 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 |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:8
 ·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
1 edit | 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 | thats kinda what i was getting at and better said  |
|
| reply to elios
Re: Pond scum subspecies Highly possible. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·DIRECTV
 ·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| reply to brad
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. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·DIRECTV
·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| 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. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·DIRECTV
·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| 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. |
|
| 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!" |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·DIRECTV
·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
1 edit | 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. |
|
tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:8 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 |
|
tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:8 Reviews:
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| 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. 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.
/tom |
|
1 edit | reply to elios
Post withdrawn |
|
| reply to tschmidt
I have never seen phone lines placed above ground, so I can't comment on that. But I have seen ice bring down power and fiber. |
|
| reply to elios
Re: Sounds like the same old crap. Perhaps. But A single pair for VDSL can push 100/100 in real deployments in countries like Finland. If you were to bond that, you could increase both the distance and the speed. |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | how far was the loop bet it was under 1500feet |
|
| reply to NormanS
Re: Pond scum subspecies said by NormanS: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.
Haven't had a storm blow shit off the poles, here, in more than 50 years. Had buried shit severely messed up in San Francisco twice since 1906. That's because you live in one of the most temperate climates in the United States, not Tornado Alley. Your storms are probably nothing compared to what we get here. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to elios
said by elios:if you think every other ISP in the world isnt selling user data your dead wrong
Doesn't change what I said. The connection is subsidized. That isn't the case for other ISPs and even if the other ISPs are selling your data they're not going to pass any savings on to you the customer as a result of doing so. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to silbaco
said by silbaco:You misinterpreted my comment. I was talking about upstream bandwidth the entire time.
No, I did not. |
|
| Challenge, not Promise Bode say that the FCC is making a promise, whereas Genachowski said he was challenging the ISPs to do it. Big difference.
Either way, expect the ISPs to not lift a finger to do anything except continue milking subscribers dry with higher monthy rates and lower caps. |
|
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
| reply to tschmidt
What about the REST of US, said by tschmidt:Super high speed for the few is not the problem. Reasonable speed for everyone at an affordable price is.
AMEN!
The rich and the poor are very well spoken for....but what about the REST OF US?????
just REASONABLE speeds for a REASONABLE price.
It seems once again that NOBODY with influence gives a rats butt about the folks that make the country work, the middle class. |
|
