 cchhat01Dr. Zoidberg
join:2001-05-01
Elmhurst, NY | reply to QUICKSILV3R
Fat chance in comparison when AT&T migrated to GSM, the change was supposed to be completed (altogether) by 2001. We know that didn't happen and I know that this won't happen.
There is just not enough motivation in the markets right now.
20Mbps? please!. whats it supposed to cost? $20K (per year maybe). If 3Mbps costs about $40 (avg of dsl getting around 30 bucks and cable around 50), chances are prices won't be fallin to make room for 20mbps.
besides it probably won't be for "end user" by any means. Personally no end user will need this? give me one good reason. and no downloading DVDs is not a good reason and is means to cause more piracy.
Chris
--
Athlon64 3200+, Gigabyte K8NPro, 1GB DDR400 (GeiL), 80GB and 160GB WD HDD (both w/8MB cache), TOSHIBA SD-M1712, NEC 1300A 4x DVD+/-R/RW Drive, ATI RADEON 9800XT, 3xIEEE1394, 6xUSB2.0,RTL8169/8110 GBit LAN |
|
 ronpinImagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | It looks like a tit-for-tat slow-crawl to higher speeds -- as is happening now with the cable cos. speeding-up to catch the latest DSL speeds. At this rate it looks like incremental speed wars every couple 'o years might get us up to 20mbs in maybe 6-8 years.
I started out on DSL in 1999 at 768kbs -- @Home was 3mbs -- Cable slowed us down to 1.5bs -- DSL now leads at 6mbs -- with Cable starting to match it. About a 6X speed increase over a 5 year period. |
|
 SpitefulCrowInsert Witty Tag HerePremium
join:2003-06-04
Berkeley, CA | Except that cable can continue to go higher when current ADSL is going to stop at 8Mbit/1Mbit.
I am not an expert on the various types of head-end equipment for xDSL or cable, but I'm guessing it's easier to split nodes to increase available bandwidth for all the users than it is to replace all of the headend equipment on a DSL system. 
--
Powered by Optimum Online
First rule of fiber optics: you do not talk about fiber optics |
|
|
|
