Topic 'Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581569 en Tue, 21 May 2013 22:27:38 EDT Tue, 21 May 2013 22:27:38 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27585776
So Google doesn't really have an advantage except for a fresh vision. If anything the other companies have had an advantage for years and should have been easily able to upgrade.

While I might agree that AT&T and TW should get the same treatment as Google, it's simply due to a government entity not playing favorites. Let the marketplace decide that AT&T and TW are the real losers that they are.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27585776 Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:55:10 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27585259 said by silbaco:

So I have to agree with TW and At&t. If google gets the perks, so should they.

Alright. Fair is fair. Give all the incumbents the same deal... if they offer free broadband to the public like Google is doing. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27585259 Wed, 03 Oct 2012 08:53:55 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27584850 said by LightS:

You know what else is expensive? Lobbying! Paying your executives record profits!

That's hitting it dead on.

If they'd knock off the lobbying bullsh*t, the U.S. would regain the #1 spot for broadband speeds *AND* availability. Even the rural and remote areas.

If the U.S. had a Multi-Terabit (several 10/40/100GigE) fiber bundles going across the upper, middle, and lower bands of the U.S. along with interconnecting bands going up and down on the west coast, central, and east coast (kind of like a 3x3 grid), it would be plenty of bandwidth for decades (or even the entire century) and decent redundancy in case a section of the grid goes down.

But.. If someone else has a better idea..
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27584850 Wed, 03 Oct 2012 01:17:24 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27584688 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27584688 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:43:48 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583657
Look, simply put, these companies are procrastinating it as far as possible.

You say they cannot do it because "fiber is expensive" - frankly, fiber is NOT that expensive. Do you know what is? The knowledge that is needed to accompany the installation. That being said, AT&T / TWC are huge corporations. They can easily train hundreds upon thousands of employees, get a cutting edge network built as well.

You think it costs TWC/AT&T more than Google to deploy a network? Are you insane? I'm sure it costs TWC/AT&T a lot less, because they already have a fiber backbone available. They should be able to contact their supplier and get more.

Expensive or not, who cares? It needs to be done. I'm willing to pay for it (if it was in my city) if they are getting the kind of requirements / provisions that google did. Nothing wrong with it, if TWC/AT&T will provide the speeds and amazing FTTH service, a one-time installation fee (and then free if you wish), $70 symmetrical service, etc.

If they abandon it, oh well. They got their two years of free reign, now let someone else take over.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583657 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 17:54:13 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583586
1.) A non-isp business going 15 years out would be shear stupidity being that they will do 1 of 2 things within that time period A. Complete remodel or B. move locations. You brought in non-isp businesses to the argument concerning fiber, not me.

2.) Still calling BS on your part, but thanks for playing.

Lastly you are the one claiming copper is the way to go in an ISP conversation, did you not say that?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583586 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 17:30:53 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583448
I know the internet is vital. Hence is why I was arguing that it was. Skippy is the one who said it wasn't when he told me to "Proof it!" :S

The cable can support future technologies. That doesn't mean the hardware can. Obviously the fiber cable is future proof (although now we are already talking about have nanotube fiber in the future). But that doesn't make it a good business decision for At&t 15 years ago. They would still have to operate their copper network. Operating 2 networks for 15 years would have been extremely uneconomical, regardless of how future proof fiber is. Waiting a while longer makes deployment not only cheaper, but saves over having to maintain 2 networks as required by the FCC.

I didn't buy the equipment, and to be honest, I am not positive on what brand it was. But I am positive that it was not cheap nor shitty equipment. Hence is why they switched to copper. This wasn't done yesterday. It as done quite a while ago actually, back when fiber in the business didn't make sense for many reasons including reliability. But they did it anyway, because it was supposed to be future proof. Technically it is still there and they could still use it. But they won't for some time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583448 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:55:37 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583444 said by silbaco:

I didn't say never. There is a time to upgrade and there is a time to wait. At&t actually has ftth u-verse in new construction. But the difference to the consumer is unnoticeable.

Um.. I could prove you wrong there along with quite a few people with U-Verse. Trying to shove VDSL through aging unshielded copper is asking for trouble. Especially when the copper isn't that good to begin with.
said by silbaco:

Was not long ago everyone was saying deploy new wireless networks. Sprint did just that. And now they are decommissioning it after wasting billions. They jumped the gun too quickly and have wasted tons of money that someone has to pay for.

Which network are you talking about? If it's wireless technologies, don't even bother. There's only so much you can do with the slice of spectrum you have. Wireless and Fiber is like comparing night and day. Actually, the better comparison would be comparing Wireless and DSL. Both only have so much bandwidth they can handle.
said by silbaco:

When the time is right for a company to deploy ftth, they will. For some small companies, that time is now. For larger companies that can deploy VDSL or other fast technologies and have the overwhelming majority of their subscribers be happy, that time might be a few years from now. At that time fiber will be even cheaper and more logical.

So, your solution is to wait until someone else does? According to your theory, it'd never happen.

Plus, why deploy fiber when we can waste money on newer technologies that shove the same signal down the same crappy copper lines? Basically, they're putting a "Band-aid" on a spurting wound. Sure, it'll work.. But for how long?

The real fix for this issue is to deploy fiber and recycle the copper.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583444 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:55:06 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583353 said by silbaco:

Considering networks is what I do (no I do not work for an ISP) it seems you are probably arguing with someone who knows MORE about networks than you.

I'd like to challenge you on that.
said by silbaco:

The fact that you want me to prove that our economy needs internet access because every single business relies on it in one form or another means you truly have no idea what you are talking about.

No. The Internet is extremely vital. It's as vital as having a home phone or the Interstate/Highway system.
said by silbaco:

Deploying something 15 years early in something as fast paced and ever changing as networking is stupid. It costs several times more and after 15 years, needs to be overhauled again. More than once. And in At&t's case, while maintaining their old copper lines because the FCC says they have to. If At&t deployed fiber to the home 15 years ago, that would have been stupid for business.

I call bullsh*t on this one. The standards have been set and are still in use to this day. Fiber has been around and you can shove any transport stream through it, either it be Ethernet, ATM, or SONET. It can also support future technologies. Let's see you shove that though a single pair of copper. If you want faster speeds with fiber, just change the GBIC.
said by silbaco:

Why are businesses still deploying 5E and cat 6 cable instead of fiber? Clearly fiber networks are superior right? Hmm. I know a large place that did deploy fiber to computers. They even had fiber NICs. Guess what happened? 3 years later they deployed cat 5E and 6 throughout the entire building and regretted putting in fiber. It was costly, far more expensive to maintain, and now all the equipment would actually be slower than the copper cat 6 network. What a shame.

Wow. I know of a few areas where they would prove you wrong.

Maintenance? No maintenance needed if you left the fiber itself alone. You can shove 10GigE through fiber. Heck, you can shove 40GigE and 100GigE through fiber. Can you do that with Cat6? Nope. Well, you could, but you'd have a large amount of dropped packets due to signal issues.

As for the "deploying CAT5e and 6" part, ya.. it's cheaper and easier to work with.. But there is so much you can shove through it. If you need bandwidth, you need fiber. If you already have a fiber infrastructure, you could send 10GigE to each workstation. The initial cost of the switch would be high, but if you get a good switch and not a cheap POS, it'll last for decades. As for equipment failure, buy cheap equipment.. expect sh*tty results. Next time, buy Cisco or Juniper. DO NOT GO CHEAP ON YOUR CORE NETWORK.
said by silbaco:

I am arguing this because it is funny to watch you make things up.

Ya. Funny that we didn't make this crap up.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583353 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:37:11 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583323 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583323 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:32:57 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583307
It's never good to commit fallacies by attacking the debater but I'm not sure that I've seen those from Skippy25. Guess we should all look again and see those comments. Ok, I see what you're talking about.

Looks like Skippy25 got a bit frustrated that you're not acknowledging some good points.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583307 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:29:46 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583305
1. But don't business want to be future proof by 15 years? Is that not what you are incompetently arguing for? I never said it was realistic. You did. Gigabit WANs are not very hard to come by just so you know. They just take money.

2. Call BS. Actually it was 3 floors and several hundred workstations and probably around a dozen servers. And actually, it was far more expensive to maintain. The cost of the hardware that failed at a pretty high rate was the main reason for installing copper. Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

When did I ever say running copper long distances was more reliable than fiber? Man you just keep making things up.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583305 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:29:33 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583123
1.) Copper is still capable of 1gbps (even 10gbps) at such short Ethernet lengths, are easily terminated and dont really require any special skills like fiber. 2.) Switches above 10gbps are not so common place yet and thus are still very expensive and not worth the added cost for a vast majority of businesses out there. 3.) Fiber for such short runs would be expensive because a major cost in fiber is the splicing and short runs totaling into the hundreds or even thousands for even an office of 500 people is not worth it when you consider #1 and #2 above. 4.) ISP's do not provide WAN links that would be usable at an affordable price for said speeds (reason we are here discussing this). 5.) Few servers are capable of utilizing even bounded multi-gigabit cards, especially servers that a vast majority of the businesses you are lumping together would use. Should I go on?

And I am calling BS on you knowing a company that deployed fiber to the desktop and went back to copper. Not that there arent some out there that did that and then during a remodel went the cheaper route (see #1-5 above). I just think you personally are full of crap and if it is a true statement, then it was probably to 3-5 workstations and a server. Your argument that it is more costly to maintain and is slower than copper shows your lack of knowledge, yet again. If you are truly going to tell me that running copper for a a quarter mile, mile or many miles is more reliable and faster than fiber you truly need to exit from this conversation. Or is it that you have been defeated on the ISP side so now you are attempting to bring this to a local level?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27583123 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:57:02 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582895
Proof it? Seriously? The fact that you want me to prove that our economy needs internet access because every single business relies on it in one form or another means you truly have no idea what you are talking about.

Deploying something 15 years early in something as fast paced and ever changing as networking is stupid. It costs several times more and after 15 years, needs to be overhauled again. More than once. And in At&t's case, while maintaining their old copper lines because the FCC says they have to. If At&t deployed fiber to the home 15 years ago, that would have been stupid for business.

Why are businesses still deploying 5E and cat 6 cable instead of fiber? Clearly fiber networks are superior right? Hmm. I know a large place that did deploy fiber to computers. They even had fiber NICs. Guess what happened? 3 years later they deployed cat 5E and 6 throughout the entire building and regretted putting in fiber. It was costly, far more expensive to maintain, and now all the equipment would actually be slower than the copper cat 6 network. What a shame.

I am arguing this because it is funny to watch you make things up.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582895 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:19:39 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582774
First, our economy NEEDS the internet or it would collapse? Prove it! Besides who are you to say it doesnt "need" gigabit to not collapse?

Second, I see I am speaking with someone that has no clue of networks. You do realize that the cost to upgrade would be a complete waste if you dont deploy it to the 10-15 year future right? Copper certainly would not be that, thus fiber is the only way to go and providing 10mbps or 1gbps is an incremental cost barely measured in the scheme of things. Why do you think Google is doing 1gbps over say 100mb symetrical? 100 would still put them in the upper echelon of all ISPs.

Third, it appears you are arguing just to argue because 1 you have no clue about networks and 2 you constantly want to impose your opinions on what is NEEDED (by your definition) and what is not on everyone else.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582774 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:56:58 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582719 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582719 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:45:01 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582712
face it, either we figure out how to make this happen or be happy living in the 2000's. It's 2012, why the hell are we not willing to update things that really do need updating?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582712 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:43:35 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582682
Was not long ago everyone was saying deploy new wireless networks. Sprint did just that. And now they are decommissioning it after wasting billions. They jumped the gun too quickly and have wasted tons of money that someone has to pay for. When the time is right for a company to deploy ftth, they will. For some small companies, that time is now. For larger companies that can deploy VDSL or other fast technologies and have the overwhelming majority of their subscribers be happy, that time might be a few years from now. At that time fiber will be even cheaper and more logical.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582682 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:37:16 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582622
I don't watch netflix, because I don't need it.

It will probably cost less for these companies to do it all at once when the time is right than to have started doing it 10 years ago. Fiber keeps dropping. Deploying it early on was a huge expense, and some of those fiber networks already need upgrading to compete with modern standard fiber deployments.

Don't forget what these companies actually do. TWC and At&t are in telecommunications. Google is a web content provider who is entering the communications industry with a tiny deployment after deployment costs have dropped to a fraction of what they were with TWC and At&t entered the industry. And the fact remains Google is unlikely to ever turn a profit from this service, despite the perks they received. But that is how google operates. They lose billions on android and have lost billions on youtube.

FTTH deployments are not as easy as google makes them look. My ISP is actually under going one right now. Eventually, I will have it. But it won't be gigabit speeds and it won't be near as cheap as google either. I should also state my ISP is a nonprofit and is in a huge amount of debt from the ftth deployments, that they may or may not be able to pay in the future. These deployments are expensive and supplying gigabit speeds is not as cheap as google makes it look.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582622 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:26:22 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582603 said by silbaco:

Which would be extremely expensive. I am all for building new fiber networks, but the fact remains that it is expensive. It is a serious investment for something that at this point we do not need. I congratulate the companies that do it. But I also understand why a lot of companies do not do it.

So, according to you, we'll *NEVER* need the Telco's to do a serious investment. All we need is a copper pair for the next decade or two because, after all, who will need >10mbps?

You, sir, need to get with the times. The telcos need to replace the copper lines with fiber. The reason they don't is.. why should they when they can brainwash everyone into thinking that the speeds they have is perfect.

The truth is, services are utilizing more bandwidth. We've been using copper for over a freaking century and has been showing its age for a decade. We need to ditch it now before it becomes useless or "soldered and duct-taped" to death.

..and the cost? How much did it cost to wire the entire country half a century ago? I guess they "thought" that unshielded copper could do everything and they'd never have to invest in infrastructure again. Maybe they should have verified their findings before coming to that conclusion.

The fact is, if they would invest, they wouldn't have to upgrade for quite sometime. Fiber has almost unlimited bandwidth, so all you have to do is change the GBICs on each end to upgrade to faster speeds. Just lay the fiber lines and yank the copper. They'd get a decent return recycling the old copper lines and could possibly come out ahead.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582603 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:23:53 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582543 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582543 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:11:49 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582532 said by silbaco:

Have you proved why it is needed? I don't think you have. You proved to me why you "wanted" it, not why you "needed" it.

Sorry, the same thing can be said about the internet in general. You don't NEED cable or DSL speeds. You don't even NEED dial-up either. You don't NEED the internet at all.

Saying you need the faster speeds because you want to watch 5 hi-def Netflix streams is no different then saying you need a cable/DSL connection because you want to watch a single standard-def Netflix stream.

said by silbaco:

It is not necessarily At&t/Time Warner's problem that they have old infrastructure. They have been operating services for a long time.

Yes it is their problem. They refused to slowly roll out FTTH over the last 10 years, so they're now looking at a complete overhaul as they need to do it all at once. Had they put the millions if not billions they got in tax breaks and subsidies for their fiber deployment into actually deploying it we would not have the situation we currently have.

said by silbaco:

It would be extremely expensive for At&t and TW to do the same thing google is, and they would not be able to turn a profit at the same prices google is charging.

Bullshit. It would be no more expensive for them then it is for Google. In fact, they could probably do it cheaper due to economies of scale and because they already have some of the supporting infrastructure in place already. If Google can do it, TWC and ATT could do it too. They're too busy giving money to shareholders and execs to actually put anything back into their network however.

said by silbaco:

So I have to agree with TW and At&t. If google gets the perks, so should they.

Yes, if they decide to actually deploy FTTH they too should get the perks. No spending huge amounts of money on the extremely expensive FTTH deployment, no perks.

/M]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582532 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:07:47 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582393
It is Google's money and if they want to bring a true network and true competition to KC, then that is a savings in my book.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582393 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:43:50 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582362
So what I view as a need, you view as a want. Are we really going to have this debate? If you really want to get technical, we dont NEED electricty, we dont NEED a highway system and we dont NEED a civilized society. See how stupid your game is?

My AMD and Intel comment was pretty clear. Or at least I thought it was, but let me break it down to you so even a 1st grader can understand. YOU do not get to dictate what is a need or want for anyone other than yourself and those that you are directly in control of (kids). So with that, YOU do not get to say how we should expand for the future and at what pace we do so. So again, stop trying to act as though you get to determine those things.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582362 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:38:13 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582286
My opinion is meaningless? Okay. Perhaps. But yours is even more so. Because you have not proved why you need faster speeds, only why you want them.

What do AMD and Intel have to do with anything? You sure like to go off topic. But for that matter, do AMD and Intel try to make processors "future proof" or do they try to make them good for current uses, as demanded? I don't see 32 core consumer CPUs out on the market. Sure, we may need them some day and we would love to have them. But they are not needed today, not tomorrow. Just like we 1gbps fiber is not needed today. Not tomorrow....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582286 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:26:15 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582247 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582247 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:19:08 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582194
I want to be able to backup all my home computers and servers to the cloud in less then an hour.

I want to be able to watch 5 or more TV's in full 1080p uncompressed video with full Dobly Digital 7.1 sound.

I want to be able to download all seasons of every show I enjoy (legally) within 5 minutes.

I want everything I do on the internet to be instantaneous.

Can I do all those things now? No. You pointing out that many websites or services can't provide what I request only supports my very suggestion that if I cant do those things then the internet needs to keep getting faster, copper is not the future and 1gbps over fiber is a very good start.

Whether or not YOU think the world needs those things has absolutely no bearing on it. You are not the architecture god of the internet and your opinion on what is needed for the world is meaningless (sorry to tell you that being you seem to think so highly of your opinion for what the world needs).

So now that I have proven to you why it is needed, please prove to me how we dont need it and that we should just stay with copper and not advance.

By the way, thanks for taking time away from Intel and AMD to speak with us. I am sure they are in desperate need of your advice on how they shouldnt be making faster, smaller and more energy efficient processors because someone like me can't prove to them I need it based on your personal opinion.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582194 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:09:39 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582134 said by firephoto:

Enough with the BS. Verizon specifically crafted deals with the government that excluded their wireless services from any net neutrality provisions to ensure they could limit the amount and type of traffic on their wireless networks. It's actually the same deal Google got because they helped Verizon with it.

Really? Because I am pretty sure Verizon got fined for blocking tethering on their 4G network because of a net neutrality requirement on their 700 mhz spectrum. Even if they did help craft it, it still applies.

If you notice, they are not limiting traffic. They do have caps so that the network doesn't become saturated. Caps that affected relatively few people.

said by firephoto:

Also you can't ignore the national spectrum licenses verizon and att get that are great and fair for large markets and just monopolize other areas where there could be some competitions from small independent carriers that could actually buy licenses for those areas if they weren't tacked onto other expensive by market value areas. The best option they get now is to pay verizon or att to use their network. It's a big stinking government handout to the biggest corporations and it most certainly is special treatment.

Interesting. You know I happen to live in one of those areas that Verizon and At&t "monopolize". And contrary to beliefs, there is quite a bit of spectrum that belongs to small wireless carriers, such as iWireless. You know that they do with that spectrum? Offer a cutting edge GPRS wireless network at literally dial-up speeds! You know what Verizon does with theirs? Offer 3G AND 4G! The belief that small carriers would use this spectrum and offer real "Service" to people is complete crap. I also have US Cellular in this area. What do they do with their spectrum? Offer services at prices equal to that of Verizon, with poorer performance and awful phones.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582134 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:58:17 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582059 said by silbaco:

Our 4G wireless services are some of the best, if not the best data networks in the world. Verizon's 4G network is amazing and they did not require special government treatment over their competitors to get it done.

As for our wired services, what is it that people need that Time Warner and At&t cannot provide currently in Kansas City? They exceed our demands by quite a large margin and always seem to be boosting speeds and capabilities. U-Verse can move quite a bit more data than it currently is, but there is no reason to do so at this time.

ROFLMAO]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582059 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:43:17 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582038 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582038 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:40:11 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582023 said by Skippy25:

Well there you have! Silbaco has spoken and fiber networks are not needed at this point.

Everyone can pack up and go home now. Nothing more to see here as he will be sure to reach out to the internet world to let them know when it is ready for fiber.

Can you counter what I said? Can you prove that we need the speeds beyond what existing copper lines can provide, specifically in Kansas City? Or do you just troll because you have nothing worth adding?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582023 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:37:37 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582010 said by silbaco:

Our 4G wireless services are some of the best, if not the best data networks in the world. Verizon's 4G network is amazing and they did not require special government treatment over their competitors to get it done.

Enough with the BS. Verizon specifically crafted deals with the government that excluded their wireless services from any net neutrality provisions to ensure they could limit the amount and type of traffic on their wireless networks. It's actually the same deal Google got because they helped Verizon with it.

Also you can't ignore the national spectrum licenses verizon and att get that are great and fair for large markets and just monopolize other areas where there could be some competitions from small independent carriers that could actually buy licenses for those areas if they weren't tacked onto other expensive by market value areas. The best option they get now is to pay verizon or att to use their network. It's a big stinking government handout to the biggest corporations and it most certainly is special treatment.
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27582010 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:34:46 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581957 said by n1581j :

Actually, it was 256k, I happened to be there. It's the reason the original PC from IBM only provided 256K max on it's motherboard. It was only when AST and others with their Advantage, Rampage 384K boards plus ports took it to 640K, did it change. Of course you weren't old enough to know back then.

Wrong about the original PC memory restriction.

The reason IBM only put 256K on-board was:
a) the original PC was an experiment as far as IBM was concerned. They only expected to sell about 10,000 of them over its lifespan.
b) IBM had other machines in their line (not PC's per se but running an IBM proprietary os) at the time which were roughly comparable speedwise but had more memory. These machines cost a lot more than a PC (ie. 4-5x more IIRC).
c) IBM didn't want a 'capable' PC cannibalizing the sales of it's more expensive machines.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581957 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:21:37 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581948
Everyone can pack up and go home now. Nothing more to see here as he will be sure to reach out to the internet world to let them know when it is ready for fiber.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581948 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:18:52 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581882 said by maestro7:

"...unnecessary speeds."

Legend has it that Bill Gates once stated in 1981 that 640K (not MB) of RAM should be enough to run applications (»www.computerworld.com/s/article/···_say_it_).

Not only this, but the whole reason why, for example, wireless data has caught the telcos unawares (hence data caps and paying increasingly higher prices for what they were effectively offering years ago) is because the market is looking for ways to break through bandwidth barriers.

However, there is no stopping it. So, if we're all going to blame anyone for the need for speed, might as well blame AAPL for creating such a huge market for products and services that use more and more bandwidth.

Our 4G wireless services are some of the best, if not the best data networks in the world. Verizon's 4G network is amazing and they did not require special government treatment over their competitors to get it done.

As for our wired services, what is it that people need that Time Warner and At&t cannot provide currently in Kansas City? They exceed our demands by quite a large margin and always seem to be boosting speeds and capabilities. U-Verse can move quite a bit more data than it currently is, but there is no reason to do so at this time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581882 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:04:14 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581820 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581820 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:57:14 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581826 said by funehi :

Why couldn't they? They would just have to build new like Google is doing.

Which would be extremely expensive. I am all for building new fiber networks, but the fact remains that it is expensive. It is a serious investment for something that at this point we do not need. I congratulate the companies that do it. But I also understand why a lot of companies do not do it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581826 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:52:37 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581777 said by maestro7:

"...unnecessary speeds."

Legend has it that Bill Gates once stated in 1981 that 640K (not MB) of RAM should be enough to run applications (»www.computerworld.com/s/article/···_say_it_).

It would be funny if it were true which it is not.

Dave
--
I may have been born yesterday. But it wasn't at night.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581777 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:40:55 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581688
Legend has it that Bill Gates once stated in 1981 that 640K (not MB) of RAM should be enough to run applications (»www.computerworld.com/s/article/···_say_it_).

Not only this, but the whole reason why, for example, wireless data has caught the telcos unawares (hence data caps and paying increasingly higher prices for what they were effectively offering years ago) is because the market is looking for ways to break through bandwidth barriers.

However, there is no stopping it. So, if we're all going to blame anyone for the need for speed, might as well blame AAPL for creating such a huge market for products and services that use more and more bandwidth.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581688 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:21:29 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581650 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581650 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:12:00 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581580 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581580 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:08:23 EDT Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581594 said by silbaco:

It is not necessarily At&t/Time Warner's problem that they have old infrastructure. They have been operating services for a long time. Google is coming in with brand new infrastructure capable of fast and unnecessary speeds. It would be extremely expensive for At&t and TW to do the same thing google is, and they would not be able to turn a profit at the same prices google is charging. If Google were in this for real and not just for experimental projects that they will probably find a way to use as a tax write-off, things would be different.

So I have to agree with TW and At&t. If google gets the perks, so should they.

And so they will. KC, MO already signing a deal to do so.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581594 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:01:43 EDT Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581569
So I have to agree with TW and At&t. If google gets the perks, so should they.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Actually-I-have-to-agree-with-Time-Warner-and-Att-for-once-27581569 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:57:19 EDT