| hmm In my MIS class, in one chapter we are told that overbuilding fiber nertworks was part of the cause of the dot com bubble. It also talks about the massive amount of dark fiber sitting dormant. The next chapter claims the internet is unable to handle the traffic it sees today. Can they have it both ways?
|
|
|
|
| The networks know One True Thing: in Washington, FUD, lubricated by lobbying money, works.
The average congresscritter knows nothing about IT and reflexively accepts both the word of the industry "experts" and their contributions.
So yes, if we don't speak up, en masse, they can have it both ways. And they will. If we don't speak up. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to jebba2005
said by jebba2005:In my MIS class, in one chapter we are told that overbuilding fiber nertworks was part of the cause of the dot com bubble. It also talks about the massive amount of dark fiber sitting dormant. The next chapter claims the internet is unable to handle the traffic it sees today. Can they have it both ways? Yes, because there has to be equipment on each end of the fiber to make it active and then ongoing maintenance to the fiber and equipment. That's the expensive part ...
--
Pretty Fly for a White Guy™ |
|
 PacketeersPremium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1
 ·Time Warner Cable
 ·Verizon Online DSL
2 edits | reply to jebba2005
After working for a company that laid backbone fiber all over NYC, I can testify this is true. We used to lay cables and termination test 384 fiber strand cables, while the customer only used 16 of them. so between the dark fibers, and quantum leaps being made every year in data compression algorithms, we won't have capacity problems probably ever. there may be a bottle neck forming here and there that backbone designers will have to circumvent, but no apocalyptic capacity shortage. the expensive part IS laying the fiber. attaching equipment to each strand is justified and amortized by the port addition and throughput metering that is ultimated charged back to the customer. so higher bandwidth capacity requirements may not reduce our broadband end use cost anytime soon, but there certainly will never be a shortage of it unless you live in an area who's Central Office distribution center near you is not worth building out just to serve a few people like you. some areas have this problem even with old aDSL copper availability, especially if they are well penetrated by cable TV operators. |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·voip.ms
| reply to Matt
What, you can't just put a Linksys router and a fiber transceiver at each end? [/sarcasm]
If nothing else, this site servers to illustrate that having a little bit of information is dangerous.
P.S. MattE, I'm not busting your chops, your post is right on. It's the other simplistic ninnies that make me shake my head... |
|
 Rogue WolfAte Your Homework, And Framed The Dog
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | reply to TScheisskopf
In Washington, whoever has the most money is right. After all, if they weren't right, they wouldn't have so much money, would they? 
--
I have learned to ignore such naysayers, when... quelling... them... hm?... was out of the question. |
|
| Exactly. So we have this area of highly-concentrated correctness in Washington, sprinkled with streetwalkers for a bit of spice: they call it "K Street". |
|
