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. ..

prev page · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next


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:
·Hollis Hosting
·G4 Communications

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:
·Hollis Hosting
·G4 Communications
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


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


PaulHikeS2

join:2003-03-06
Fitchburg, MA

1 edit
reply to elios
Post withdrawn

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
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.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
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

sticks435

join:2004-05-25
Kansas City, MO
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.

34764170

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.

34764170

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.

jerseyjoe123

join:2008-04-28
Picton, ON

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.

15444104
Premium
join:2012-06-11
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.

videomatic3

join:2003-12-12
Pleasanton, CA
reply to NotTheMama

Re: 1 gbps

said by NotTheMama:

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".

why bother with 1mbps, if your going to run a line to the house, might as well do the best money can buy, fiber goes for miles without needing to refresh the signal, no point in running copper once, then fiber later.
in romania, i can get 1gbps fiber connection out in the sticks, and they are a 3rd world country. copper never existed there because they were so late giving internet to people.
Expand your moderator at work

34764170

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

Re: Sounds like the same old crap.

said by tschmidt:

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.

The lack of a new standard doesn't mean anything. There isn't a requirement for a new standard. The existing VDSL2 standard can have a variety of speed profiles and there is definitely on-going work by the major vendors to improve VDSL2. One such major improvement that is being rolled out by carriers around the world over the next 2 years is Vectoring which will allow existing connections able to attain 25Mbps service to now be able to attain 75/100 Mbps service. Using VDSL2 Bonding which utilizes 2 pair that can be raised to 150/200Mbps. Alcatel-Lucent is working on Phantom Mode which when used in conjunction with Bonding can further raise that upwards of 300Mbps.

said by tschmidt:

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.

You don't feed VDSL2 directly from the CO. That's why you build VRADs close to the customer.

said by tschmidt:

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.

I don't agree and if you're hanging on to the dream of fibre everywhere it'll be just that.. a dream.

Even in the countries where people go on about fibre out the ying yang a significant portion of the users if not almost 50% are still receiving Internet via VDSL2. Fibre makes up a very small percentage of the over all broadband market around the world.

Trust me I'd love to see fibre everywhere but it is not realistic. Even Verizon with their FiOS did a pretty poor job at it.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to MovieLover76
said by MovieLover76:

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.

Cable is unlikely to ever see symmetrical speeds or anything close to it. In theory you could do a lot better but the existing legacy services already in use to deliver TV services get in the way. Way down the road when cable providers finally migrate to an IPTV based platform and get rid of digital cable they could do things properly. But that is so far out.


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
reply to 34764170

Re: Pond scum subspecies

said by 34764170:

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

Um.. Yes they are. Copper can't push the speeds Fiber can. Copper has limits. Fiber, technically, does not.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to videomatic3

Re: 1 gbps

Copper has already been run. Making it capable of pushing out DSL can be done for quite a lot less than running fiber. Eventually fiber could be needed, but for now there is no real reason to run it. It is far more important that people get some service of some kind.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to jerseyjoe123

Re: Challenge, not Promise

I don't know of a lot of ISPs that are not lifting a finger. I see telcos pushing out faster DSL all the time and cable companies pushing up their speeds on a regular basis. I see tons of fiber going in for new construction and being fed to neighborhoods to boost existing speeds. Heck I even see ftth going in on dirt, not gravel, roads.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to NormanS

Re: Pond scum subspecies

Wow, that's nice. I am paying $19.95/mo for 3 Mbps. The 15 Mbps is 34.99/mo.


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Most people don't need 1 Gbps.

The only people who need 1 Gbps are institutions with servers or a lot of computers on the premises (such as a call center, hospital/medical center, or a high school).

For most residential users like myself, I only need the 50/10 plan through Comcast.

It is split between several computers, tablets, and gaming consoles.

For most residential users, 1 Gbps is overkill (like using a tractor trailer to bring home a week's worth of groceries).


NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06
reply to videomatic3

Re: 1 gbps

You're missing my point--you're being too "literal", not enough "metaphorical". The FCC should be concerned about everyone being able to get "enough" (as in, "fast enough").
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!"