| FTTP anyone? Anyone wanna bet they scrap the fttn for fttp? Makes more sense, especially if they want to blow the big bad cable companies out the door. |
|
| Nope, the average consumer wouldnt know the difference and they wouldnt have a need for it. |
|
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to elijha35
Is Ethernet relevant Somewhat "off-topic", but WTH?
I ran across a piece which implied that U-verse would be better than FiOS because of its fairly extensive use of the Alcatel 7450 ESS, which has extensive Ethernet capabilities.
I'm not seeking input on the Ethernet vs. IP as technology for "going forward", but rather just on the question of whether U-verse might be superior to FiOS IF Ethernet is someone's (or everyone's) desired technology.
(In part there is a philosophical/historical basis behind this question because the technological focus in telecom has constanatly shifted from advances in the "cabling" arena to advances in the "switching" arena, and back again, with alternating improvements in capacity and cost for each.)
So, to focus the question again, "Is U-verse better than FiOS for Ethernet?"
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
blips
join:2001-04-17
Addison, IL | reply to ninjatutle
Re: FTTP anyone? said by ninjatutle:Nope, the average consumer wouldnt know the difference and they wouldnt have a need for it. Why does everyone think we don't need more bandwidth. 
"1.5MB is enough. This is not the bandwidth you are looking for."
What a joke. |
|
Dan15k
join:2004-02-03
Wyandotte, MI | reply to ninjatutle
But why wait for our needs to exceed our current technology? Verizon and the cable companies haven't. AT&T is just cheap....The 3/6 tiers have been around for years while everyone else has slowly raised their speeds. |
|
1 edit | reply to elijha35
said by elijha35:
Anyone wanna bet they scrap the fttn for fttp? Makes more sense, especially if they want to blow the big bad cable companies out the door.
Unless this guy really see's it as a profitable thing, no. See Om Malik's inverview. For companies, it's not whats good for the people, it's what's good for the shareholders.
I just can't wait to see AT&T loose a lot of subscribers in the future when many seek faster speeds. Telling their customers they don't need any faster speed may fly with many now, but in the future I think it will cause a huge problem for them. I just switched to a faster cable speed from AT&T DSL and the AT&T rep kept going 'It isn't FAST enough?' Well, they clearly lost my sale.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | said by jimbo2150: ....I just switched to a faster cable speed from AT&T DSL and the AT&T rep kept going 'It isn't FAST enough?' Well, they clearly lost my sale.
At heart, they're still monopolists who think they determine what customers want. Some things never change.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
| reply to ninjatutle
What are you talking about it. Anyone with half a brain will notice! Not to mention the ability to watch mutliple HD streams at one time. Not to mention being able to watch on HD shows and record any other show at one time.
Geesh, you do the average user a disservice. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to ninjatutle
said by ninjatutle:Nope, the average consumer wouldnt know the difference and they wouldnt have a need for it.
I would point out that this is the same thought that Western Union had when it turned down an offer from Alexander Graham Bell to buy all the patents for the telephone for $100,000. They dismissed voice communication as unnecessary.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| reply to jimbo2150
quote:
I just switched to a faster cable speed from AT&T DSL and the AT&T rep kept going 'It isn't FAST enough?' Well, they clearly lost my sale.
Me too. I just switched to Time Warner's phone and internet service because it's clear AT&T will not have anything remotely competitive for a long time, and they clearly see no need to "raise the bar". I will give my money to the company that seems to appreciate my needs the most.
That said, as much as you and I enjoy premium internet speeds, I think we (and most of the other members of this site) are a minority. AT&T can see plenty of success offering even slow 768kbps broadband and weakly implemented "HD" TV service, as long as the price is right, it's advertised well, and it works reasonably consistently. 768kbps internet is sufficient for a HUGE number of casual computer users, and that's something that hasn't changed in the slightest in over a decade! It's still enough for even purported "bandwidth intensive" sites like Youtube.
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. |
|
|
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
1 edit | reply to blips
quote:
"1.5MB is enough. This is not the bandwidth you are looking for."
Long ago someone decided that 300-4000hz is enough audible spectrum for voice communication. And over the years, nobody has seen much of a need to push that limitation. Why? Because it's proved to be sufficient to carry on a conversation.
CD audio is another good example. They're trying to push SACD and DVD Audio, but people just aren't biting, because CD quality is "good enough". In fact the trend seems to be towards less quality - the more convenient MP3.
My point here is that there ARE tangible limitations on how technologies get used. Unless people start installing imax sized screens in their home, I think HDTV quality is probably "good enough" for a few decades.
Unless some new killer app comes (yes, we're still waiting), 1.5mbps may indeed still wind up being "enough" for the masses for years to come. The good news is there's always going to be fanatics like us that want "the best" and are willing to pay for it within reason, and that will continue to drive speeds upward.
Coming back to the topic, to me it's just sad to see AT&T spending so much money to deploy something that doesn't even stand up against the upgrades the cable companies did a decade ago.
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. |
|
| reply to djrobx
said by djrobx:That said, as much as you and I enjoy premium internet speeds, I think we (and most of the other members of this site) are a minority. While you may be right, I still want some faster speeds. Not JUST because other countries far outpace us at this point (but it is one reason), but also because of my needs. I have my own website where I am working on programming projects as well as uploading photos and content to my blog (which require the faster upload speeds). I also like Vuze because it's like YouTube but with HQ content. I bet Vuze take up about 10x the bandwidth of YouTube, but the fact is the companies should be bending to the people's demands not the other way around.
With companies moving so slowly and offering the very least I don't know if high-quality video will ever become mainstream in the U.S. At least not until companies start offering faster speeds... faster, stop with the limits (I'm sure they make up and then some for bandwidth hogs with bandwidth floaters), and stop blocking P2P bandwidth. Yes, P2P can be used for transmitting copyrighted works, but at the same time the amount of legit free or paid content is growing as well. This means they (ISPs) are then limiting innovation of media/entertainment outfits.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
 Old_GrouchDon't just sit there silly DO somethingPremium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper:They dismissed voice communication as unnecessary. calvoiper Said calvoiper  using the latest in keyboard technology to communicate.  |
|
