Underplay
join:2003-10-19
Tacoma, WA | There done for.
There business strategie is too damn boring. Hopefully someone will buyout this crappy company and replace the infrastructure to support higher speeds, FIOS? |
|
plk
bo may sleep in loft
Premium
join:2002-04-20
Ogden, IA
edit:
February 27th, @09:43AM
| I agree. This guy is a fool or he's waiting to be bought. However, I doubt any other big Bell would be interested.
If they don't have the cash, sell off a few states to regional providers and use the cash to innovate. Even one town at a time ftth?
One has to wonder how much they can write off in a bankruptcy?
My question would have been. "You have FTTH so some small areas. What the logic behind 5 meg caps"?
--
Thermaltake 2000a/Asus P4C-e/p4 3.4/ocz3500 2x512/WD.2x200g/raptor2x74 raid 0/ATI 9600/APC sua 1500/Logitech z-680/ Samsung 213t LCD/MX 1000 |
|
Underplay
join:2003-10-19
Tacoma, WA
| reply to Underplay
You know whats funny, I live in Pullman, WA a college town near the Idaho border. There is such a small market for internet, however, the local provider upgraded there backbone to fiber optics LAST YEAR.
If a locally owned ISP is upgrading to fiber, I think a big corporation can do the same. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| reply to Underplay
Just think for a second. The one player that is deploying a FTTH service in any massive scale anywhere in America is getting rid of 3 states which are about as densely populated as the average Qwest state and you really.... honestly believe that what you just said would ever come to pass? |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | reply to Underplay
I'm certain Qwest and all the baby bell ISPs upgraded to a fiber backbone long long ago. |
|
hidden72
join:2008-01-21
Kaysville, UT
| Not really. There are thousands upon thousands of 256k and 1.5mbps users who can't get better DSL speeds because they are running off of a copper-fed remote terminal. No fiber anywhere to be seen.
If those Remote Terminals were fiber-fed, 7mbps and higher speeds would be possible. The copper is the bottleneck. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | I don't think you realize what "backbone" means. |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to Underplay
Isn't Pullman in Verizon territory, like Moscow? Verizon has had fiber into there for several years, maybe close to 10? They also have digital microwave into the area. Qwest and Verizon have a radio site on the same butte, and Verizon's fiber goes right by there. |
|
hidden72
join:2008-01-21
Kaysville, UT
| reply to bogey780
If you take a simplistic approach, the backbone is any part of the network that carries more than 1 user's traffic. In a DSL network, that delineation occurs at the DSLAM. The link from the RT to my house is just my own traffic, hardly considered a backbone. However, the link from the RT to the CO carries hundreds of user's traffic back to the CO. That is a backbone link.
If you want to play the game of semantics, we could use proper terms such as backbone, core, distribution, aggregation, edge, etc, but for the purposes of this conversation the copper "backbone" that feeds the remote terminals is a bottleneck that needs to go away. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backhaul_%···tions%29
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbone_network
There's a succinct difference between the terms. I wouldn't call RT to the CO a backbone as there's a very significant heirarchy difference between the two.
And getting back to the original assertion, Qwest and AT&T are running fiber for backhaul. That's the whole point. |
|
Underplay
join:2003-10-19
Tacoma, WA | reply to viperlmw
Yes Pullman is Verizon territory, however, we are stuck with crappy DSL copper lines, and no FIOS. The closest we thing we have to speed in compared to FIOS would be roadrunner/timewarner which has a package of 10mb now. |
|
