iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to buzz_4_20
Re: As Far As I'm Concerned 10/10 is nice...until you realize that that rules out anyone in an area served by a cable provider other than Comcast or Cablevision, pretty much...or served by short-loop VDSL2 by CenturyLink, or fiber by most providers. At that point you aren't giving money to rural areas to get them into this century anymore; you're putting half the US (maybe more) in the "not good enough" category.
Don't get me wrong. I want 10 Mbps up. But CAF isn't the way to get me there (i'm in an apartment complex in Austin, TX for gosh sakes).
In contrast, 6M down, 1.5M up can be deployed via either single-pair Annex M or pair-bonded Annex A ADSL2+. The latter can cover a LOT of territory if things are set up correctly. 6/1.5 is also within reach for many wireless technologies. And cable providers have been able to hit 6/1.5 on 100% of their plant for years. That said, far from being an already-surpassed goal, plenty of areas nonetheless can't get 6/1.5 service, and would greatly benefit from having it; with that speed, you can watch HD Netflix and do tuff like online backup without tearing your hair out.
Put another way, let's get most of the US to a reliable 6/1.5. Then worry about the next step (12/3 anyone?). |
|
 coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
·Windstream
| quote:
...you're putting half the US (maybe more) in the "not good enough" category.
And this should be the goal. Shame on a massive scale with strong media bashing of the industry could push the providers to make the needed upgrades. It is NEVER a bad thing to reach for a higher goal...
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC |
|
| reply to iansltx
If we're going to raise the bar and get some innovation or progress, why put it just out reach. Or within reach of already deployed technologies all we get is people stretching that extra inch to be within the definition, and progress slowly inches forward.
Why not strive for progress and to be better than the baseline. |
|
|
|
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:In contrast, 6M down, 1.5M up can be deployed via either single-pair Annex M or pair-bonded Annex A ADSL2+. The latter can cover a LOT of territory if things are set up correctly. 6/1.5 is also within reach for many wireless technologies. And cable providers have been able to hit 6/1.5 on 100% of their plant for years. That said, far from being an already-surpassed goal, plenty of areas nonetheless can't get 6/1.5 service, and would greatly benefit from having it; with that speed, you can watch HD Netflix and do tuff like online backup without tearing your hair out.
Put another way, let's get most of the US to a reliable 6/1.5. Then worry about the next step (12/3 anyone?). The new American motto: "Good Enough!" |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to coldmoon
Except when you've got more urgent goals to spend taxpayer money on. Like getting everyone up to 6/1.5. We're talking about CAF here, not naming and shaming everyone other than FiOS and Comcast. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to buzz_4_20
Because it's better to make actual progress toward an incremental goal than to just sit there and have nothing happen. Telcos, who have phone lines everywhere, can't do 10/10 without being cost-prohibitive in many areas (they can't even do 10/10 in town in many places). |
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| reply to coldmoon
said by coldmoon:And this should be the goal. Shame on a massive scale with strong media bashing of the industry could push the providers to make the needed upgrades. It is NEVER a bad thing to reach for a higher goal...
The flaw here is you're assuming cable cos and telcos can feel shame. |
|
