200-hp V6 engine at the top of their lineup.  It would probably be harder to recommend paying the extra for the luxury if the core performance didn't match up to a car costing half as much.  I hate feeling like my decision to go for the superior design comes at the expense of performance.

So even though my three-year-old MacBook is feeling long in the tooth, I'm not sure whether I'll be upgrading to another MacBook.  I haven't ruled it out yet, but Intel's recent announcement of new mobile i5/i7 processors certainly makes the mobile PC laptops a lot more tempting.

Blockbuster Partners with TiVo, Others

After watching for years as upstarts like Netflix and Redbox eroded their customer base, Blockbuster has finally launched a few salvos of it's own in the war for movie viewers.  Notably, Blockbuster has partnered with DVR maker TiVo to provide an On Demand service which will allow users to rent and purchase movies through their TiVos.  Rentals will start at $2.99; purchases will start at $7.99.

But Blockbuster didn't stop there.  Samsung will also have Blockbuster On Demand available through select broadband-capable telelvision sets and Blu-ray players.  What is most interesting is that none of these new deals in the video rental/streaming/purchase space are exclusive.  Not only have the content providers (Blockbuster, Netflix, Amazon, etc) struck deals allowing them to show up on multiple devices, but the device makers (TiVo, Roku, Samsung, LG, etc) all have agreements with multiple providers.  Until a clear pair of winners emerges, everybody is hedging their bets at this point.

For those of us who don't have to watch the latest movie release of the week, Netflix streaming is a great perk on an already really good service (movie rentals by mail).  Though it doesn't contain every movie, there's a lot to like in its library, enough to give most viewers a way to scratch the impulse viewing itch that deliveries by mail can't reach, and there's no additional cost to use it.  However, Blockbuster's and Amazon's rental services work on Series 2 TiVos, while Netflix streaming requires the faster processors of HD-capable Series 3 TiVos.

I suspect that the low-tech, low-budget crowd will still find their local Redbox kiosk to their liking, as it requires no additional equipment.  That means that Amazon may take the biggest hit from Blockbuster's entry into this space.  If Blockbuster can match the movies that people want to see with the prices they're willing to pay for them, it may allow them to stay competitive and relevant as movie viewing habits continue to shift away from disc pickups at brick-and-mortar stores.