iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Here's the thing DOCSIS 1.1 can't do symmetric 5 Mbps.
Anything longer than about 2500 feet on DSL can't do 5 Mbps symmetric.
I don't even think WiMAX can do 5 Mbps symmetric.
While I'd love a 5 Mbps symmetric connection, that would mean that only the top tiers of cable service (or top two tiers in the case of Comcast and Cablevision) in DOCSIS 3 areas can get that kind of service. And any provider that has fiber, plus some that have wireless (not WiMAX based).
Call me a corporate communist, but that's setting the bar too high at this point. Once we can get low-latency 3 Mbps down, 768k up service to 95% of the US via at least two methods of broadband service, then we can work on 5 Mbps symmetric. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | 5 mbps upstream would make DSL and all wireless unable to be called broadband. The FCC will NEVER adopt what Free Press wants. |
|
|
|
 Duramax08A Challenger AppearsPremium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX
 ·Millenicom
·Cricket Broadband
 ·Juno Express
·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to iansltx
I agree, Its way to high for something reasonable. I would say 1.5 mbps up and down should be something to aim at. But anything faster then dial up is broadband for me.
--
One day, High speed internet will be down my road! Willing to put DSLAM's or cable plants on my yard. Contact me AT&T or TWC to set up an appointment =] |
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | reply to Romney2012
Which makes it odd that cable is opposing it. The ads practically write themselves (assuming they'd be willing to offer something like 12/5 instead of 12/2 as their flagship service)
--
"Religion allows people who would otherwise be arguing about whether the Death Star could beat a Borg Cube to have a place of respect within society." |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to iansltx
Docsis 1.X spec is 38Mbps down, 9Mbps up (both shared).
Since the cost differential between D1 and D3 is only $100/customer to upgrade(see Cablevision front page a few months back) the initial cost installation(nothing to a running system) of D1 vs D3 is essentially non existent.
Fios and Uverse are both very capable of sustaining 5/5. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
1 edit | reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:. I don't even think WiMAX can do 5 Mbps symmetric. »www.howardforums.com/showthread.···=1&pp=15
First page has a 7/7, and 5th as a about 17/5.5.
EDIT: and yes its wimax.  |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to Romney2012
WImax can do like 5-7 up »www.howardforums.com/showthread.···=1&pp=15
and like 16 down.
»www.howardforums.com/showthread.···=5&pp=15 |
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | generally this would only be used for fixed wimax (if at all). the reason speeds are being offered like that is because people are slow on the uptake for the product. its just left over spectral bandwidth. once those channels become congested, you won't see those speeds.
why do you think that most of the wimax companies have defined "typical" and "peak" bandwidths?
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Yeah but it can do them, it may only be 3 or so m when everyone gets one is, but when everyone is not something close to like 5-ish may be possible. Plus there is a reason the ISPs say "up to". |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by me1212:Yeah but it can do them, it may only be 3 or so m when everyone gets one is, but when everyone is not something close to like 5-ish may be possible. Plus there is a reason the ISPs say "up to". its all about cya.
additionally, wimax has yet to prove itself if it will be the panacea for our bandwidth needs. sure, they've deployed in 14 markets (with the additional "go-lives" today), but most have been in urban or slightly suburban markets (wichita falls, tx i believe has a population of ~100k). the issue with wimax (or any wireless protocol) is that you have to have the adequate backhaul to support your user base. in the rural locales, this means running t1s to the pop or (in rare instances if there is a fiber ring around) tapping the existing fiber plant and running a ds3 or something similar. a lot of the urban markets have the ability for microwave backhaul - but in rural, mountainous areas (such as where i grew up), there are only one or two paths for microwave backhauls and most of them are pretty used up.
as much as anyone wants to say that wimax/lte will solve the nation's bandwidth problem in the last mile, i am incredibly skeptical. you can provide the spectrum to the user over that last "wireless mile", but can you effectively manage the demand and oversubscription ratios to effectively plan for the backhaul?
long story short, i'm less than confident....
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to Romney2012
Some wireless can do 5 Mbps up...it's just a bit spendy. Nothing compared with fiber though. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to Lazlow
UVerse can't do 5/5 with current profils, unless they've turned on U12. In which case it's only doable at less than 2500 feet or something like that.
On DOCSIS 1.1 I've never seen above about 3 Mbps on the upstream, even with uncapped PowerBoost. DOCSIS 2 on the other hand can sustain 5/5 speeds easily, however I'd be willing to bet that the majority of subscribers jumping for current high-end cable tiers are doing so for the upload rather than the download. I for one would be perfectly fine with a 12/5 connection, but am at 22/5 (50/10 right now for testing but will downgrade once my Backblaze backup completes) because with Comcast there is no such thing.
Okay, actually I'd love a 25 or 35 Mbps symmetric connection, but I'll either need fiber or a channel bonded upstream for that. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to me1212
Niiiiice. Had no idea the tech was that speedy on the upstream. I thought 0.5 was the best you could get on mobility, with 1.5-2 Mbps on fixed/nomadic applications. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to tubbynet
Even 8xT1s aren't going to give you enough bandwidth to run a high-quality WiMAX setup. You either need fiber or wireless backhauls. Which won't be practical for awhile in some situations, which in turn means that we won't see WiMAX from Clear in those locations.
WiMAX isn't a panacea but as a consumer electronics "4G" solution and as a fixed solution in markets that are a notch above out-in-the-sticks rural, it's promising. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:Niiiiice. Had no idea the tech was that speedy on the upstream. I thought 0.5 was the best you could get on mobility, with 1.5-2 Mbps on fixed/nomadic applications. Clear just has it(the UL) capped.  And IIRC, one 7(may have been 5, I forget) up was on the same tower as a .5 from clear, but the 7 was sprint who has not capped the UL.  |
|
| reply to Romney2012
said by Romney2012:5 mbps upstream would make DSL and all wireless unable to be called broadband. Hi, I'm VDSL. Nice to meet you. |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:Even 8xT1s aren't going to give you enough bandwidth to run a high-quality WiMAX setup. You either need fiber or wireless backhauls. Which won't be practical for awhile in some situations, which in turn means that we won't see WiMAX from Clear in those locations. WiMAX isn't a panacea but as a consumer electronics "4G" solution and as a fixed solution in markets that are a notch above out-in-the-sticks rural, it's promising. it helps. there is no doubt. but then you run into the issue of who is going to deploy this?
if you need a high speed quality backhaul, who is going to give it to you at that price? the ilecs have indie-access pricing and because of the access-rules, a clec's price is going to include the markup that the ilec charges them.
as much as i absolutely hate SuperWISP  's constant shilling, i understand his plight. i feel that he is exaggerating numbers to make his situation seem worse than it really is, but there are some serious gaps in our broadband policies. we have allowed the ilecs to effectively dictate what will be installed where. sure, they have built out the network, but when you receive a gift of the last mile from the government, you are able to spend your incoming revenues in other places. indie providers don't have this luxury. as such, whether or not an ilec is deploying the next-gen technology, they still dictate what goes where.
even if you try to use a well placed microwave downlink in a metro area into a carrier-neutral meet-me facility where the cost per megabit is marginal when you downlink the traffic, you still have to worry about the microwave backhaul getting it there. have you priced that gear lately? from there, you have the tower rental, microwave installation, and then spectrum licenses in each of the municipalities that you plan on running to. its cost prohibitive.
finally, if we leave out the "very rural" areas, who is going to be fixing them up?
i grew up in a *very* rural part of arizona in one of the poorest counties in the country (mostly because of the percentage of native american reservation within our county). frontier brought dsl there in 2001, but a full citywide deployment wasn't finalized until 2003. the highest speed you can get is 1/128 over copper that is mostly 40-60 years old. without a serious push and revamp, these areas will continue to be left behind.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to me1212
Mhm. Wonder if Comcast caps the upload. Might be a big reason to get the Sprint package. Honestly, $80 a month for that kind of speed doesn't sound all that bad... |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to tubbynet
Remember, cablecos are rooting for Clear. So they'll help with Clear bandwidth.
Also, SuperWISP isn't exaggerating as far as I can tell. Things get expensive when you're buying bandwidth from the only game in town.
Lastly, if you can get 3G in an area, you can get 4G in that area. Just takes a bit of doing... |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by iansltx:Remember, cablecos are rooting for Clear. So they'll help with Clear bandwidth. only if you are in a market served by timewarner, comcast, or brighthouse. additionally, there are some locations within the footprint that *aren't* served by those providers. my office is one. smack dab in the middle of a cox neighborhood. all we could get is a set of t1s from qwest. granted, the msos could front the connectivity and wire the premise up, but thats a large cost.
is this to say that you will only find clear in an area where those companies are located? takes out a rather large chunk of the country.
Also, SuperWISP isn't exaggerating as far as I can tell. Things get expensive when you're buying bandwidth from the only game in town.
i'm not doubting the cost of what he is purchasing. this is why i am for reforming some of our carrier access laws and would like to see some investigation into wholesale pricing of bandwidth outside of metro areas. i do think that he is stretching the truth when it comes to customer pricing, as any good isp will know how to effectively estimate and manage oversubscription ratios in the customer base. some of his posts are a little sensationalistic, in my opinion. however, that is neither here nor there.
Lastly, if you can get 3G in an area, you can get 4G in that area. Just takes a bit of doing...
i find that to be a stretch. as i said, i grew up in a very rural area. vzw and sprint both have a (marginal) 3g signal in that location. however, i know where the towers are that they are broadcasting from, and you *aren't* getting fiber there without a hell of a cost. if you want to backhaul it over microwave, you've got to forge a new path and then pay for the gear. again, 4g has to be effectively fed with bandwidth for it to really be 4g. otherwise, its 3g under a different name and more false promises.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
