ARRIS S33
|
to NoHereNoMo
Re: 1 gbpssaid by NoHereNoMo: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. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON |
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 |
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. |
|
SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
to 34764170
Re: Pond scum subspeciessaid 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 Member join:2009-08-03 USA |
to videomatic3
Re: 1 gbpsCopper 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 |
to jerseyjoe123
Re: Challenge, not PromiseI 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_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
to NormanS
Re: Pond scum subspeciesWow, that's nice. I am paying $19.95/mo for 3 Mbps. The 15 Mbps is 34.99/mo. |
|
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
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). |
|
|
to videomatic3
Re: 1 gbpsYou'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"). |
|
silbaco Premium Member join:2009-08-03 USA |
to morbo
Re: Pond scum subspeciesFixing lines is costly. Replacing poles is even more costly. As the poles continue to age in many places, companies are being reminded how stupid it was not to bury the cables. |
|
1 recommendation |
to 34764170
Re: Sounds like the same old crap.Well I guess while they are busy moving those VRADs closer to the customer at about 1000ft they might as well finish it up and give real speeds huh?
Keep preaching the silly VDSL. It isnt going anywhere fast and hasnt for years. |
|
|
to silbaco
Re: Challenge, not PromiseFrontier has gone the other way. The service here was 3mbps but they oversold the service and backed it down the 1mbps. It isn't often that the full 1 mbps is seen. It is more like .25-.5 mbps with pings late at night around 100-500 ms and daytime/evening around 1000-1700 ms. Secure sites are impossible to use most of the time. |
|
|
Let the free market decide!We don't need no stinkin' gigabit fiber. If folks are only willing to pay for DSL, why should the govmnt interfere? |
|
34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON 4 edits |
to Skippy25
Re: Sounds like the same old crap.said by Skippy25:Well I guess while they are busy moving those VRADs closer to the customer at about 1000ft they might as well finish it up and give real speeds huh?
Keep preaching the silly VDSL. It isnt going anywhere fast and hasnt for years. Which is what I said is coming. I am not preaching anything. I'm living in the real world unlike some of you guys deluded thinking these companies are going to roll out fibre everywhere. It isn't going to happen. I am not saying that if they all of a sudden did roll out fibre I would be against it. But these companies are not going to spend the hundreds of billions it would cost to tear out all of their existing DSL/cable networks and replace it with fibre. If it is rolled out I want to see it pretty much everywhere, not some swiss cheese coverage where it's available to houses down one side of a street and not the other side of the street like Verizon or that they're only covering a portion of the city. That's a bloody joke. |
|
|
34764170 |
to MovieLover76
said by MovieLover76: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. There wouldn't be any congestion if they proactively upgraded the network instead of waiting until the nodes/backhaul are at 99% and then upgrading. The carriers are dragging their feet as much as possible. The caps are artificially low so it can be a cash cow. Wireless carriers are making a shit load of profit. Wireline is bad enough for the consumer in that regard, wireless is 10x worse. |
|
34764170 |
to SimbaSeven
Re: Pond scum subspeciessaid by SimbaSeven: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. Do I have to put sarcasm tags around it for you? The comment was making fun of the other thing he said. |
|
34764170 |
to tschmidt
said by tschmidt: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. That would be the most ideal situation. |
|
|
to morbo
Where did you have electric power companies not fixed downed lines? I have never seen that action taken after a storm. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to sticks435
said by sticks435: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. But we have earthquakes up the kazoo. With sufficient lateral displacement of the earth, you can kiss your buried utilities goodbye. What works in one place may fail in another. |
|
silbaco Premium Member join:2009-08-03 USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2013-Jan-21 11:48 pm
If you are near the immediate fault line, then buried could be a problem. But that is a pretty insignificant amount of area.
Buried utilities have proven themselves over and over again. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
said by silbaco:If you are near the immediate fault line, then buried could be a problem. But that is a pretty insignificant amount of area. There is no "fault line". There multiple fault zones. Three of the big ones, nearby, are the San Andreas, the Hayward, and the Calaveras. There are hundreds of smaller ones. |
|
Cobra11M join:2010-12-23 Mineral Wells, TX |
to 34764170
Re: Sounds like the same old crap.said by 34764170: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. but in the long run we will hit another brick wall with copper.. delaying upgrades will cost more in the long run but agree 100mbps - 200mbps should be a standard for us in the USA no exception.. with out countrys blowin past us at 1gbps this shouldn't be to hard for the cable co's to deal with |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2013-Jan-22 5:50 am
The FCC is a wholy owned subsidiary of Big Telecom, IncThe best Government money can buy. |
|
|
Believe it when I see itI'll believe it when I see it happen. |
|
cork1958Cork Premium Member join:2000-02-26 |
to tschmidt
Re: Sounds like the same old crap.said by tschmidt:Agree. I have to assume some locations in each of the fifty states already access to a Gig connection if they want it and can afford it.
Super high speed for the few is not the problem. Reasonable speed for everyone at an affordable price is.
/tom That last line speaks volumes!! Unlike how most people on any kind of a tech forum usually think, not everyone in the worlds needs or even wants a symmetrical 1Gbps connection! |
|
|
|
to IowaCowboy
Re: Most people don't need 1 Gbps.You don't need it because you don't have it. Look beyond your feet! If we had 1Gbps service you would see remote cloud, family, or "group" LANs forming. Ie: I would swap hobby nature video files we all take (often around 1+ gig size) with many of my relatives and it would be as if they were connected to my local LAN. Right now my only option is to send them snail mail or compress them to crap quality. Just because monopolies don't allow it to exist doesn't mean people wouldn't find new life transforming ways to benefit from it. I'm sure when the first cars were offered many people said "No one ever NEEDS to go as fast as 20 mph!" "What a huge waste!" |
|
·Consolidated Com.. ·Republic Wireless ·Hollis Hosting
2 edits |
to 34764170
Re: Sounds like the same old crap.said by 34764170: 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. I agree vectoring is interesting what you neglected to mention is that all vectored DLSAMs need to be under the same management so it does not work well when ILECs and CLECS serve out of the same CO. In my case my phone and ADSL is supplied by a CLEC. There are two CLECs that collocate out of our Central Office. That being said even when DSLAM are managed by multiple entities vectoring should still help but it is not the magic bullet to higher speed. » www2.alcatel-lucent.com/ ··· fiction/Can you provide a link to a 3X vectoring improvement you cite, that is much greater then I though possible? said by 34764170: 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. Bonding is actually pretty interesting for carriers that are not loop poor. There was a big build out during the heyday of dialup so many carriers have excess loop capacity. In our case at one time we had three phone lines and a SDSL connection. Today we are down to a single voice/ADSL connection. However loop bonding is relatively expensive (multiple loops, DSLAM, modems) but is better than nothing. As long as we are navel gazing getting rid of ATM would yield a quick 11 % increase in effective ADSL speed. said by 34764170: You don't feed VDSL2 directly from the CO. That's why you build VRADs close to the customer. The problem is 1) VRADs are expensive, 2) you need a lot of them, 3) they need backup power, 4)suburban NIMBY complaints, 5) you are still limited by copper. said by 34764170: 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. That is the real question how long will we live with a band-aid approach to broadband and when will we migrate to a purpose built high-speed network? /tom |
|
|
google's model worksfor it to work without full regulatory reform and price controls? that's fantasyland... |
|
Paxio Premium Member join:2011-02-23 Santa Clara, CA
1 recommendation |
Paxio
Premium Member
2013-Jan-22 7:44 pm
Gigbit isn't the panacea -- OPEN ACCESS isWhat's the point of having a gigabit connection if you are faced with the same monopoly which dictates your choice of data, voice, and video?
The real issue isn't just gigabit -- it's a gigabit connection with open access to all service providers at reasonable wholesale rates. That would open up a true marketplace of digital services and has the potential to revolutionize the way services are delivered.
The marketplace really does drive down cost and improve service, we just need a way to make it work for us in the telecom area. |
|