http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19471670 en Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:12:13 EDT Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:12:13 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19472068 en102 : Increasing bandwidth by a factor of 2 at the home (per line), would require capacity at the backhaul to increase substantially, if that capacity is not already there.
Items such as sniffing (AT&T's anti-piracy attempt), and throttling (Sandvine - Comcast, COX, and others) are attempts at allowing the Telcos/Cableco's to have their cake and eat it too.
Eg. We'll give you 50Mbps, but you can only download HTML and items through our portal.

If they _really_ want to push that kind of service, they _should_ call it AOL or something else, not 'Internet'.
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19472068 Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:04:47 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19471827 swhx7 : Isn't there excess capacity on the mainlines? That's what I've read. The bottleneck is from the endpoints to the backbones. Residential service in particular needs to get upgraded to fiber.

It's easy to get these dire predictions if you assume demand will continue increasing at the present rate, but also assume that infrastructure will remain the same. But that's not realistic.

The study is contrived to support anti-neutrality political maneuvering.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19471827 Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:24:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19471670 DotMac4 : Supply will simply accelerate. Level 3 and other providers have nothing to gain and everything to lose by reaching capacity. Reaching capacity costs them a lot of money and there is certainly a large opportunity cost. It is in their best interest to keep up with demand.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19471670 Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:01:54 EDT