jammmin
join:2000-12-14
Upper Marlboro, MD | Comcast considering offering 100 megabit internet Comcast mulls ultrafast Net access- 100-megabit-per-second broadband service that would be 60 times faster than today's cable modems.
Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable television company and the leading provider of high-speed Internet access in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, yesterday said it is taking a serious look at rolling out 100-megabit-per-second broadband service that would be 60 times faster than today's cable modems.
By Peter J. Howe, Boston Globe Staff
Speaking at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association annual meeting here, Comcast chief executive Brian L. Roberts said he sees ''100 megabits as a real viable prospect in the not-many-many-year future.
''We have to now plan for how to make it better, even faster,'' Roberts said. ''We're at the beginning of broadband. Twenty percent may have the service. That means 80 percent don't.''
Given that Comcast is now serving more than 4 million broadband subscribers nationally on the bandwidth allocated to one television channel, Roberts said, ''We're not even stretching the rubber band at all.''
Just who would need a 100-megabit home Internet connection -- and what customers would do with it -- is a huge question, given that 60 percent of current dial-up customers aren't even considering switching to broadband because they see no compelling advantage, according to a national survey by Horowitz Associates, a Larchmont, N.Y., cable consulting firm.
Broadband connections such as cable modems and telephone digital subcriber lines, which 19 million US households now have, typically offer Net access at speeds 30 to 50 times faster than dial-up modems.
Comcast currently offers up to 6-megabit connections to businesses and residential customers.
Three large phone companies, Verizon Communications, SBC Communications, and BellSouth, last month issued a set of network equipment standards they said they would use to begin offering multi-megabit fiber-optic connections to homes as soon as next year, possibly as a way to offer video service as well as high-speed data.
Comcast spokesman Tim Fitzpatrick said the Philadelphia-based company, which has 21 million cable subscribers and networks reaching 39 million US homes, is not yet committing to any schedule for upgrading to 100-megabit connections.
But, Fitzpatrick said, ''We think it's probably the direction everybody's headed in. Things are getting faster and faster all the time. Increases of that nature are just going to be inevitable as everything else speeds up.''
Some leading providers of broadband Internet content say the value of 100-megabit home connections can be imagined today. Jim Ramo, chief executive of Movielink, an online movie rental service backed by five big studios, said: ''More channel capacity would be something very helpful the cable industry could do for us.''
Ramo said it now would take up to 10 hours for a subscriber to download a high-definition version of a feature movie through a broadband connection operating at 750 kilobits per second. That would be reduced to minutes with 100-megabit links, he said. ''Movies suck a lot of bits,'' Ramo said. ''If you've got more bandwidth, bring it on.''
Bob Visse, director of MSN portal marketing for Microsoft Corp., said a new broadband version of MSN will allow people to play a video game together while communicating through Web cams and instant messaging, which would require abundant, fast Internet connections.
''We're always going to eat up as much bandwidth as will be out there,'' Visse said. |
|
 drakeOverdosed on confidencePremium,MVM
join:2002-06-10
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:5
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Interesting article, indeed. Personally, the 100Mbit/sec proposal by Comcast is great ... but, with that speed, the advantages for the end-user can vary. I think a user can really see the advantage of an 100Mbit/sec pipe, if you're operating an quite broad home-network of about 4+ computers. If these computers are on simultaneously, saturating the bandwidth greatly, then, the bandwidth would do wonders, without everyone complaining about the slowdown, all of a sudden.
A couple of people fail to realize that with a great pipe of 100Mbit/sec ... it's no good if the remote server you're requesting data from has an slow pipe on their end. Then, you have to worry about the routers along the way, which can affect the speed a bit, overall. So, it's not just about getting the speed, and thinking it's all good -- everyone needs to think outside the box - as there are many factors that are included with craving the speed you want and pay for.
Another thing to look at: reliability. Having a high speed-rated pipe won't do you any good with any reliability at hand. My opinion: Reliability over speed, any day. What good is your connection if it's going to drop in and out ... along with the unfriendly packet-loss.
Now, with this "exciting" new tier proposal, does it come with any speed or usage caps? That's a rather large pipe, and you can bet that quite a bit of P2P users will be suckering down that bandwidth like no tomorrow.
There's much more I can probably post, but I think the above is just something to think about, for now. |
|
 Big_DPremium
join:2003-06-02
Augusta, GA | reply to jammmin
That news is almost 2 years old.
»www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=1267 (Notice the date)
--
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! |
|
|
|
drakeOverdosed on confidencePremium,MVM
join:2002-06-10
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:5 | Wow ... talk about a time set-back!
Thanks, Big_D  . |
|
jammmin
join:2000-12-14
Upper Marlboro, MD | reply to Big_D
Damm. Why did you spoil my little party. I was just getting people excited!!!!!!!! lol |
|
Big_DPremium
join:2003-06-02
Augusta, GA | Sorry  |
|
 NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working?Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ | reply to jammmin
Re: Comcast considering offering 100 megabit inter This would be largely unfeasible, since it'd require almost 3 6Mhz wide 256QAM modulated downstream channels.  |
|
| reply to jammmin
When they get to putting an ATM next to the other lawn torpedos, let me know. |
|
BudBobPremium
join:2003-01-01
Mckinney, TX | reply to jammmin
They can't even do 6mbs |
|
MajorDanPremium
join:2002-12-26
South Bend, IN | I want it. 
MajorDan |
|
1 edit | reply to jammmin
I don't think most people would need those types of speeds plus the price on that if it is every offered you would think would be pretty high. Comcast says that they want to offer it, but I'm not so sure if that really is a realistic goal. |
|
drakeOverdosed on confidencePremium,MVM
join:2002-06-10
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to Nerdtalker
said by Nerdtalker:This would be largely unfeasible, since it'd require almost 3 6Mhz wide 256QAM modulated downstream channels. Are they proposing this with the current cable networking, with some upgrades to their system to handle those types of speeds? I was under the impression of fiber-optic service would be deployed to homes. |
|
NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working?Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ | said by drake:I was under the impression of fiber-optic service would be deployed to homes. It would have to be. There flat-out couldn't be any other feasible way. |
|
 imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | said by Nerdtalker: said by drake:I was under the impression of fiber-optic service would be deployed to homes. It would have to be. There flat-out couldn't be any other feasible way. Sure there is, »www.pulse-link.com/wire_current.html. Those speeds are quite easily attainable on HFC networks without FTTP. |
|
NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working?Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ | Awesome:
Up to 1.2Gbps downstream and up to 480Mbps upstream bandwidth – on top of the bandwidth and services already being carried by the network. The only negative thing is that everybody would have to buy a modem that works with that UWB data over cable technology. Not to mention some new headend equipment for modulating this special UWB implementation.
--
Touch a thistle timidly, and it pricks you; grasp it boldly, and its spines crumble. -William S. Halsey
iPod Shuffle=iPos
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 2785 |
|
imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | said by Nerdtalker:The only negative thing is that everybody would have to buy a modem that works with that UWB data over cable technology. Which is why I am glad I decided to keep renting my modem.
Not to mention some new headend equipment for modulating this special UWB implementation. Yes, this is true, but a lot cheaper then running all the fiber needed to extend/add capacity to the limited amount of fiber being used on the HFC network, plus all the backend equipment for the all fiber network. |
|
| reply to jammmin
I'd rather have faster upload speeds, like 2000/2000. Only WISPs offer decent upload speeds in most places. |
|
drakeOverdosed on confidencePremium,MVM
join:2002-06-10
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to imrf
Thanks, imrf for the link. The article was quite interesting, and I was unaware of the technology. I thought in the coming years, cable broadband service would be obsolete since it wouldn't be able to meet the competition standards of the fiber-optic networks structured in the territory. I'm definitely impressed at the speed rate numbers: 1.2 Gbit/sec downstream and 480 Mbit/sec upstream.
I'm wondering if Cable operators are looking into the Pulse-Link technology, currently. According the article, it's quite inexpensive as there's no need to upgrade any of the current infrastructure; you just basically add the equipment at the subscriber's end to receive the frequencies.
Now, I'm curious; the signals used to provide the bandwidth is introduced to the head-end (CMTS), and the extracted to the user's home equipment? Keep in mind that it's 12:56 am here in NYC, and I may be a bit tired to actually comprehend the actual concept of expanding the bandwidth range, without any type of upgrades. Perhaps dummy terms would help? |
|
drakeOverdosed on confidencePremium,MVM
join:2002-06-10
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to prestonlewis
said by prestonlewis:I'd rather have faster upload speeds, like 2000/2000. Only WISPs offer decent upload speeds in most places. You know, until I read a couple of your posts in the WISP forum, I wasn't aware that WISPs were able to deliver those types of speeds. I've always imagined that both cable and DSL services dominated WISP and Satellite in all aspects of connecting to the ISP.
I'm curious to know what Comcast has in store for an upstream rating, if they decide to deploy their new network of 100 Mbit/sec downstream pipes. I doubt it'll be symmetric type connection. |
|
 MortyPremium
join:2004-09-18 | reply to drake
said by drake:Now, I'm curious; the signals used to provide the bandwidth is introduced to the head-end (CMTS), and the extracted to the user's home equipment? Keep in mind that it's 12:56 am here in NYC, and I may be a bit tired to actually comprehend the actual concept of expanding the bandwidth range, without any type of upgrades. Perhaps dummy terms would help? Basically, from your new modem that supports it, to Comcast's CMTS or server. |
|
