veldy
join:1999-08-04
Minneapolis, MN
 ·VoicePulse
 ·Comcast
·callwithus
·ViaTalk
·Callcentric
·Vonage
| reply to maartena
Re: If only user desire trumped engineering obstacles...
said by maartena  :None. That's why I stick with Cable, because they can.  But the cable companies are getting greedy and really pushing traffic shaping appliances and content sniffers as well as talking about real caps on total data transfer. So far, the DSL telcos have stayed out of that.
I have Comcast now and have already been victimized by port blocking and traffic shaping and it is getting to be a battle that requires work arounds that cost additional dollars. I am getting the QWest 20Mbps soon and will compare them side by side and for a week or two and then stick with one or the other. If I choose Qwest, I WILL miss the 2Mbps upload link that Comcast offers as uploading my pictures for printing [I am an amateur photographer], and doing file transfers to work will take more than twice as long  |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :Gosh, if only the whiners would get together and put up $20 billion, they could build the "perfect" network instead of bitching about what everyone else isn't doing for them. Start making physical plant being owned by non-profits that don't report to Wall Street and therefore don't have $3000 a month T1s (in a Datacenter BTW). |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :said by Karl Bode :Yeah, if only there were a technology that offered faster upstream speeds! Name a technology that Qwest could deploy at the same or lower costs than their FTTN ADSL2+ offering that would allow those faster upstream speeds. LMDS wireless to the home from the RT? |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to PolarBear
said by PolarBear :No kidding. A much cheaper alternative would be to order two lines and connect them to a dual-WAN router. Although I'm not sure if you can max out both lines with only one connection (say, uploading a large file to a server). A dual WAN router just doesn't cut it. I'm not sure what algorithms it uses, but I assume most websites are smart enough to not allow loading of password protected resources from 2 different IPs with the exact same cookie, or sign out the 1st IP immediately if a 2nd IP trys to access a resource. Also a dual WAN router, AFAIK, can't cut up an image into a 2 Partial transfers, buffer the image in its RAM, then once the entire image is in RAM, pretend to be an HTTP server (hijacking the existing connection) to the PC and deliver the image under 1 HTTP connection. Just tunnel it to a datacenter and ressemble the tunnels into 1 tunnel. |
|
attsbcisgay
join:2003-03-18
Beverly Hills, CA
| reply to pokesph
said by pokesph :Maybe, just maybe, we can just bond 2 lines together. only a pair is used... there are 2 pair or 4 wire in a phone line.
if you could utilize that yes, you can basically go from 8/1 to 80/10 and that would be practical. |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03 | reply to Matt
No kidding. A much cheaper alternative would be to order two lines and connect them to a dual-WAN router. Although I'm not sure if you can max out both lines with only one connection (say, uploading a large file to a server). |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to SLD
Or better, give it back to the taxpayers. |
|
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | reply to Dogfather
Maybe we can commendeer some of the money from the Iraq "war" for this. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :said by mikepd :Not going to happen since true line bonding requires support at the ISP end as well as the subscriber end. No ISP support necessary. You just need to have a box somewhere with sufficient bandwidth (ie, a server at a local data center) and establish a multilink PPP session to that. Screw fiber to the home or DOCSIS 3.0, let's all order 2 DSL lines, co-locate a server in a data center, pay for our bandwidth there, just so we can get 1.8Mbps upstream!
Whooo! |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :said by Karl Bode :Yeah, if only there were a technology that offered faster upstream speeds! Name a technology that Qwest could deploy at the same or lower costs than their FTTN ADSL2+ offering that would allow those faster upstream speeds. Yes, Qwest shouldn't have to spend MORE money! God, how dare some suggest that they may be better off with a more expensive choice- haven't those unlucky enough to hold shares in Q suffered enough?
Qwest dug themselves into this pit with all their debt, but now I don't really see how they can do anything else- they simply don't have the capability to make huge expensive deployments like telecom mega-conglomerates VZ and T. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to Karl Bode
Gosh, if only the whiners would get together and put up $20 billion, they could build the "perfect" network instead of bitching about what everyone else isn't doing for them. |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :said by Karl Bode :Yeah, if only there were a technology that offered faster upstream speeds! Name a technology that Qwest could deploy at the same or lower costs than their FTTN ADSL2+ offering that would allow those faster upstream speeds. None. That's why I stick with Cable, because they can. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to vortex91
said by vortex91 :oh gee FTTH? *sigh* An FTTH deployment would not be the same or lower cost to that of their FTTN deployment. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to mikepd
said by mikepd :Not going to happen since true line bonding requires support at the ISP end as well as the subscriber end. No ISP support necessary. You just need to have a box somewhere with sufficient bandwidth (ie, a server at a local data center) and establish a multilink PPP session to that. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to espaeth
Juice boosted carrier pigeon? |
|
mikepd
Discovery
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-26
New Port Richey, FL
clubs: | reply to espaeth
Not going to happen since true line bonding requires support at the ISP end as well as the subscriber end.
--
Always Reach Beyond Your Grasp |
|
vortex91
join:2000-08-18
Glendale, CA | reply to espaeth
oh gee FTTH? |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03 | reply to pokesph
BLASPHEMY! Shut your mouth, such evils should not be spoken of! |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to pokesph
said by pokesph :Maybe, just maybe, we can just bond 2 lines together. There's nothing to stop you from ordering 2 lines and doing this yourself today. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :Yeah, if only there were a technology that offered faster upstream speeds! Name a technology that Qwest could deploy at the same or lower costs than their FTTN ADSL2+ offering that would allow those faster upstream speeds. |
|
