Verizon: Cablevision's 101 Mbps Broadband a "Parlor Trick"


Earlier this evening, a Verizon (s VZ) spokesperson sent out a link to a post on Verizon’s blog about the recently announced 100 Mbps broadband offer from Cablevision (s CVC), a Bethpage, N.Y.-based cable company. The offer was a “parlor trick,” Verizon said. That argument is one we’ve heard often when it comes to cable broadband.

With today’s technology, you don’t have to break much of a sweat to deliver 100 Mbps to a few customers. But given the inherent limits of the cable platform, a cluster of bandwidth junkies living near each other could be a real problem. One estimate is that a single 101 Mbps customer would use some 60% of the capacity in a neighborhood. Other users? Outta luck.

DSL Reports’ Karl Bode has the best response to that charge. “We watched Cablevision completely take the brakes off of DOCSIS 2.0 by offering consumers uncapped (in the true sense of the word) 30Mbps connections, and the company managed to survive the last three years without any sort of ‘coaxapocalypse,'” he writes.

I had the same thought and had a back-and-forth with Verizon’s spokesperson, who essentially said that GPON is a better technology option and they deliver what they promise. Fair enough — I have yet to hear anyone complain about bandwidth delivered by Verizon’s FiOS. At the same time, no major hue and cry has broken out over Cablevision’s cable broadband performance. Cablevision is selling broadband to half the homes in its service area, so any problems would be aired pretty quickly.

To me, Verizon’s response to the Cablevision offer shows that they are finding themselves on the back foot. They don’t have a 100 Mbps service. Cablevision’s offer puts pricing pressure on Verizon’s 50 Mbps offer, which costs upwards of $140 a month. Any price competition gives Verizon, which has spent $23 billion on its FiOS buildout, fiscal heartburn.

I bet we haven’t heard the last of this battle of broadband service providers. That’s OK — I’m glad to see that at least in one part of the country, broadband competition is working and resulting in better options for consumers. I wish that were the case in San Francisco.



all i got to say is i got the 101 and the speed is crazy check my speeds out


Actually, it’s not really competitive yet. Verizon is refusing to install FIOS in limited areas where Cablevision is served. For instance Cablevision provides service to Edison and Piscataway NJ, however Fios is not offered in many parts of Edison or Piscataway. FIOS has made it to areas faster where Comcast or other providers are because of, I believe, this price war.

Competition is good – don’t get me wrong. But I have to say I still think broadband connections are just way too high. Yes, sure they’re cheaper than they were years ago, but compared to areas like Asia and other overseas areas, the US is getting gouged.

Small Business Website Design

Whilst I appreciate your issues Guys, you should try living in the UK and putting up with our pitiful broadband experience. Overprices, slow, unreliable broadband provide by companies who couldn’t give a damn about their customers. I currently use BT, the biggest telecoms provider in the UK and pay the equivalent of $45.00 a month for about 3-4G bandwidth. Not good!


Problem is, Cablevision can’t go much above 101 Mbps without cannibalizing tv bandwidth FWIU.

Verizon’s current infrastructure can go up to 400 Mbps without borrowing from FiOs TV. They can offer 101 Mbps any time they want, its just a matter of pricing it and turning it on.

I have had FiOs for 3 years, it broke once (last week), and they had a tech onsite and the problem repaired in 3 hours from the time of my call. Turns out a circuit just needed to be rebuilt from the office as a change had been made.

Besides that, nothing has ever happened to my FiOs in 3 years, and the speed NEVER fluctuates.

I am tempted to switch to the 100 Mbps though, if for no other reason than on a cost per Mbps basis, its an amazing value – just $20 more than my 25/25 Mbps FiOs.

Verizon is doing much better with FiOs where it competes with Time Warner cable, which from what I understand, is simply abysmal, especially in Staten Island.

Cablevision is a completely different animal, they are an outstanding cable company with great prices, products, and service. Much better than TW or Comcast.


I live in edison, NJ where cablevison has monopoly. In my community there almost 70% people are IT professional. Cablevision’s speed in my area sucks many times in a day. It just crawls many times specially after 7pm and during weekends. I guess it is because many people watch here internation channels and movies online about same time. We have been experiencing this since almost 2 years. We complained cablevison but no improvement yet. We don’t have any other alternative to high speed internet here not even DSL. I have wrote verizon numerous times to introduce FIOS here. I am confident that most people in my community will switch to verizon.

Dave Burstein


Verizon has hundreds of employees in Cablevision territory. For less than they are spending on pr people to get their opinion out, they can set up a statistically valid sample and give us a report of what Cablevision actually is delivering. Evidence like that is far more believable than any press release, and I’d be happy to report it.

I’ve been watching this closely since they started rolling “100 megabit” service in France and Japan. It’s 160 megabits shared, so if heavily used would rarely come close. In practice, so few websites can serve even 10 meg that actual congestion is very rare. Users around the world report speed test results of 80-100 meg routinely (if their computer is set to handle it.) Realworld users get the thrill of that speed rarely, but the results when connected to something like a nearby Akamai server to download the latest Microsoft update do very well.

The performance will go down when the networks are more heavily loaded, but as you note the experience on 36 meg shared current generation cable has been amazingly good. One MIT professor wrote that he routinely gets 20 meg download. With the higher 160 meg capacity, the sharing should be even more successful.

I’m being cautious until we have loaded networks, and I say that 160 meg DOCSIS 3.0 is 50 meg 95+% of the time, which is darn good for most of us. I think the results will be closer to 50 meg 98% of the time and 100 meg a good majority of the time from deployment until 2015-2020, as Internet traffic grows. Fortunately, DOCSIS 3.0 is speced to a full gigabit shared, and chips are already announced that are twice as fast at 320 meg. There will be room to upgrade, especially with SDV freeing capacity.

In addition, DOCSIS 3.0 upstream is starting to deploy, and I reported from the Cable Show that Comcast intends to deploy millions of lines starting about 9 months from now. That’s 120 meg up, with some technical problems, but I believe will reach 50 for most people most of the time.

Verizon needs to get us evidence or look very foolish.

Vlad (Small Business Blog)

As I have pointed in the comment above – speed itself is a marketing gimmick, it’s how useful that speed to your specific needs, that’s what count. In my case if I am unable to run at least an FTP server at home (I do full backup of clients’ web sites nightly and weekly) – then the connection is worth additional 50 to 100 dollars a month, because that means I have to run an additional dedicated box somewhere…


Ya know, I don’t give a damn about the actual throughput…100 mb/s sounds great to me and I am willing to throw money down on it, even if I only consumer 5 mb/s…. :-)

Verizon, like with the iPhone recent PR, is a bunch of PR globby-gue and sour grapes. I, for one, love to see the competition duke it out while I reap the rewards.

Luis Rodrigo

While many of these discussions tend to focus on technical superiority of one architecture over another, what I see missing is the discussion about the economic attractiveness of the architecture. It seems to me while Verizon’s architecture arguably might be superior, if looked at from a financial ROI or IRR perspective, I would think that the cable architecture is much more attractive. Hence, there is more leeway to offer a compelling price point to the subscriber.

Sholom Brody

I live in Brooklyn, NY (An area served by both Cablevision and FIOS). I have had Cablevision service for 3 years now. I have been subscribed to the plain 15/2 plan and have consistently received those speeds. The network is rock solid. I consider myself a heavy user and get downloads of 1.5 MBps consistently. One of my neighbors was sold into FIOS with the “faster speeds” argument. He reported that his connection was good in the beginning, but now after many other people got it, it got slow.


If a FiOS customer’s bandwith gets “slow” then they need only call and report the trouble. PON systems will absolutely ensure a committed rate to each subscriber. It’s how they’re designed.

Josh Auerbach

I’d echo Benoit’s and others’ comments. Cablevision now clearly has the technical capacity to deliver 101 Mbps in the last mile. Whether or not they take the required steps (in terms of node-splitting, backhaul from the head end, etc.) to provision that bandwidth adequately is a separable question, but certainly not a question on which Verizon would have much insight now.
The real test will be comparing Cablevision’s speed — as delivered — to Verizon’s. My guess is that Cablevision will do just fine in that comparison. It’s not a “parlor trick” if it works.

Benoit Felten

One could argue that Verizon calling out on Comcast is the pot calling the kettle black. GPON has a downlink of 2.5Gbps shared between (most likely in the case of Fios) 64 customers. Do the math, you won’t deliver 100Mbps to all customers either.

Now I don’t know exactly which implementation of Docsis 3 cablevision has and how it shares the bandwidth, but it’s most likely not all that complicated.

As for price wars, it gives Verizon a heartburn for the wrong reasons. I’ve been doing a lot of analysis on the FTTH business plan and in fact am publishing a report on that topic next month, and I think Verizon has a number of options to optimise their business model even if there is competitive pressure…

I’ll be happy to share that with you Om if you’re interested!

Vlad (Small Business Blog)

Verizon lacks (so far) the so-called “geek option”, the one that has made the Boost attractive to me (and, probably, other geeks). With all the nice speed and all – Verizon doesn’t let you run OpenDNS and anything on ports 21 and 80. From my personal small-business-owner perspective – they may have 50Gbps connection – it’s just as useless as 50MBps.

However, I am myself very much interested in your report. Hope Om will publish a link when it’s ready.


Concerning FiOS, it is true: port 80 is blocked. However, port 21 is OPEN on my end; i know this as i run an ftp server. I agree, the bandwidth offered isn’t everything, but what you can do. at a time, the tos stated that you could not abuse fios for high-volume purposes, but nothing about running servers. Except it may be different now. Nevertheless, verizon has been known for liberal use, and most celebrate verizon for taking a stand against the RIAA when they subpoenad customer info. <- although that part may only apply to potential illegal downloaders.


While Silicon Valley isn’t seeing 100 Mbps service from Comcast or AT&T yet – Comcast is now turning up their improved Cable Modem services in several cities here in Silicon Valley.

After resetting the Cable Modem at home today, I noticed that my existing “Blast” service which had been topping out at 5 Mpbs downstream last week has indeed doubled to rates of 11 Mbps to 14 Mbps downstream and 3.5 Mbps upstream.

There is an option to move to a Docsis 3.0 modem for $10/month more for speeds of 22 Mbps/5 Mbps. Haven’t been tempted to try that yet.

So while I wouldn’t declare victory yet, we are seeing improvement. An encouraging sign indeed.


Oops, the last few “words” in my previous post are typos. Sorry, I’m on my iPhone.


it makes you wonder if they are simply saying that because they have competing services or if it is actually true. I would hope the speed claims are correct but seems like such a jump from the average service in the US that it seems unlikely to be actually true. I have a feeling that this is a slight over exaggeratoon of the typical steady transfer rates. I feel lucky to be able to get a little over 10 Mbps. I would just about kill for 50 or 100 Mbps! You hwarthat , acid


You can’t analyze a technical issue by surveying blogs for opinion?

Cable bandwidth is inherently limited because the local loop ‘cable’ is shared! Cable was not designed for internet data, it was installed to deliver a fixed (and limited) number of one way TV channels. Get a couple of customers in the same area running bit torrent and all other users will slow to a crawl.

The only way to deal with the technical limits of cable is to throttle users with caps… which totally defeats the point of having 100 Mbps speed. It just means you are able to hit the cap within a couple of hours instead of taking the best part of a month to hit it.

Any comparison between cable internet and ANY competing technology that uses a dedicated channel between the exchange to each customer (ADSL) will always see cable as a loser! Obviously if you’re a cable company it’s better to perpetuate the illusion that isn’t the case.

DG Lewis

Every architecture has shared infrastructure somewhere. ADSL2 can give you 24 Mb/s dedicated to a single customer – but the uplink is shared. Put out a DSLAM serving 512 subscribers with a single GigE uplink, and you’re averaging 2 Mb/s per customer. GPON shares 2.4 Gb/s among 32 or 64 subs – so you’re averaging either 75 or 37.5 Mb/s per sub – but again, chances are you’ve got a single GigE uplink, averaging 31.25 or 16.625 Mb/s per sub.

Everyone shares, and everyone has oversubscription ratios somewhere. “Dedicated” versus “shared” is a red herring – the questions are what is the overall capacity of the system (end to end), how is it engineered, and how competent is the network operator in managing the network capacity (as Josh Auerbach alludes to below). And how cost effective it is to deliver that capacity, as Luis Rodrigo points out below.


Actually, the uplink capability on Verizon’s GPON platform far exceeds the capabilities of a DSLAM architecture. Their latest deployments use Motorola Optical Line Terminals. The Motorola uplinks scale to 20 Gbps with a roadmap to 40 Gbps. When you consider the burst capability per PON and the substantial uplink headroom, cable doesnt stand a chance in the long run. The key word is “long run”. Cable operators can bond 2 to 4 cable paths to achieve significant throughput but they cant possibly scale it for sustained general service offerings. Not a problem for them today, but it wont be long before the fat lady sings for cable.

DG Lewis

PBXTech – Yes, GPON uplink far exceeds DSLAM uplink, but again, the limiting factor is engineering, not theoretical capacity. While a GPON OLT is theoretically non-blocking all the way through (switching capacity and uplink capacity equal to or greater than access capacity), I would wager that VZ isn’t dropping 20x10GbE links onto every OLT.

In the long run, we are all dead… In the slightly less long run, there’s nothing that limits DOCSIS bonding to only four channels. DOCSIS 3.0 specifies 8-channel bonding, and if memory serves, TI and Broadcom have both announced silicon supporting this, available to ship 3Q09, upping the total data bandwidth on DOCSIS 3.0 networks to 300 Mb/s. Subsequent standards can increase the number of bonded channels as necessary.

Cable HFC plant with DOCSIS 3.0 and subsequent standards, combined with total digitization and switched digital video to free up QAMs and some aggressive node splitting will provide pretty darn good capacities. No, it won’t match GPON or future PONs – physics is physics, and fiber has more raw capacity than coax – but it’ll be good enough, significantly cheaper, and require gradual capex spending rather than throwing $B at the network in a small number of years. An 8-channel bonded DOCSIS plant with 20:1 oversubscription, 125 HH per node, and 50% take rate gives average capacity of 93 Mb/s per user – on par with GPON with a 32-customer split. And the MSO will have a number of tools to increase the capacity – higher degree bonding, node splits, adjustment of oversubscription ratios, load balancing across colocated nodes, some of which require no capex.

The CableGuyNY

“Cable bandwidth is inherently limited because the local loop ‘cable’ is shared! Cable was not designed for internet data, it was installed to deliver a fixed (and limited) number of one way TV channels. Get a couple of customers in the same area running bit torrent and all other users will slow to a crawl.”

you dont know anything about cable.Cable was FIRST and the fastest internet service since 1997? and it will keep it like we moving to docsis another 5 or 6 years we will be with docsis 4.0 and u`ll see a huge improvement Cables is FAST,SIMPLE and is EVERYWHERE!


Ok I admit it, it’s the 3rd time this month SBC has called to offer me, no really, there new Super Fast DSL, instead of the dam fiber I want (and tell them not to call back without)… and of course comcast is nowhere near to doing anything exciting in my neck of the woods. I ‘Hate’ the lack of competitive pressure in these region.


“I wish that was the case in San Francisco.”
Or anywhere in the north bay for northern cal for that matter. Why the frigging heart and edges of silicon frigging valley is allays on the absolute ass end off of every roll out schedule is pretty dam irritating.

Comments are closed.