That's not entirely true. It is several orders of magnitude more expensive to deliver bandwidth to residential homes than it is to provide bandwidth for servers in data centers. That's why shifting the distribution burden from data center hosted servers to end-user links is such a poor idea. The P2P architecture is one that you arrive at when you develop an application with complete ignorance to the realities of the network infrastructure it will run on.
This isn't entirely true. FIOS doesn't cost any more to send gobs of bandwidth to the home. Neither does lineshare DSL-espeically since the loop has already been 100% paid for by the POTS service on it. It is true for cable and wireless transmission (more requires more equipment).
This isn't entirely true. FIOS doesn't cost any more to send gobs of bandwidth to the home. Neither does lineshare DSL-espeically since the loop has already been 100% paid for by the POTS service on it. It is true for cable and wireless transmission (more requires more equipment).
You have to be kidding right? Fiber and even Coax freshly delivered today is vastly more expensive compared to pots DSL and existing cable plant. Those investments are long paid for compared to FIOS which may take 10 years before they actually make a profit on an individual home.
You have to be kidding right? Fiber and even Coax freshly delivered today is vastly more expensive compared to pots DSL and existing cable plant.
The poster was talking about the bandwidth, not the plant.
Fiber gives you an advantage over DSL or DOCSIS in that the last mile has more bandwidth available to use. That greater bandwidth means you don't have to invest as much to deliver greater and greater speeds, like upgrading DSL and DOCSIS equipment. You also don't suffer from the problem of limited capacity, like you have with coax and twisted pair. -- There is no such thing as too much vacation, but I would wager that there is such a thing as too little.
·
