dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2669
share rss forum feed

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to MovieLover76

Re: Sounds like the same old crap.

said by MovieLover76:

Yea for real world speeds like that you need fiber, cable can do it downstream now and has to potential with upstream channel bonding to do it up as well.

Cable is unlikely to ever see symmetrical speeds or anything close to it. In theory you could do a lot better but the existing legacy services already in use to deliver TV services get in the way. Way down the road when cable providers finally migrate to an IPTV based platform and get rid of digital cable they could do things properly. But that is so far out.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

reply to 34764170

Well I guess while they are busy moving those VRADs closer to the customer at about 1000ft they might as well finish it up and give real speeds huh?

Keep preaching the silly VDSL. It isnt going anywhere fast and hasnt for years.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

4 edits

said by Skippy25:

Well I guess while they are busy moving those VRADs closer to the customer at about 1000ft they might as well finish it up and give real speeds huh?

Keep preaching the silly VDSL. It isnt going anywhere fast and hasnt for years.

Which is what I said is coming.

I am not preaching anything. I'm living in the real world unlike some of you guys deluded thinking these companies are going to roll out fibre everywhere. It isn't going to happen. I am not saying that if they all of a sudden did roll out fibre I would be against it. But these companies are not going to spend the hundreds of billions it would cost to tear out all of their existing DSL/cable networks and replace it with fibre. If it is rolled out I want to see it pretty much everywhere, not some swiss cheese coverage where it's available to houses down one side of a street and not the other side of the street like Verizon or that they're only covering a portion of the city. That's a bloody joke.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to MovieLover76

said by MovieLover76:

But the trend stifles innovation. their are much more effective congestion based throttling approaches, that are much more effective at battling congestion.

I'm not thrilled about Wireless caps either, but in that arena I can't argue with the current spectrum and technology limitations, wireless internet will always need to be controlled in some way, though I think the caps are artificially low.

There wouldn't be any congestion if they proactively upgraded the network instead of waiting until the nodes/backhaul are at 99% and then upgrading. The carriers are dragging their feet as much as possible.

The caps are artificially low so it can be a cash cow. Wireless carriers are making a shit load of profit. Wireline is bad enough for the consumer in that regard, wireless is 10x worse.

Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX
reply to 34764170

said by 34764170:

said by elios:

the thing is once you run the fiber the costs for 1Gbps over 100Mbps are trivial

Who said anything about fibre? You don't need fibre to get 100Mbps - 200Mbps service to most people. Having fibre everywhere is the most ideal situation but it isn't going to happen.

but in the long run we will hit another brick wall with copper.. delaying upgrades will cost more in the long run but agree 100mbps - 200mbps should be a standard for us in the USA no exception.. with out countrys blowin past us at 1gbps this shouldn't be to hard for the cable co's to deal with


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26
reply to tschmidt

said by tschmidt:

Agree. I have to assume some locations in each of the fifty states already access to a Gig connection if they want it and can afford it.

Super high speed for the few is not the problem. Reasonable speed for everyone at an affordable price is.

/tom

That last line speaks volumes!!

Unlike how most people on any kind of a tech forum usually think, not everyone in the worlds needs or even wants a symmetrical 1Gbps connection!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/


tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:9
Reviews:
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting

2 edits
reply to 34764170

said by 34764170:

One such major improvement that is being rolled out by carriers around the world over the next 2 years is Vectoring which will allow existing connections able to attain 25Mbps service to now be able to attain 75/100 Mbps service.

I agree vectoring is interesting what you neglected to mention is that all vectored DLSAMs need to be under the same management so it does not work well when ILECs and CLECS serve out of the same CO. In my case my phone and ADSL is supplied by a CLEC. There are two CLECs that collocate out of our Central Office. That being said even when DSLAM are managed by multiple entities vectoring should still help – but it is not the magic bullet to higher speed.

»www2.alcatel-lucent.com/techzine···fiction/

Can you provide a link to a 3X vectoring improvement you cite, that is much greater then I though possible?

said by 34764170:

Using VDSL2 Bonding which utilizes 2 pair that can be raised to 150/200Mbps. Alcatel-Lucent is working on Phantom Mode which when used in conjunction with Bonding can further raise that upwards of 300Mbps.

Bonding is actually pretty interesting for carriers that are not “loop poor.” There was a big build out during the heyday of dialup so many carriers have excess loop capacity. In our case at one time we had three phone lines and a SDSL connection. Today we are down to a single voice/ADSL connection. However loop bonding is relatively expensive (multiple loops, DSLAM, modems) but is better than nothing.

As long as we are navel gazing getting rid of ATM would yield a quick 11 % increase in effective ADSL speed.

said by 34764170:

You don't feed VDSL2 directly from the CO. That's why you build VRADs close to the customer.

The problem is 1) VRADs are expensive, 2) you need a lot of them, 3) they need backup power, 4)suburban NIMBY complaints, 5) you are still limited by copper.

said by 34764170:

Trust me I'd love to see fibre everywhere but it is not realistic. Even Verizon with their FiOS did a pretty poor job at it.

That is the real question – how long will we live with a band-aid approach to broadband and when will we migrate to a purpose built high-speed network?

/tom

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to Cobra11M

said by Cobra11M:

but in the long run we will hit another brick wall with copper.. delaying upgrades will cost more in the long run but agree 100mbps - 200mbps should be a standard for us in the USA no exception.. with out countrys blowin past us at 1gbps this shouldn't be to hard for the cable co's to deal with

I'm not denying that. Anyway, the cable co's have to go fibre too. DOCSIS is just a short term option.

bdray222

join:2004-12-21
Littleton, CO

1 recommendation

reply to tschmidt

TY, well said....my additional 2cents...they need to be killing 2 birds with one stone as far as I'm concerned and laying cable vaults across the country for easy access and upgrades to facilitate a minimum of fiber and a new underground power grid (that's a whole nother topic ...Fiber is simply the only solution for data needs and growth...100 Terrabits per sec recently on fiber? Copper people? Really? You really think we won't be pushing that kind of data relatively soon? lol ...I've amassed a Terrabyte of music, would have been laughed at for even using the term "terra" ten years ago.