Re: Different numbers here. in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19236986 en Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:30:46 EDT Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:30:46 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19247594 fiberguy : Personally, I have a G router for wireless because I run an actual network in the home so I get a higher transfer rate between other computers while wireless. Also, you now have more and more ISPs pushing beyond the 10mb. But, you are right.. in most cases, the average consumer is fine with B right now.

The ONLY other reason I can see G being an advantage is that they do tend to get a better signal pushed on further distances over B.. again, still rare.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19247594 Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:27:52 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19245729 XBL2009 :
said by wifi4milez See Profile :

said by XBL2009 See Profile :

The copper network value is degrading every year is the point. Using DSL tech is only a stop gap measure and won't fix the problem. They have to replace their entire network at some point and it won't be with more copper.
That is 100% correct. When the time comes and they do that however, THEN you will see higher capacity connections available to far more people. Thats my whole point, the telco's/ISP's need to spend a few billion (collectively) for 100Mbps connections to be the norm. Until then, we can all want them but they arent needed, nor will they be provided on a large scale.
What will happen is they will offer 10mbps with caps and milk it for the next 50 years. The FCC being the telco bitch that they are will let them get away with it.

Then finally in the year 2050 the usa will have 100mbps service....of course the rest of the world will be using gigabit connections and laughing at us.
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19245729 Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:38:31 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19245413 wifi4milez :
said by XBL2009 See Profile :

The copper network value is degrading every year is the point. Using DSL tech is only a stop gap measure and won't fix the problem. They have to replace their entire network at some point and it won't be with more copper.
That is 100% correct. When the time comes and they do that however, THEN you will see higher capacity connections available to far more people. Thats my whole point, the telco's/ISP's need to spend a few billion (collectively) for 100Mbps connections to be the norm. Until then, we can all want them but they arent needed, nor will they be provided on a large scale.
--
я люблю Денди!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19245413 Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:48:40 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19244980 XBL2009 :
said by wifi4milez See Profile :

said by XBL2009 See Profile :

said by wifi4milez See Profile :

Here is why your argument is flawed, its called economies of scale. People want SUV's, and because they are mass produced they can be procured for around the same price as a car. Thus there is no real difference. People want big houses, and because there are many people with enough money to buy them they are easily available. People want fast computers, and again, due to economies of scale, fast computers are relatively cheap.

Now lets explore why economies of scale do not apply to bandwidth (in the US today). People CAN buy 100Mbps connections today, in fact, almost everyone can. The problem is however, that they cost between $4000 and $20,000 per month depending on where you live. This is because the back end infrastructure necessary for mass "production" of 100Mbps connections isnt deployed. Once the telcos have spent the necessary billions (yes, billions) needed to support every customer potentially ordering a 100Mbps circuit, they will be just as common as regular DSL and cable lines. To wrap up this brief "Economics 101" lesson, the economy is certainly driven by what people want; assuming its something the market can support. If not, a separate niche market develops for those products, and the niche market is not hindered by cost at all. Hope this helps!
You forgot to mention that the telco's recieved $200 billion in fees and tax breaks to build a fiber network that could handle 45mbps symmetrical and 500 channels: »www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007···683.html
Well, to begin with your first issue is reading/believing anything put out by Cringley. Even the staunchest of whackjobs on these forums tends to shy away from backing most of his blather. The other thing is that even if you examine the $200 billion figure, you will find that he uses "fuzzy math" to come up with it. He is considering profit (yes, profit) achieved by rate increases something that was given to the telco companies. Now lets be serious for a moment here, regardless of what side of the proverbial "fence" you sit on that is just ludicrous. Rate increases are a part of life, and they happen in every industry. To say that the profit made by said increases is "given", "received", or anything other than "earned" is just nuts. Lets examine his quote for just a minute, shall we?

said by Cringley the nutjob :

Over the decade from 1994-2004 the major telephone companies profited from higher phone rates paid by all of us, accelerated depreciation on their networks.....
Wow, so rates increased over the course of ten years and the value of assets depreciated over time?? Sounds like I should give him an economics/finance lesson too! :p

Do yourself a favor XBL2007, delete any bookmarks you have pointing to Cringley's site; that shit will rot your brain!
The copper network value is degrading every year is the point. Using DSL tech is only a stop gap measure and won't fix the problem. They have to replace their entire network at some point and it won't be with more copper.

PS: Since you don't like Cringley's here are other's:

»www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm

»www.muniwireless.com/article/art···iew/5011

»www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm

»saveaccess.org/node/288
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19244980 Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:36:26 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19244241 wifi4milez :
said by XBL2009 See Profile :

said by wifi4milez See Profile :

Here is why your argument is flawed, its called economies of scale. People want SUV's, and because they are mass produced they can be procured for around the same price as a car. Thus there is no real difference. People want big houses, and because there are many people with enough money to buy them they are easily available. People want fast computers, and again, due to economies of scale, fast computers are relatively cheap.

Now lets explore why economies of scale do not apply to bandwidth (in the US today). People CAN buy 100Mbps connections today, in fact, almost everyone can. The problem is however, that they cost between $4000 and $20,000 per month depending on where you live. This is because the back end infrastructure necessary for mass "production" of 100Mbps connections isnt deployed. Once the telcos have spent the necessary billions (yes, billions) needed to support every customer potentially ordering a 100Mbps circuit, they will be just as common as regular DSL and cable lines. To wrap up this brief "Economics 101" lesson, the economy is certainly driven by what people want; assuming its something the market can support. If not, a separate niche market develops for those products, and the niche market is not hindered by cost at all. Hope this helps!
You forgot to mention that the telco's recieved $200 billion in fees and tax breaks to build a fiber network that could handle 45mbps symmetrical and 500 channels: »www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007···683.html
Well, to begin with your first issue is reading/believing anything put out by Cringley. Even the staunchest of whackjobs on these forums tends to shy away from backing most of his blather. The other thing is that even if you examine the $200 billion figure, you will find that he uses "fuzzy math" to come up with it. He is considering profit (yes, profit) achieved by rate increases something that was given to the telco companies. Now lets be serious for a moment here, regardless of what side of the proverbial "fence" you sit on that is just ludicrous. Rate increases are a part of life, and they happen in every industry. To say that the profit made by said increases is "given", "received", or anything other than "earned" is just nuts. Lets examine his quote for just a minute, shall we?

said by Cringley the nutjob :

Over the decade from 1994-2004 the major telephone companies profited from higher phone rates paid by all of us, accelerated depreciation on their networks.....
Wow, so rates increased over the course of ten years and the value of assets depreciated over time?? Sounds like I should give him an economics/finance lesson too! :p

Do yourself a favor XBL2007, delete any bookmarks you have pointing to Cringley's site; that shit will rot your brain!
--
я люблю Денди!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19244241 Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:39:51 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19243318 XBL2009 :
said by wifi4milez See Profile :

Here is why your argument is flawed, its called economies of scale. People want SUV's, and because they are mass produced they can be procured for around the same price as a car. Thus there is no real difference. People want big houses, and because there are many people with enough money to buy them they are easily available. People want fast computers, and again, due to economies of scale, fast computers are relatively cheap.

Now lets explore why economies of scale do not apply to bandwidth (in the US today). People CAN buy 100Mbps connections today, in fact, almost everyone can. The problem is however, that they cost between $4000 and $20,000 per month depending on where you live. This is because the back end infrastructure necessary for mass "production" of 100Mbps connections isnt deployed. Once the telcos have spent the necessary billions (yes, billions) needed to support every customer potentially ordering a 100Mbps circuit, they will be just as common as regular DSL and cable lines. To wrap up this brief "Economics 101" lesson, the economy is certainly driven by what people want; assuming its something the market can support. If not, a separate niche market develops for those products, and the niche market is not hindered by cost at all. Hope this helps!
You forgot to mention that the telco's recieved $200 billion in fees and tax breaks to build a fiber network that could handle 45mbps symmetrical and 500 channels: »www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007···683.html
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19243318 Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:37:05 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19242239 wifi4milez :
said by XBL2009 See Profile :

said by wifi4milez See Profile :

said by bigjimc See Profile :

You are correct though, nobody, not even the people on DSLR need 100Mbps home connections at this point in time. Sure I would like one, but thats about where it ends.
Your argument is flawed, the economy is not based on what people need but what they want.

People want SUV's.
People want big houses.
People want faster computers.
People want faster internet connections.

Also when we all get 100mbps connections it means that a lot of things connected will have to be updated. Just imagine at what services will come online once 100mbps is available.
Here is why your argument is flawed, its called economies of scale. People want SUV's, and because they are mass produced they can be procured for around the same price as a car. Thus there is no real difference. People want big houses, and because there are many people with enough money to buy them they are easily available. People want fast computers, and again, due to economies of scale, fast computers are relatively cheap.

Now lets explore why economies of scale do not apply to bandwidth (in the US today). People CAN buy 100Mbps connections today, in fact, almost everyone can. The problem is however, that they cost between $4000 and $20,000 per month depending on where you live. This is because the back end infrastructure necessary for mass "production" of 100Mbps connections isnt deployed. Once the telcos have spent the necessary billions (yes, billions) needed to support every customer potentially ordering a 100Mbps circuit, they will be just as common as regular DSL and cable lines. To wrap up this brief "Economics 101" lesson, the economy is certainly driven by what people want; assuming its something the market can support. If not, a separate niche market develops for those products, and the niche market is not hindered by cost at all. Hope this helps!
--
я люблю Денди!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19242239 Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:52:35 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19240962 gogeta6 : People like instant gratification (or as close to it as possible)

It's pretty nice on a 100mbit connection to have the next image dl while one is burning.

Could get 99% of stuff done on dual isdn, but wouldn't be able to multitask much.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19240962 Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:33:09 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19240455 Tikker_LoS : not disagreeing that there's a ton of cool stuff you could do with a huge pipe available

what I'm saying is that the average person doesn't even think of that stuff, so there's not widespread demand for more bandwidth]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19240455 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:57:59 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19240250 voyager6868 : I love the shortsighted people on this site.

What if a company wants to sell me an HDDVD or BluRay disc over the net? Do I really want to wait a day for it to download? Or would I prefer to have it stream and I can watch it in real-time?

Let's say I'm at the office and want to see what's going on in my house. I can wire up 10 different HD cameras and stream it to my office. Or maybe I want to view live feeds from other people's houses or stream my feed to 100 other people.

If you open your mind a bit, you'll see that once people have 100Mbit connections, they will find lots of interesting uses for them--many of which are legal.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19240250 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:18:07 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19240020 XBL2009 :
said by wifi4milez See Profile :

said by bigjimc See Profile :

You are correct though, nobody, not even the people on DSLR need 100Mbps home connections at this point in time. Sure I would like one, but thats about where it ends.
Your argument is flawed, the economy is not based on what people need but what they want.

People want SUV's.
People want big houses.
People want faster computers.
People want faster internet connections.

Also when we all get 100mbps connections it means that a lot of things connected will have to be updated. Just imagine at what services will come online once 100mbps is available.
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19240020 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:35:34 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19239351 Tikker_LoS :
said by XBL2009 See Profile :

Since you can't get more then 10 megabits from any ISP what's the point of going beyond a b router?
well, you don't get anywhere near 10 mbps thru a b router]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19239351 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:43:56 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19239083 wifi4milez :
said by bigjimc See Profile :

How many "new" Linux ISOs can a person download in a week?

Add it up. People do not need the speed. They just want it really really badly.

Unless you are a family of 10 who each game on-line with individual VoIP phones and want to listen to your Sirius radio on-line while downloading a new linux isos.
Oh man thats funny! I always get a kick out of the "downloaders" who love to spout the whole "linux distro" crap as an excuse for stealing. You are correct though, nobody, not even the people on DSLR need 100Mbps home connections at this point in time. Sure I would like one, but thats about where it ends.
--
я люблю Денди!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19239083 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:54:15 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19239011 Ahrenl : That and the cost of the router is a very small percentage of the annual cost of the service.

It won't be an issue for people who want the service. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19239011 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:40:07 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19238747 XBL2009 : Since you can't get more then 10 megabits from any ISP what's the point of going beyond a b router?

I personally still have a b wireless router and a 1 Gbps wired router. I move large files with the wired router and surf with the b router.

However if the need arose to upgrade the b router for faster internet speeds I would and so would everyone else.

PS: Most homes I go into have the modem attached directly to the DSL or Cable modem and don't have a router at all.
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19238747 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:53:30 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19237315 fiberguy : I've been in enough homes to know that G routers haven't flown off the shelf to replace the B routers. Many who have G routers do so because they were available when they purchased them...

People here need to stop thinking that the whole world does what the very VERY small group of people here do. This site is FAR from a representation of what the rest of the country is doing.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19237315 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:51:29 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19237564 Joe12345678 : The same thing that happened with the Clinton health care plan.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19237564 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:53:54 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19237033 Ahrenl : If we ALL have OC-3 lines, then it stands to reason the servers (being inclusive in "ALL") have them as well. It's the same argument.. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19237033 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:25:34 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19236986 bigjimc : How many "new" Linux ISOs can a person download in a week?

Add it up. People do not need the speed. They just want it really really badly.

Unless you are a family of 10 who each game on-line with individual VoIP phones and want to listen to your Sirius radio on-line while downloading a new linux isos.
--
Just my 2 cents...Flame Lightly...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19236986 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:19:35 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19236915 DHRacer : I have 10/1 right now. I can only see 10 down from a very local server. Anything beyond "local" and I might as well have the 3Mbps package, at best.

How is offering 100Mbps to a customer going to change any of that? Wait...faster?

We seem to be forgetting that the other side needs to be able to serve at this speed for us to see this speed. If we all have OC-3 lines but the servers only put out at T1 levels, then we are arguing about whether we should get 100Mbps for nothing.

--
"No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them." (R&D Supervisor, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing /3M Corp.)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19236915 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:05:28 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19236853 XBL2009 :
said by DHRacer See Profile :

The one thing we're all forgetting is how much consumer hardware doesn't even support more than 10Mbps on the WAN port (or some that say 10Mbps WAN port but can't even deliver that).

It would take a serious re-education of the greater portion of American public to tell them that 99% of their home routers will need replacing to get more than 10Mbps down. Most would probably say "f-that!", especially since stuff that is 100Mbps on the WAN side is always a bit more money (though that is slowly changing on the latest offerings).

So, no, anything above 10Mbps is definately enthusiast level, and who owns (and paid a good penny for) enthusiast level equipment to have it. We'll see 100Mbps maybe when our kids are grown and buying HSI, because only a few today see the need for more than 10 (and they're pretty much all here at DSLR). Our kids, who have grown up in the Internet age and are fully into being bandwidth consumers will drive the rollout...
Like a $40 router will stop people from getting 100mbps internet. If 100mbps was available then the market would have a ton of routers for people to use.

Let's see we have gone from b to g to super g to n I think people would upgrade again if necessary.
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19236853 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:57:34 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19236845 Ahrenl : Well, since many ISP's integrate a router with the modem now, that probably won't be an issue. Also, considering on most days you can get a router for free (after rebates) I don't think someone spending $50-$100's on their service is going to blink at it.

The only reason any level of bandwidth above that which is current available is not used yet, is obvious. Just re-read that argument. "No one uses X-Level of bandwidth (which is greater than what is currently available) now, so they won't in the future." It's some of the most rediculous logic I've seen outside the political arena. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19236845 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:56:05 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19236739 Tikker_LoS : I actually really agree with pretty much everything you said

for the most part, the only people who actually care about more speed are those that spend a lot of time doing p2p

joe blow probably rarely satures his 1mbps connection, let alone needs 10+ mbps]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19236739 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:40:27 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19236415 DHRacer : The one thing we're all forgetting is how much consumer hardware doesn't even support more than 10Mbps on the WAN port (or some that say 10Mbps WAN port but can't even deliver that).

It would take a serious re-education of the greater portion of American public to tell them that 99% of their home routers will need replacing to get more than 10Mbps down. Most would probably say "f-that!", especially since stuff that is 100Mbps on the WAN side is always a bit more money (though that is slowly changing on the latest offerings).

So, no, anything above 10Mbps is definately enthusiast level, and who owns (and paid a good penny for) enthusiast level equipment to have it. We'll see 100Mbps maybe when our kids are grown and buying HSI, because only a few today see the need for more than 10 (and they're pretty much all here at DSLR). Our kids, who have grown up in the Internet age and are fully into being bandwidth consumers will drive the rollout...




--
"No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them." (R&D Supervisor, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing /3M Corp.)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19236415 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:40:42 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19236041 S_engineer : Wtf hppened to the 40 mbps service in a decade that then president Clinton promised in 1997. Tax incentives were given to all providers, and yet we're lucky to be in an elite tier with 8 mbps. This is crap...or Comcrap in my case!
You're right about the pricing to, this too was supposed to come down...yeah right.
--
Burn a tire, but make sure you buy that carbon offset!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19236041 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:37:39 EDT Re: Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19235810 rantou : ... And at price points that are much higher than in those markets with 10/20/50 as well.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19235810 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:00:48 EDT Different numbers here. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19235787 antioch : We offer 5/2, 15/2 and 30/5 here in So Cal.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19235787 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:56:52 EDT