dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed


Cleveland, OH
reply to iansltx

Re: I'll beat the 3/768 dead horse

said by iansltx:

Ya got me all wrong.

Companies should be able to offer high-quality service and such, including 50 or 100 Mbps symmetric if they feel like it. If I had money to deploy a fiber optic system in my town right now I'd START with TWC's current tiers, up them by a few megabits, make them symmetric and charge the same price as TWC is right now. So 20 Mbps symmetric for $50, 10 Mbps symmetric for $40. I'd probably add 50 Mbps symmetric around $80, and would subscribe to that tier if I were a customer.

However we're talking about a baseline here (or at least I am). Let's get everyone who wants to walk speedwalking before sending a select few to the moon "just because." I'd rather get 3/768 to ten customers who couldn't get it before than 50/50 to a single customer who can currently get 15/2. Don't get me wrong, technology will benefit from higher broadband speeds, but our big issue is getting the speeds we do have out to everyone.

FWIW the average speed of the top country in the world right now, according to speedtest.net, is "only" about 21 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up. So if we had percentile-based billing with 30/15 Mbps (down and up) as the fixed speed and heavy customers paying more (and lighter customers paying less) that would actually put us on top of the heap...assuming we could bring that to everyone. Which would cost a dozen or two times what the current broadband plan calls for.

Though with Ubiquiti equipment (yay »ubnt.com) I'm guessing you could push out a 10/2 or so service (maybe even 10 Mbps symmetric) to a lot of places for relatively cheap. You just have to have a decent middle mile. Which we might be getting around here...pretty excited about that...
The capacity of the internet actually grows approximately according to Moore`s law. We should set a goal to string fiber to 95% of the population in the US. Once the fiber is laid, we won`t have any more significant capital expense issues.

This is our *national broadband plan* and we are the *friggin` United States of America* darn it! We do not let anyone in the world better us.


Austin, TX
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
It would on average take maybe $2000-$2500 per house to string fiber to it at this point. Multiply that by the number of houses that don't have fiber yet and you're looking at a LOT of money. A lot of your (and my) tax money. No thanks.

Out of curiosity, what kind of connection are you on now, and what's the fastest connection that you've been on? I've been on everything from dialup to a 100M-port gigabit-to-internet university network and the biggest consumer of bandwidth on-campus is our twelve-rack supercomputer. Second-largest is probably BitTorrent. Third-largest is probably YouTube. Then again we're looking at college students here. They couldn't possibly be showing what everyone will do in the future on the Internet of tomorrow...it's too low-bandwidth and similar to what the ydo today!

Well, seeding a public-tracker torrent of the latest movie in BlueRay-Rip format isn't quite low-bandwidth...