 
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
 ·Verizon FIOS
| AFP is rastroturf! rut ro!!! I HATE THEIR site! it wouldn't let me back up! just for that, I deem them a PAC monies/Turf group.
"if ISPs didn't want you to have traffic, they'd not provide you with anything that goes over 10BaseT"
Snarf!
Stop the spam and email. And AstroTurfers sending BS to those few that call(scare) the rest. | |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| I'll take my network and go home. You people wanted Ma Bell dead. You wanted free unregulated telephone. Now you all moan and bitch that you want regulation. Regulate it and it won't get built. It is dollars and cents children, when you all move out of your parents house and get a job you will realize there is no free lunch. | |
|
 | 
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | Re: I'll take my network and go home. I for one would love a faster pipe to sites like netflix, google video, and torrents as long as it dont cost ME more I can care less what billion dollar Google or Yahoo thinks | |
|
| 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by batterup  :You people wanted Ma Bell dead. You wanted free unregulated telephone. Now you all moan and bitch that you want regulation. Regulate it and it won't get built. It is dollars and cents children, when you all move out of your parents house and get a job you will realize there is no free lunch. Bullshit. I'm not paying Charter $70 a month for 10 Mbps speed then only getting 1/10 of that because I'm not paying some access fee to Google or YouTube or ESPN.com. Is ISPs like Charter don't want to expand capacity and their serivce slows down I'll switch to Bellsouth and vise versa. We'll see how they like not getting ANY money. Money talks and in the end if people can get acceptable internet for the price they'll swicth or do without. I fail to beleive that ISP are that stupid not to realize that.
If thier failure to expand capacity leas to speed close to dial-up then I'll switch back to dial-up for $10 a month. When enough peole do that then the stupid ISPs will have loads of capcity and no customers. Good luck with that. And any customer that would still shell out $50 or more for dial-up speed to cable or telecos no matter what, deserves to be ripped off. | |
|
| |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: I'll take my network and go home. said by BF69 :If thier failure to expand capacity leas to speed close to dial-up then I'll switch back to dial-up for $10 a month. When enough peole do that then the stupid ISPs will have loads of capcity and no customers. Good luck with that. And any customer that would still shell out $50 or more for dial-up speed to cable or telecos no matter what, deserves to be ripped off. I see capping of usage before that would happen or pay per bit. Cable companies will have to do something before Telephone companies because of the shared network. I like pay per bit as 5% of the users use 40% of the service. Sorry no free lunch. | |
|
| | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: I'll take my network and go home. said by batterup :I see capping of usage before that would happen or pay per bit. Cable companies will have to do something before Telephone companies because of the shared network. I like pay per bit as 5% of the users use 40% of the service. Sorry no free lunch. Hey I have ZERO problem with ISP being able to charge extra for "bandwidth hogs". That's a whole other issue than to make Google pay for their backbone increase. Which Google won't really pay they'll get the money back somehow and that somehow will end up costing me. Think about it. Charter charges ESPN.com the ESPN in turn charges Charter more per subscriber to get that money back then Charter raises my rates to pay ESPN. | |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| Content providers already pay! When I load google, I pay a flat fee for my connection but google does not. Websites pay for us to access them. That's the way it is and I think it's a good thing. All that money that google and yahoo pays to send data should be more than enough to pay for upgrades. | |
|
dialuprules
@optonline.net
| LEVEL 3 SAYS... they double their network capacity every two years. I doubt today's internet traffic will more than double in two years. That basically means in two years people will be downloading twice as much as today. With limited broadband connections and coming towards the height of popular websites (MySpace, YouTube, PhotoBucket) I don't think future internet traffic increases will be that dramatic. Just my 2 cents... | |
|
| GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| Re: LEVEL 3 SAYS... You sound sorta like Bill Gates when he claimed 640K would be more than anybody would ever need. Sorry, this just isn't the case. You are sitting on the horizon where video delivery by multiple agents using IP transport will pop-up all over the place. The Internet isn't just for data traffic anymore.
Just in the past six months, several broadcast networks (ABC, etc.)started offering the previous night's programming online for free download. Imagine what that will be like 12-months from now when you might have 50-100 channels doing this across the Internet.
With each increase in broadband capacity at the last-mile comes an increasing number of new applications for its usage. With a provider delivering 10Mbps downstream bandwidth you could easily deliver DVD-quality in streaming form under its original MPEG-2 format, or even HDTV via WMV or h.264. No need for the cable/satellite entities to stop you. Now imagine someone like ESPN offering you this kind of video service on live events for a fee. | |
|
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | Its Funny that we expect to pay under 50 dollars a month for the fastest connection possible but Who will pay for this huge backbone all that traffic will generate
Example why should BBR pay the same amount as a bandwidth hog like youtube pay | |
|
| 
rbond007la
Premium
join:2002-02-12
Powder Springs, GA | Re: Its Funny time to step the ole Zoom back down to 9600
at&q6s37=9n0 | |
|
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by odreian615 :that we expect to pay under 50 dollars a month for the fastest connection possible but Who will pay for this huge backbone all that traffic will generate Example why should BBR pay the same amount as a bandwidth hog like youtube pay It doesn't cost ISPs $50 to provide you internet access. I run my own business and if I want to expand I take some my profit and I RE-INVEST in my business like 99.999% of other businesses do. The ISPs want a free ride.
Funny how Verizon and has the bandwidth to provide FIOS TV which eats up 10X or more bandwidth than internet could ever do, but some how they are running out of bandwidth for internet. Funny how cable can provide more and more crappy digital and HD channels which like FIOS use up MANY MANY times more badnwidth than internet yet they are running out of bandwidth for internet. | |
|
clickwir
join:2001-06-21
Dickson City, PA
| BS for sure. Sounds like someone is trying to point some negativity towards net neutrality advocates. AND FAILING.
Sure if nobody ever increased capacity we'd have a problem. But they are always working on increasing capacity.
Hell, all we need is a bit more peering and some more direct routes to more hosting/colocation companies and we could free up 25% or more of web traffic. Easily. | |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| ISPs are stupid They want to blame the Googles and YouTubes out there yet they don't realize if it were not for the Googles and YouTubes nobody would be willing to shell out $50 a month for internet service in the first place. If anything the ISPs should be paying the Googles and Youtubes for access to their sites. Fact is the the intrenet has been around in some form for 40 years and it wasn't until there was some CONTENT on it people wanted that it went beyond just a bunch of college geeks talking to each other sharing lab notes. | |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| It can be rigulated or unregualted not both. At one time the US had a regulated common carrier that had to carry any and all traffic. They could not deny one service even if they used the phone illegally. They were guaranteed a 6% profit.
Now there is a free market network and if they can't hustle a buck it goes slow. They can regulate service but not a profit. Sorry no free lunch. | |
|
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: It can be rigulated or unregualted not both. said by batterup :At one time the US had a regulated common carrier that had to carry any and all traffic. They could not deny one service even if they used the phone illegally. They were guaranteed a 6% profit. Now there is a free market network and if they can't hustle a buck it goes slow. They can regulate service but not a profit. Sorry no free lunch. Where is the free lunch? If you think running website is FREE then you are very ignorant on how the web works. Ifg I run a website I have to have hosting. That hosting compnay not only charges me a monthly rate based on fact they are hosting my site and all the things that that involves but they also charge me for the amount of BANDWIDTH I am using. So the more people that come to my site the more bandwidth I use and the more my hosting company charges me. Youtube pays more than $1,000,000 a month in bandwidth. How are they getting a free lunch? | |
|
| |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | Re: It can be rigulated or unregualted not both. said by BF69 :said by batterup :At one time the US had a regulated common carrier that had to carry any and all traffic. They could not deny one service even if they used the phone illegally. They were guaranteed a 6% profit. Now there is a free market network and if they can't hustle a buck it goes slow. They can regulate service but not a profit. Sorry no free lunch. Where is the free lunch? If you think running website is FREE then you are very ignorant on how the web works. Ifg I run a website I have to have hosting. That hosting compnay not only charges me a monthly rate based on fact they are hosting my site and all the things that that involves but they also charge me for the amount of BANDWIDTH I am using. So the more people that come to my site the more bandwidth I use and the more my hosting company charges me. Youtube pays more than $1,000,000 a month in bandwidth. How are they getting a free lunch? How much of that $1,000,000 goes to the last mile provider?
P.S. there is more then enough ignorance to go around. | |
|
| | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: It can be rigulated or unregualted not both. said by batterup :How much of that $1,000,000 goes to the last mile provider? P.S. there is more then enough ignorance to go around. A) The last mile provider gets their cut, trust me.
B) If it's so hard on them then maybe they should get out of the ISP business.
As much as I'm against lazy bums getting welfare I'm also against lazy and/or incompetent business expecting breaks so they can make profit. | |
|
| | | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: It can be rigulated or unregualted not both. said by BF69 :said by batterup :How much of that $1,000,000 goes to the last mile provider? P.S. there is more then enough ignorance to go around. A) The last mile provider gets their cut, trust me. B) If it's so hard on them then maybe they should get out of the ISP business. As much as I'm against lazy bums getting welfare I'm also against lazy and/or incompetent business expecting breaks so they can make profit. I'll bet you daddy bought MCI/WorldCom's B.S. Look where that got us. | |
|
| |
| |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: It can be rigulated or unregualted not both. $6 for 100/100 right. You can't read and I'm growing weary of translating for you people. $52 gets them a fiber connection and another $52 gets them service over that connection. That is $104 for this. quote:
TEPCO Hikari Home
The service is advertised as 100Mbps-capable. Will I get speeds of 100Mbps?
No. This is a best-effort service. Actual speeds are dependent on various conditions such as network congestion, capacity of computers and routers, loading of servers, etc. It is not possible to give a guarantee of actual speeds for this service.
quote:
Should any of the following conditions apply, there is a possibility that this service will not be made available.
A telegraph pole is not close by and therefore it is not possible to provide a fiber-optic cable to the location.
Highways, waterways or railroads prevent the provision of fiber-optic cable.
When cable is prevented from entering the location by trees, trenches, etc.
When it is impossible to guarantee space for the scaffolding etc that is necessary for the work to install the fiber-optic cable.
When it is necessary for the fiber-optic cable to pass over other's property and permission for this is not granted.
When consent has not been given by the owner of the building or those administrating the property.
When the customer has not consented to the method of construction work.
When complaint is received from neighbours about the construction work and it becomes difficult to continue with the work.
| |
|
Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
| completel BS if you have ever laid and spliced fiber optic cable, you'd know that 95% of the strands are still dark and unused. there is ton's of potential capacity, it's just a matter of whether there is any profit left to cultivate it. net neutrality opponents are trying to create an artificial shortage in order to profitably justify the usage of all that dark fiber capacity intentionally left under utilized. | |
|
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| stop building the internet backbone for DSL speeds There is an aggregate of backbone services that for every number of subscribers to a broadband service, be it 10,000 50,000 100,000 etc.. in a geographic region, there [should] be a scalable infrastructure to ramp up fiber centers (with a margin for rights of way to pass data along).. there were cries about this way back when--with the hope that broadband rates could rise and fee by the megabyte, etc would be charged..
With the rise of Internet-2 speeds and dedicated links that pale in comparison with throttled residential rates.. technology certainly is there to give economies of scale to the broadband era.. but backbone providers will fight tooth and nail for the maximum price per gigabit transmitted/received over their networks.. I don't think net neutrality has much to do with it, more like... greed.
I would compare the internet more to the national/international power grid... some places have great service.. then there's the 3rd world places of power generation... where rationing happens.. only problem-- the internet is not universal access.. quite yet.. even though we would say (here) that it is more and more a necessity in our lives. The reason being, when there are power problems (ie blackouts, service interruptions, price increases etc... its the blame game, anybody else is to blame but me syndrome) In the big recent northeast blackout, we blamed Canada... but it was some schmo in the Midwest who reversed a feeder cable and pulled the rug out from under the whole northeast power grid.. | |
|
daveberstein
join:2002-07-15
New York, NY
| Mind absent commentators Both the Kerpen and the Swanson are essentially gibberish, because neither understands the physical structure of the Net. Both argue against "Net Neutrality" based on possible demand on the backbone. Besides their likely exaggeration of backbone demand, this has nothing to do with NN, in principle or as specifically defined in the AT&T/BellSouth merger agreement. That deals with the provider network (AT&T's DSL and backhaul to the Internet), specifically not covering the backbone. This makes sense today, because there are half a dozen backbone carriers competing while only one path to the 10M AT&T DSL customers, a monopoly by AT&T. (Similar to the Comcast or Verizon customers - you can only reach them through their carrier.
There are reasonable arguments against government action on NN, including the common wisdom that governments often screw things up if involved. But using backbone congestion as an argument about what to do on the non-backbone part of the network is simply ignorance.
Dave Burstein
DSL Prime
| |
|
|
| |
kokuryu
join:2000-10-10
Hollywood, FL
| More lies - time for someone to force the truth The truth is that less than 5% of the total bandwidth of the Internet is actually in use. Reports like these are excuses to not allow matching Internet speeds for everyone and to keep charging excessive fees. With the fees the users have been charged so far we should have Gigabit wireless installed throughout the country for everyone to use, like they did in several Eurpoean cities already.
We continue to lag behind in both technology and capability because of corporate greed more than anything else. Maybe the net needs some new players that can install some real usable full speed infrastructure for the masses? Or maybe it needs to be all controlled by the government. | |
|
|
|
Richard Bennett
@trpz.com
| Re: This post is a bald-faced lie That link is now broken. See my blog ( »bennett.com/blog/index.php/archi···-part-n/ ) for a breakdown of Karl's spin in this post.
D & T says: "Balancing the two sides of [the network neutrality] debate is likely to remain challenging. Both sides have merit; both have their flaws. Clearly, something has to change in the economics of Internet access such that network operators and ISPs can continue to invest in new infrastructure and maintain service quality, and consumers can continue to enjoy the Internet as they know it today." (page 7, section titled The Network Neutrality Debate Needs Resolution.)
This is just what the Forbes piece by Kerpen says they say. | |
|
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | Re: This post is a bald-faced lie Incorrect. The D&T report simply suggests something needs to change in the broadband economic models currently in play. That could be anything from a shift to a per-byte usage fee system (unlikely) to a greater use of increased traffic shaping (very likely) or higher prices to pay for upgrades (also very likely).
Nowhere does the D&T report say that the major reason there will be a bandwidth crunch is because network neutrality advocates are scaring ISPs away from upgrading their networks, which is what the "Americans for Prosperity" piece suggests.
That's telco-lobbyist straw-man rhetoric garbage, regurgitated by think tank deregulatory drones.
It's a "bold face lie" to suggest that Kerpin, who works for a deregulatory think tank, is spinning the D&L predictions in order to fight network neutrality legislation?
Richard, all our original post ever did was note that the "Americans for Prosperity" piece was manipulative and simplistic lobbyist junk loosely based on the original D&L report, aimed at scaring people who don't understand the sophisticated economics behind capacity and networks away from network neutrality.
I think running around the Internet calling everyone liars because they fail to share your partisan anti-network neutrality world view is a tad hostile.
Also See:
»Re: Read the damn report, Karl | |
|
Richard Bennett
@comcast.net
| Read the damn report, Karl In the Summary on page 3, D & T says: "Opponents, however, argue that their business models are undermined by bandwidth-hungry applications particularly those with
significant video content. Future growth will likely require considerable investment in new infrastructure. But infrastructure owners may believe that they are able to recover too little of the cost to justify investment."
What do you think that means, if not exactly what Kerpen says it means? Net neutrality is an attack on the business model the telcos intend to use to pay for new infrastructure; if it becomes law, telcos fear they won't be able to recover their investments, so they're going slow as long as this issue is on the table. And it has been since the 1996 Telecom Act passed with open access provision.
Do the math, dude, it's all right there in plain English. | |
|
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | Re: Read the damn report, Karl Read the damn story, Richard Bennett.quote:
"Opponents, however, argue that their business models are undermined by bandwidth-hungry applications particularly those with
significant video content. Future growth will likely require considerable investment in new infrastructure. But infrastructure owners may believe that they are able to recover too little of the cost to justify investment."
Note it's prefaced with "opponents argue" and qualified with "may believe". D&T is simply framing the telco position for readers. That's a pretty far cry from boldly suggesting network neutrality advocates are to blame for a looming bandwidth shortage, which is what the "Americans for Prosperity" piece gleaned.
That, for the eight-hundredth time, is fear mongering telco and cable lobbyist prattle.
These companies have always used deployment as a carrot on a stick with politicians. And it always works. Meanwhile, in the real world, capacity upgrades are ruled by demand and competition (where there is some).
Back in reality, everybody (assuming they can afford it) is busy increasing capacity to prepare for video by the billions (VDSL & line bonding at AT&T, FiOS at Verizon DOCSIS 3.0, SDV, channel bonding at Comcast).
Verizon and Comcast aren't going to improve their infrastructure, in a high-stakes game of cable vs. telco, because network neutrality laws just might be passed? Give me a break. Verizon is spending $23 billion on FTTH. That alone deflates the original "Americans For Prosperity" piece.
If there's infrastructure hesitation, it's thanks to investors wanting immediate returns in a project that will take a decade. Telco investors are wisely terrified of the slow trek to profitability upon enterting the TV market.
But Network Neutrality as a principle driver of capacity? A primary reason for infrastructure lag? Just isn't factual. It's a political talking point.
The incumbents know they can derail network neutrality laws with lawyers and PR campaigns (and hey, look at that, think tanks spouting simplistic fear-driven rhetoric, regurgitated by loyal partisans seems to be working pretty well). That's before you consider the legions of people (like myself) who don't want such laws created because we're unsure our politicians have the intellectual capacity to draft them.
Network neutrality laws have a virtually impossible climb ahead. Even if passed, it's possible it might only be worded to make it illegal to outright BLOCK competing content traffic -- not restrict QOS or prioritization.
If some CEO or CTO wants to stop upgrading his network because he's afraid of Nancy Pelosi, he's an idiot.
Partisan deregulatory lobbyist rantings on both sides ('the world ends if we pass network neutrality laws!' or "AT&T will shut down your VOnage account!") are aimed at generating fear and are only loosely based on reality.
I see you're only tasked with wandering the Internet correcting inaccuracies when it comes to half of that equation....and godspeed with that... | |
|
Richard Bennett
@trpz.com
| What a hilarious comment In the first place, Karl, boldface doesn't make a weak argument stronger, it simply underscores its weakness.
And in the second place, I'm not "tasked" with anything on net neutrality. I'm not paid to write about it and everything I say on the subject is my unedited personal opinion based on 25 years of network protocol invention and implementation.
So as much as you try to smear me (and apparently everyone who disagrees with your wild rants) as a telco shill, it's completely unwarranted.
It's a provable, measurable fact that broadband investment hasn't kept up with demand for the last ten years. And it's a priovable measurable fact that the broadband industry's leaders have said, consistently, that they can't invest too much capital in an uncertain environment. And it's a provable fact of economics that stability and uniformity are prerequisites to capital flow. And it's provable - as I noted - that Deloitte is aware of all these facts.
So your complaint seems to be with the most obvious claim that Deloitte makes: that investment is not keeping up with demand. In your mind there's no point in analyzing the reasons why it's not, because you think it is.
That's really an odd position, but if you use enough boldface type in expressing it, perhaps you can con yourself into believing it. But in any case it's far removed from your original and completely unfounded claim that Kerpen misused Deloitte. He clearly didn't, and your problems with the Deloitte projections don't show otherwise. | |
|
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | Re: What a hilarious comment Richard Bennett, I've already deconstructed all your points and raised dozens you repeatedly ignore. Now you're just playing "is too" and "because I said so" patty cake.quote:
It's a provable, measurable fact that broadband investment hasn't kept up with demand for the last ten years.
Yes, all because of "regulatory uncertainty." I've heard it all before, and it doesn't get any more true the more it's repeated by myopic partisans, free market pay-per-stat think tank economists, Ayn Rand fans, guerrilla marketers, Ed Whitacre and/or current or former lobbyists (whichever one you are is irrelevant to me).
Any actual meaningful insight you may have to me seems obfuscated by your rabid zeal and analytical asymmetry (only pro-network neutrality analysis deserves hard-nosed scrutiny, but misleading anti-network neutrality arguments get a free pass). Among all your easily googled network neutrality diatribes Internet wide where you profess to have the utmost concern for facts, have you ever actually criticized a misleading network neutrality lobbying effort by an incumbent provider?
Fascinating insight, though. Really. | |
|
| |
Richard Bennett
@trpz.com
| Re: What a hilarious comment I love your style of debate, Broadband Karl. Whenever one of your claims is refuted, you pretend you never made it. Above you accused me of being "tasked" to slam neuts, and now you say you don't care if I'm "tasked" or not.
So why did you make the charge in the first place?
Oh, I get it, you just get off on insulting people, and you don't care if your insults are on-target or off.
You're a funny guy, Karl. | |
|
| | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: What a hilarious comment Thank you, Richard. I think you're handsome.
I'm so sorry insulting people so violates your ethos. | |
|
| | | |
Richard Bennett
@trpz.com
| Re: What a hilarious comment I've got nothing against a well-turned insult. I come from the early days of Usenet when a well-built flame was an object of admiration. I don't find your insults very stylish, however, hence my lack of admiration. Calling everyone who has an opinion a "telco shill" isn't my idea of creativity. | |
|
| | | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
1 edit | Re: What a hilarious comment Funny, considering I never actually called you a "telco shill."
I will, however, try harder to insult you the next time I note you're regurgitating lobbyist talking points dolled up as actual insight. | |
|
Richard Bennett
@trpz.com
| That's good Please clarify one point for me before I drop this thread entirely: you don't agree with Deloitte that infrastructure investment isn't keeping up with demand, do you?
I mean your whole thing here is measuring download speed so you should know, shouldn't you? And those paid-off capitalistic money-grubbing MBA whores in the button-down collars and starched shirts and Apple computers and Blackberries are encroaching on your turf with their regurgitated accountants' talking points, aren't they?
Those rat bastards. | |
|
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: That's good We're at the point now where you're not even making coherent sense... | |
|
| |
Richard Bennett
@trpz.com | Re: That's good That's my effort at finding our common ground. | |
|
| | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: That's good You're about as interested in "common ground" as I am in acquiring 1981 ABBA bootlegs. | |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| where the rubber meets the road...Demand MORE, and get it Until we actually see this in residential deployments and the cost savings/speed improvements passed on to consumers.. who cares?
The likelihood that it would change AT&T's option of deploying an all fiber network to the last mile is still not changing due to this so-called advance. Furthermore, if this were to happen, it would only give carriers ALL THE MORE INCENTIVE to skimp on the broadband by NOT building out GPON and aggregate bandwidth in the networks and all the while, passing the savings on to corporate retirements/bonuses and shareholders... not the end consumer.. and not add a since cent to the deployment budgets.
Call me cynical all you want, but that is what would happen, consumers would get SCREWED, the same way they were and are with DSL, Cable and the paltry Asymmetrical fiber speeds of 2007...!! | |
|
|
|
|
