tobyTroy Mcclure join:2001-11-13 Seattle, WA |
to ender7074
Re: whoopiesaid by ender7074:10 Gb connection with what kind of cap? Nice speed but not worth it if they are going to institute BS caps on the service. 1Gb cap |
|
|
|
to skuv
Re: Those be backbone speedsOut of curiosity what standard is used for internet backbones then since I thought that was built largely on OC-X? |
|
Lazlow join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO |
to majortom1029
Re: hmmIt really should not be all that expensive. They should be able to use the same fiber just replace the equipment on both ends. |
|
|
to chimera4
Re: Those be backbone speedsIt's still rated in OC since OC is just the designator for optical carrier.
They are working on a new rating system soon , Thanks to the guys at alcatel hitting 100 petabits in the lab. |
|
|
So, OC-X doesn't actually have any relation to the number of fiber channels or frequency bands being used then? Good to know, I thought it actually was a reference to some sort of layout scheme and not just a measure of raw speed. |
|
|
to gatorkram
Re: IPTV reason to upgrade?I dont think a change to IPTV would make a difference. Theoretically, IPTV would take up less space since only one stream would be sent at a time. Just look at Uverse vs. basic cable. Instead of sending a standard broadcast signal, Uverse uses IPTV, which uses roughly 7mbps. Im not sure exactly how much space a broadcast stream takes up, but one could imagine if it were less than IPTV, Uverse would utilize it. |
|
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
1 edit |
I've been waitingI've been waiting for that CRAP called FIOS to be available in my area since 2005, so that means that the 10 Gbps will be available in 2050 or later? |
|
1 recommendation |
more details pleaseI'd like to know if this is 10gbits per port or per node? Still, most of these companies are kinda afraid of the applications customers will use 100/100, or any symmetric bandwidth above 20 megabits upload for anyhow. The amound of VIDEO allegedly pirated these days is staggering, imageing when the spigot of REAL next gen symmetrical bandwidth is AFFORDABLE (ie 100/100 for maybe $75 per month, or less UNBUNDLED, no contract required). Unless these companies start lowering the price of bandwidth tiers, a 10gbits connection can run you a mortgage payment ($1500+ a month, and that's only when you buy the phone line, and/or cable-tv too haha). |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
to Radio Active
Re: Correctionsaid by Radio Active: It's all fluff, smoke and mirrors. How many consumers' computers can actually utilize/process that kind of bandwidth? NONE...yet! But imagine a sigle fiber able to handle a medium business location, or a apt. complex/hotel or a personal server farm (don't forget the cost of the service, plus the power requirements/bill) By the time this reaches end user deployment, there will be demand (one drives the other) |
|
1 recommendation |
Because we're abandoning our DSL customers!Nice Verizon. Brag about technology useless to 80% of your customers. But fail at replacing your copper infrastructure.
I wish the Verizon execs would be forced to live on dialup and no wireless nearby.
Can you hear me now?
Enjoy the Snow Easterners!!! |
|
|
to sameshtdd
Re: IPTV reason to upgrade?i am pretty sure tv is on a different wavelength then internet right? |
|
majortom1029 |
to Lazlow
Re: hmmThey sold off some network already to install fios in their busier parts. Look up the fairpoint deal. |
|
majortom1029 |
to tmc8080
Re: more details pleasewell if you figure in the $300 one time feee for cablevision to a per month or after that fee $100 a month for $100/15 is not that bad of a price.
Verizon will have to come up with 100 /25 or 100/50 to compete. I dont see wh ythey didnt do that already.
Maybe because some of long island is on bpon instead of gpon. |
|
majortom1029 |
to joebarnhart
Re: Self-confessed bandwidth nerdyeah we got 100/100 fiber conenction to here at work last year (for 3,000 a month for 100/100 plus a 6 strand dark fiber connection between both buildings) and it rocks. We ran into that problem also. Had to build a pfsense router from one of our servers to get the speed. Couldnt find a router under $1000 that woulld give us the speeds. MY speeds are similiar to yours |
|
lovswr join:2001-09-15 Riverview, FL |
to chimera4
Re: Those be backbone speedsMayhaps some clarification:
Although contracts in todays MPLS world are all written in neat multiples of bandwidth (10G, 100M, etc...) make no mistake, the underlying structure at Layer 1 (using the old OSI model) is till SONET*. That is to say, the presentation to you is a physical Ethernet interface with the port provisioned neat slices of bandwidth, but just as soon as possible, that will be converted into the SONET domain for transport over the long haul. Now, bandwidth (AT THE WHOLESALE LEVEL!) is dirt cheap in N. America, so really from a network designers point of view one can just about forget about Layer 1 completely & just design from Layer 2 on up. No need for ME to worry about ring switches or revertive or non-revertive shemes, when I can just have that Jupiter M series router go to it's fallback plan/routes in less than 55 milliseconds (the standard time of a SONET ring switch) or less.
So to kinda answer your question, it is more an indicator of total bandwidth potential than how that bandwidth is implemented.
* SONET/SDH is still used as the underlying structure, because it is well understood, ubiquitous, & already in place. If one tried to design a system that is more ill-suited for LONG haul transmission, one would be hard pressed to beat Ethernet for THAT task.
Ethernet has virtually no fault tolerance, monitoring, or online testing provisions. Nor does it integrate well with modern STRATUM schemes & it is just plain inefficient to boot. |
|
|
to cableties
Re: Because we're abandoning our DSL customers!said by cableties:Nice Verizon. Brag about technology useless to 80% of your customers. But fail at replacing your copper infrastructure. I wish the Verizon execs would be forced to live on dialup and no wireless nearby. Can you hear me now? Enjoy the Snow Easterners!!! +1 |
|
1 edit |
to majortom1029
Re: Self-confessed bandwidth nerdI have 150/150 at work but the experience isn't at all different from my 30/2 at home except for large downloads and similar.
We use cisco (not linksys) routers so there's no problem with the router being a bottleneck. |
|
1 edit
1 recommendation |
to JRW2
Re: CorrectionPersonally, as a past Comcast abuse victim who's utter disdain for the company has grown exponentially with their purchase of NBC/Universal...
I'd love for Verizon to release 10Gbps now just for the heck of it and put that company out of business once for all. Instead of engaging in this tedious game of one-up-manship.
Just go nuclear on them man and finish the cable turds off already! |
|
JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Gary, Ziggy, Max. Premium Member join:2004-12-20 La La Land
1 recommendation |
JRW2
Premium Member
2009-Dec-18 10:45 am
said by UncleDirtNap:I'd love for Verizon to release now just for the heck of it and put that company out of business once for all instead of engaging in this tedious game of one-up-manship. Just go nuclear on them man and finish the cable turds off already! While I'm no big fan of "Big Business", the cable companies have been running roughshod over their respective customers for far too long now, and need a quick dose of reality. Whomever at Verizon that decided to run fiber to our houses, has done what I have said needed to be done ten years ago. With that fiber at our homes, they have the potential to run an unlimited amount of "product" to our homes for little or no additional cost, a genius move if you ask me. Cable companies on the other-hand, pulled up short by not doing the same when they were running fiber, and they WILL pay for it if they continue to refuse to complete the job, so to speak... |
|
|
to Radio Active
Actually, gigabit on desktops is more common now than it was even three years ago. The lag is internal to the desktop, not at the LAN port, in most cases. Even wireless-N (2.4 GHz N) is 145 mbps (faster than wired Fast Ethernet, which had been the pre-2005 desktop standard). So, it's not that desktops (or even portable computers) can't swallow it; it's that it's not profitable to spit out data that fast in a residential setting. Generally, unless you have a carrier willing to loss-lead with bandwidth, consumption will be governed (at the residential level) by the MOST (not least) expensive national carrier. And, despite Comcast and FIOS, the only truly national US broadband carriers are cellular (VZW, Sprint, and AT&T Mobility); theey are also, by and large, the most expensive.
Because I recently replaced the G router serving the house with an N router, once I can get an N PC card for the legacy laptop in the netbook role, the slowest link in the LAN will be a *wired desktop* (remember, 2.4 GHz N is 145 mbps, which is faster than Fast Ethernet); in short, I can replace the wired connection to that desktop with wireless and see bandwidth go up (not to mention banishing wire clutter). And I'm at the LOW end of typical for BBR/DSLR. |
|
DarkLogixTexan and Proud Premium Member join:2008-10-23 Baytown, TX |
to gatorkram
Re: Gimmie!well you'd need a firewall or your cerebral cortex might get pwned
imagine the doctors ok so this person has the codered virus in his brain quick call symantec we need a human antivirus
12 months later Symantec real "Personal" edition |
|
DarkLogix |
to majortom1029
Re: Self-confessed bandwidth nerdsaid by majortom1029:yeah we got 100/100 fiber conenction to here at work last year (for 3,000 a month for 100/100 plus a 6 strand dark fiber connection between both buildings) and it rocks. We ran into that problem also. Had to build a pfsense router from one of our servers to get the speed. Couldnt find a router under $1000 that woulld give us the speeds. MY speeds are similiar to yours ok so you spend 3K/month on bandwidth but wouldn't spend more than 1k(one time cost) on a router somethings wrong there for a connection like that I'm sure it would be easy to get a cisco 3945 router and have it handle it as for router readyness I'm ready with my cisco 3745 which I've tested routing speeds to over 100mbit (need a faster computer to got higher on the test) |
|
|
to tmc8080
Re: more details please 100/100MBps is already affordable in this neck of the woods. » seattletimes.nwsource.co ··· p_h.html |
|
joebarnhartPaxio evangelist join:2005-12-15 Santa Clara, CA |
to iansltx
Re: Self-confessed bandwidth nerdYour wish is my suggestion... traceroute: Warning: google.com has multiple addresses; using 74.125.19.147
traceroute to google.com (74.125.19.147), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 my.pfsense.box (192.168.51.1) 0.956 ms 0.543 ms 0.394 ms
2 64-201-y-x.TrueBroadband.paxio.net (64.201.y.x) 0.778 ms 0.911 ms 0.752 ms
3 63-216-65-137.paxio.net (63.216.65.137) 1.311 ms 1.323 ms 1.009 ms
4 63-216-64-193.paxio.net (63.216.64.193) 1.150 ms 1.282 ms 1.263 ms
5 ge6-11.br01.sjo01.pccwbtn.net (63.218.7.57) 1.576 ms 1.552 ms 1.474 ms
6 74.125.49.45 (74.125.49.45) 1.351 ms 1.420 ms 1.487 ms
7 72.14.239.250 (72.14.239.250) 2.089 ms 33.754 ms 216.239.46.194 (216.239.46.194) 2.283 ms
8 209.85.251.94 (209.85.251.94) 5.244 ms 4.309 ms 2.178 ms
9 nuq04s01-in-f147.1e100.net (74.125.19.147) 2.090 ms 2.341 ms 1.907 ms
|
|
joebarnhart |
to majortom1029
Latency |
said by majortom1029: Had to build a pfsense router from one of our servers to get the speed. Couldnt find a router under $1000 that woulld give us the speeds. Hey, I'm a pfSense user too! It's an AWESOME firewall/router for the price (open source code). You can do absolutely anything with it -- even has neat RRD graphs like this latency view -- built in! If anyone needs a kickass router, check it out! » www.pfsense.org |
|
SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
to joebarnhart
I do agree.. But why pay several thousand dollars for a router, when a darn PC running pfSense, m0n0wall, or Smoothwall will do the exact same thing?
..not to mention.. If a port goes out on a Cisco router, be prepared to fork over lots of $$$.. If a card goes out in a PC, just run to your local electronics store, pay under $50 for a decent network card, and swap it out. |
|
Lazlow join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO |
to majortom1029
Re: hmmYes, but installing new lines (fiber or otherwise) is very expensive. Upgrading one fiber speed to another does not require putting in new fiber. |
|
Lazlow |
to PGHammer
Re: CorrectionYou could also just put a GigE card (wired) and move the desktop to 1000Mbps(GigE or gigabit ethernet), assuming router has GigE ports. I switched to a GigE network(in house) several years ago. In house transfers are now typically at 75MB/s, limiting factor being the hard drive speeds. This will jump to 95MB/s as I replace the older drives with the newer 100MB/s drives. |
|
1 recommendation |
to Karl Bode
Re: whoopieIf .6 of your customers are causing a big enough effect for the other 99.4% to notice, there's network issues there. Caps do nothing except nickel and dime customers that are already paying. |
|