dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-01-21 12:16:37: A new FCC initiative promises to accelerate the delivery of 1 Gbps connections to all fifty states by 2015, though the plan upon closer inspection appears to be another hollow agency puppet show. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elios

Re: Sounds like the same old crap.

said by elios:

the thing is once you run the fiber the costs for 1Gbps over 100Mbps are trivial

Who said anything about fibre? You don't need fibre to get 100Mbps - 200Mbps service to most people. Having fibre everywhere is the most ideal situation but it isn't going to happen.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

reply to silbaco

Re: Pond scum subspecies

said by silbaco:

Google probably got a lot better rate for bandwidth from their upstream for Google Fiber.

They receive better rates because they're purchasing a large quantity of bandwidth. Other companies can do the same thing. Kansas City also isn't lacking in transit providers so there is competition. The markets that truly get raped typically only have one or two options. If companies are buying a lot of bandwidth they can backhaul it in from another major city. You tend to be screwed when you don't need a lot of it and there are very limited options.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to silbaco

said by silbaco:

Other utilities should not be on poles either. It's just an attempt to save money that doesn't really work. If you don't own the poles, then you have to pay to use them. Every time a storm blows in you have to role trucks to fix the downed lines. Their customers have to suffer service outages. They should just do it right the first time and put the cables in the ground.

Are you going to provide the millions in additional capital it would take to do so?


elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

1 recommendation

reply to 34764170

Re: Sounds like the same old crap.

to get 100/100 or 200/200 you bet your ass you need fiber
sure as hell not going to doing over the copper on the poles now ask AT&T how thats working out



keithps
Premium
join:2002-06-26
Soddy Daisy, TN
reply to NormanS

Re: Pond scum subspecies

I pay only $69 for 100/100Mbps...


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to 34764170

Google has the money.

The cost of putting lines in the ground often times pays for itself in the long run. But companies don't like to think long term.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to 34764170

They receive better rates because they are Google. Munis and cooperatives struggle greatly under the cost of upstream bandwidth. Sure buying more makes bandwidth less expensive, but in order to buy more you have to spend more. That isn't an option for a small company. Only large corporations or those fortunate enough to be in an area where upstream bandwidth is cheaper.

If my ISP tried to offer 1Gbps for $70 per month, they would lose money on the cost of bandwidth alone.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elios

Re: Sounds like the same old crap.

said by elios:

to get 100/100 or 200/200 you bet your ass you need fiber
sure as hell not going to doing over the copper on the poles now ask AT&T how thats working out

wrong.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit
reply to silbaco

Re: Pond scum subspecies

said by silbaco:

They receive better rates because they are Google. Munis and cooperatives struggle greatly under the cost of upstream bandwidth. Sure buying more makes bandwidth less expensive, but in order to buy more you have to spend more. That isn't an option for a small company. Only large corporations or those fortunate enough to be in an area where upstream bandwidth is cheaper.

If my ISP tried to offer 1Gbps for $70 per month, they would lose money on the cost of bandwidth alone.

Your comment was commenting on cheaper bandwidth only. Google is offering the service cheaper because it is subsidized by ads! One has nothing to do with the other and they're two completely different issues.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to silbaco

said by silbaco:

Google has the money.

The cost of putting lines in the ground often times pays for itself in the long run. But companies don't like to think long term.

Yes, they're rolling out an all fibre network but they're not thinking long term.

Austinloop

join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to silbaco

Of course, backhoes, boring machines, large augers, etc., never damage cable. Water never gets into cables, etc. Sorry, but the expense and time to fix a damaged buried, or underground cable is most usually longer and more costly than a repair of an aerial cable due to the necessity to accurately locate the the damage, than have it dug up, and then repaired. Not to mention that damages to aerial cables are much easier to find.

Several years ago, the cost for burying cable here in the rock (rock starts about 6 inches to 1 foot below grade was in the neighborhood of $4 to $5 dollars per foot.



morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
reply to silbaco

Too bad the solution for downed lines is to abandon service, not fix the downed lines. We've all seen how electric companies never repair downed power lines.



elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

1 recommendation

reply to 34764170

Re: Sounds like the same old crap.

really theres a Nobel prize in it for you if you can figure out to put 200/200 down 100 year old telco copper



elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
reply to 34764170

Re: Pond scum subspecies

if you think every other ISP in the world isnt selling user data your dead wrong


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to elios

Re: Sounds like the same old crap.

They already do 100/100 with VDSL. 200/200 has been done in the lab, although I don't know of any deployments yet.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

reply to 34764170

Please provide a source that contradicts him beyond you claiming it is wrong.

And dont even mention VDSL2 or some other crap variance of DSL which is so distance limited to begin with you would have to run fiber quite deep just to offer it.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to 34764170

Re: Pond scum subspecies

They are deploying fiber because it would be idiotic to deploy copper.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to 34764170

You misinterpreted my comment. I was talking about upstream bandwidth the entire time.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to elios

My ISP isn't. I would know about it if they did.



elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
reply to silbaco

Re: Sounds like the same old crap.

in a LAB a lab is not the real world and even in the lab the distance was VERY short



elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
reply to silbaco

Re: Pond scum subspecies

thats nice bet your ass AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and the other big ones are



tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:9
Reviews:
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to elios

Re: Sounds like the same old crap.

said by elios:

really theres a Nobel prize in it for you if you can figure out to put 200/200 down 100 year old telco copper

Just to clarify, it is not speed per sa that is the problem. It is delivering high speed over thousands of feet of copper.

ADSL and VDSL do a fantastic job moving bits over voice grade twisted pair. VDSL2 is capable of 100/100 Mbps but is limited to only 1,000 feet. Not very practical in the real world. The fact there has not been a new ADSL/VDSL standard in years indicates copper has run out of gas, even with clever modulation/recovery techniques.

80% of US customers are 15,000 feet or less from the central office. Statistics for rural customers is much worse, Less then 50% are within 15,000 feet. I'd love to see some clever engineering that utilizes existing copper infrastructure but I'm not holding my breath.

Fiber is the only solution for wired broadband. Once installed is is actually cheaper then copper because maintenance costs are much lower. The down side is high up front capital investment that no quarterly profits driven CEO is willing to make.

/tom
fixed typos


elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

1 recommendation

thats kinda what i was getting at and better said


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to elios

Re: Pond scum subspecies

Highly possible.



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to 34764170

Re: Sounds like the same old crap.

100 - 200Mbps and the destruction of caps on wire-line broadband. I'm lucky to have escaped it so far with Verizon FiOS. But the trend stifles innovation. their are much more effective congestion based throttling approaches, that are much more effective at battling congestion.

I'm not thrilled about Wireless caps either, but in that arena I can't argue with the current spectrum and technology limitations, wireless internet will always need to be controlled in some way, though I think the caps are artificially low.



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to elios

Yea for real world speeds like that you need fiber, cable can do it downstream now and has to potential with upstream channel bonding to do it up as well.

But old pots lines aren't going to do it, at least not unless the vdsl box is on the customers property , at the distances needed for that kind of speed, your better off doing fiber into the house.



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to NormanS

Re: Pond scum subspecies

Living in NJ, even before Sandy I can say that downed wires are extremely common, in CA I'm sure you don't have as many powerful storms as we do in NJ.

Some areas in NJ have underground wires, normally the richer areas, they don't lose power or phone as often as the areas served by poles, and even when they do, the power comes back much faster, because the problem is centralized, normally it's the transformer itself, downed lines take much longer and are more costly to fix.

In NJ we've always wanted underground wires, even more so since Sandy.
Does it cost more, yes obviously. But in some areas it really would make much more sense in the long run.



NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06

1 recommendation

1 gbps

in all 50 states (even if it is in only 1 city--because that will happen anyway).

How about just getting 1 mbps to everyone in all 50 states? ...for something less than $20/mo? or maybe even "free" like Google's other option (5 mbps, just pay for the install)? (In other words, how about doing something that's actually hard to do*? ...something actually useful to at least someone? you know, like for those who can't get anything but dial-up ...if that?)

*Of course, doing anything at all is harder than simply saying "let's do this" ...which is about the extent of this "plan".
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!"



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1

1 edit

1 recommendation

I agree, though I might up that to 8mbps. I can get 150/65 and I don't subscribe to it because I don't need that much. 50/25 is plenty for me.
Having 1Gbps isn't a high priority for me or the vast majority and I'm a pretty heavy user. 1Gbps connections will probably eventually become very commonplace, but with the current state of broadband in the US, they are just hype.

But that fact that so many areas of the country are stuck with 56k or Satellite as their only options is just wrong. Some for of wireline broadband should be available to everyone, and they need competition to ensure fair prices. Something which the FCC has utterly failed at.



tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:9
Reviews:
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
reply to silbaco

Re: Pond scum subspecies

said by silbaco:

Other utilities should not be on poles either. It's just an attempt to save money that doesn't really work. If you don't own the poles, then you have to pay to use them.

Saving money is not irrelevant, lowering infrastructure cost goes a long way to increasing penetration. Aerial infrastructure is enough of an eyesore already, I don't want separate poles for: power, phone, Cable, Etc.

said by silbaco:

Every time a storm blows in you have to role trucks to fix the downed lines. They should just do it right the first time and put the cables in the ground.

I respectfully disagree. Here in NH most utilities are above ground. In the thirty years we have lived here have lost power dozens of times, sometimes for a week on end. We have never once lost phone service. When a tree falls on aerial service the power cables break the fall so tree gets hung up and usually does not sever cable or phone service.

Same thing in a traffic accident. Down pole may short out power conductors but communication cables are rarely damaged.

Underground service costs about 10X what aerial does and it is not immune to disruption: frost heaves and errant backhoes play havoc with underground service. In addition it is much harder to find and repair underground faults.

If I had my druthers we would implement some type of wholesale fiber first-mile implementation. Various service providers would rent strands or lambdas (colors) to deliver end user service. Primary and secondary power would be at the top of the pole, multi-fiber cable underneath and all the existing legacy cable, phone, cable, fire alarm, etal removed.

In dense urban environments underground utilities make sense but that is the exception not the rule. If you want to pay the premium that is fine but it should not be the norm due to expense.

By way of example our house is 600 feet off the road. When we built it decided to go aerial for the first 400 feet then underground for the last couple of hundred. Neither has been a problem.

/tom