dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-02-13 16:43:27: Google's already leading the field with their $70, symmetrical 1 Gbps Google Fiber offering, and the company insists they're cooking up something faster. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next
existenz
join:2014-02-12

existenz

Member

Maybe this could allow capacity for server-side connections..

...with say web servers from home offices. If Google really wants a paradigm shift, they'd allow web servers on home connections. This might allow enough capacity.
Brim77
join:2012-03-16
Lansing, MI

Brim77

Member

Telecom industry, take notes.

This is what consumers clamor for: higher speeds, lower prices. TWC, Comcast and AT&T can take their "innovative" caps, contracts and overpriced bundles and shove it.
FactChecker
Premium Member
join:2008-06-03

5 recommendations

FactChecker

Premium Member

Seriously?

This is getting a bit silly. How many locations? How many 1G Google customers after 4 years of rollout? Impress us with a real business plan vs press releases.

Technically 10G has been available for many, many years over fiber for businesses. No reason you can't do the same thing for residential.

FWIW, 100G is also available and people have been testing 1Tbps in production.
existenz
join:2014-02-12

existenz

Member

If they are doing 10Gb at the user end then they must be involved with working on a GPON with even higher capacity. The short term benefit may be additional capacity for every neighborhood even if end users are below 1Gbit. The long term benefit could mean allow running home biz web servers from home.
Rakeesh
join:2011-10-30
Phoenix, AZ

Rakeesh

Member

Well...

If somebody does say that customers don't want 10gb, I'd probably believe them in this case. The reason why is mainly that of practicality: I don't think many people have 10gb ethernet adapters, switches, or routers, so it's kind of hard to take advantage of that kind of service.

I'm a network hobbyist, and I don't even have that kind of equipment. It's expensive as hell right now. A 10GbE nic alone will run you $100, and a router or even a switch with a backplane good enough to support even 80gbit (which would be just enough for a proper four port switch instead of a half-assed one) wouldn't be cheap either (they'd start around $400.)
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to existenz

Premium Member

to existenz

Re: Maybe this could allow capacity for server-side connections..

What does that change? Can you not run a server now?
existenz
join:2014-02-12

existenz to Rakeesh

Member

to Rakeesh

Re: Well...

Think additional capacity for neighborhood, not necessarily end user. And perhaps enough capacity to allow hosting home biz servers.

PON PLAYER
@comcast.net

PON PLAYER

Anon

Whole point of Passive Optical Network from Area distrobution hub.

The major investment is ONCE, upgrades to N x 100Gbit/sec is a matter of changing of optics at the end points (headed and subscriber unit) once each endpoint hits a price target where it is a short RIO.

When the telco companies yell and scream about the cost of FTTP of Passive they rarely include the cost of maintaining power to the switches on the poles of active networks. They also ignore that covering 50km is trivial with low loss fibers that are fractions of penny per foot in bundles.
Rakeesh
join:2011-10-30
Phoenix, AZ

Rakeesh to FactChecker

Member

to FactChecker

Re: Seriously?

said by FactChecker:

This is getting a bit silly. How many locations? How many 1G Google customers after 4 years of rollout? Impress us with a real business plan vs press releases.

Technically 10G has been available for many, many years over fiber for businesses. No reason you can't do the same thing for residential.

FWIW, 100G is also available and people have been testing 1Tbps in production.

If you really want to get that technical, 1Tbps is old news. The Emerald Express has been in production use for I'm pretty sure a few years now and it is a 40TB link that runs from NY to Ireland.

No, I'd say it is new for consumer grade internet connections to reach 10gb if they indeed do.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl to Rakeesh

Member

to Rakeesh

Re: Well...

Network can be shared, so you don't need one device to take all the bandwidth.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx to Rakeesh

Member

to Rakeesh
That's relatively cheap. Wasn't long ago that gigabit adapters cost that much.

Give it two years and you'll be able to get 10GE NICs built into higher-end desktops. 'cuz SSDs are now quite a bit faster than network connections, and that doesn't stay that way for long.
existenz
join:2014-02-12

existenz to openbox9

Member

to openbox9

Re: Maybe this could allow capacity for server-side connections..

Technically no but they don't enforce it unless abused with dozens of concurrent sessions.. This could change things if home offices are officially allowed to run biz class web servers with many concurrent sessions.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Google's already leading the field with their $70, symmetrical 1 Gbps...

...in a very small number of homes, has now decided, that is inadequate and will now discontinue that service to work on 10 times the speed to one tenth the number of homes.
In the long run they recognize that data centers with 100G plus capability are the only place worth living and run a multi-year promotional contest to select the 100 elite "googlites" to live in the data centers.

Rakeesh
join:2011-10-30
Phoenix, AZ

Rakeesh to shmerl

Member

to shmerl

Re: Well...

said by shmerl:

Network can be shared, so you don't need one device to take all the bandwidth.

You can do link aggregation with many existing home routers (which are actually layer 3 switches; I know my Asus RT-AC66U supports it) but you aren't going to see a 10gb link that way any time soon.

anonomeX
@comcast.net

2 recommendations

anonomeX

Anon

The next big thing: BTTP

Backbone To The Premises

(Hey, is that almost free 5/1 still free? still 5/1 or maybe 15/5? )
existenz
join:2014-02-12

existenz to tshirt

Member

to tshirt

Re: Google's already leading the field with their $70, symmetrical 1 Gbps...

Google wasn't first with residential Gbit but they were the first to set the stage to price it below $100. They may be pushing 10Gbit 'just because they can' but it would if anything bump the capacity within a neighborhood.

Google's end goal is probably to not allow a bottleneck within ISPs. If it's at the user device fine, but they probably want to do the research to push ISPs to stay ahead of the potential bottleneck curve and ensure unlimited internet always.
Rakeesh
join:2011-10-30
Phoenix, AZ

Rakeesh to iansltx

Member

to iansltx

Re: Well...

said by iansltx:

That's relatively cheap. Wasn't long ago that gigabit adapters cost that much.

Give it two years and you'll be able to get 10GE NICs built into higher-end desktops. 'cuz SSDs are now quite a bit faster than network connections, and that doesn't stay that way for long.

I think it'll be a bit longer than 2 years, maybe 4. 10GbE has been around for widespread use for I'm pretty sure 4 years already, but the price hasn't been declining that fast. It took about that long for 1GbE to become affordable.

TAZ
join:2014-01-03
Tucson, AZ

TAZ to Rakeesh

Member

to Rakeesh
I'm pretty sure your pricing is off by about 2x. If not, I'm interested to know the hardware you speak of.

I just spent $200 each on some used X520s (SFP+ DAC), and the cheapest 10GbE switches I know of are those Netgears starting at around $800.

why60loss
Premium Member
join:2012-09-20

why60loss

Premium Member

Even though this sounds cool, I would like to see new markets a lot more.

Google, expand into new markets instead of placing money into even more speed. You already placed the water mark really high. Now try and spread that around some more, than rise it even more in only a hand full of places.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to anonomeX

Premium Member

to anonomeX

Re: The next big thing: BTTP

said by anonomeX :

...

Only if you agreed to host petabyte "open connect" caches for every video service, just in case more than one of the 50k users on your open Wi-Fi net NEEDS to watch a 4k-3D movie on their 4.5 inch cellphone.
'cause that's how to grow the new FREE economy.
jorcmg
join:2002-10-24
USA

jorcmg

Member

If you build it, they will come

Google will not aggressively expand and compete for the same reasons that every other investor won't.

If it is such a great business then scale it. But, Google doesn't want to build the roads it uses. It wants to externalize those costs.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 recommendation

openbox9 to existenz

Premium Member

to existenz

Re: Maybe this could allow capacity for server-side connections..

said by existenz:

This could change things if home offices are officially allowed to run biz class web servers with many concurrent sessions.

Along with the battery backup and diesel generators all along the line to minimize potential downtime? Why not just pay a few hundred dollars a month and actually have business class services in a business class facility with access to business class bandwidth?

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

SimbaSeven to Rakeesh

Member

to Rakeesh

Re: Seriously?

40TB over a large fiber bundle. They can't shove that much through a single fiber.. yet.
SimbaSeven

SimbaSeven to openbox9

Member

to openbox9

Re: Maybe this could allow capacity for server-side connections..

Business class facility? You mean one that the NSA can just go into and do whatever they want?
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to existenz

Premium Member

to existenz

Re: Seriously?

They are not using GPON. They seem to be using some form of Active Ethernet.

Edrick
I aspire to tell the story of a lifetime
Premium Member
join:2004-09-11
San Diego, CA

Edrick

Premium Member

Yes because when my

75Mbit connection is hardly even maxed out already because YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc... can't keep up with the connections or somewhere between here and there can't keep up I can totally see why we want 10gbit connections. how about we first make use of the existing networks?
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to SimbaSeven

Premium Member

to SimbaSeven

Re: Maybe this could allow capacity for server-side connections..

Yes, that's exactly what I mean
dutenhnj
join:2002-01-29
Monroe, WI

1 recommendation

dutenhnj to SimbaSeven

Member

to SimbaSeven

Re: Seriously?

Yes they can, quite easily in fact using wavelength-division multiplexing.
existenz
join:2014-02-12

1 edit

existenz to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
I've heard some form of AE/WDM-GPON hybrid.

Edit:
»static.googleusercontent ··· 6936.pdf

blackice
join:2014-01-02
Pittsfield, MA

blackice

Member

Cloud Computing

said by Google :
Faster speeds will increase the use of software as a service because users will be able to trust that critical applications that are data intensive will run smoothly over the Internet.
In short, Google is anticipating cloud computing going mainstream in the next few years. While that does seem to be where the market is heading i am very weary of having an increasing amount of my data being stored and run in "the cloud".

I am still a fan of local computing, keeping my data stored on a home server, running my own choice of OS on my hardware that I own, and not having all of my computing done on software and hardware owned and operated by a corporation like Google. Innovation and progress within the technology industry is all well and good, but i think we need to be asking is where are we going with all this progress? If cloud computing catches on in the way Google seems to think it will catch on, where does that leave the more "traditional" hardware and software industry? Instead of buying computers and hardware that we will own for a one time fee, will we instead pay for cloud computers that we do not own for a subscription fee?

I like the innovation and push forward with progress, but i don't think I like where Google is going with this.
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next