how-to block ads
|
| page: 1 · 2  |
jackknife
join:2001-02-24
Phoenix, AZ
clubs:
| reply to fiberguy
Re: im not impressed at all
In my opinion, until cable technology can reach everyone and have some kind of a uniform deployment across the network, the technology will be worth nothing more than it is today.. watching television.
I fixed it for you.  | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | It works all ways...
DSL = Cheap Internet surfing
Cable = decent priced all in one (where it exists)
Satellite = Best value TV | |
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Satellite is not always the best value in TV. Look at what they charge for adding packages and the equipment. Especially with DVR, and Local channels are extra, and don't forget the contract. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to jackknife
Um, next time save your keyboard the un-necessary wear and tear would ya? 
Cable CAN modems can already reach the entire foot print. DSL can't.
Let's not mud up the conversation to be an anti-cable person or being a telephone fanboy, ok?
The conversation is about DSL technology. What does cable have to do with it other than me making a comment of their competitor?
Cable, a private industry not classified as a utility like telephone service, doesn't need to reach every single ma and pa home planted in the middle of no where like TELEPHONE POTS services do. I still don't see DSL in those areas either.
Cable DOES sync at the same rate through out their foot print unlike DSL.
Your cute attempt to butcher my comments failed a miserable death - just as the current DSL technology which has served it's purpose for the phone company.. it's time for them to go start deploying fiber and dumping DSL as they do.
Please, tell me where any DSL deployment can sync the same system wide and isn't dependant on distance? Until they can overcome that hurdle, I won't be impressed. At this point, their continued attempts to use DSL technology over technology avaialble that is far superior just shows that they are not serious about competing.
Nice spin. | |
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to hottboiinnc
Tainted Love
The NSA-AT&T wiretapping/records affair has ruined my anticipation for UVerse. There's a new VRAD box less than 200 feet from my home -- and I can't stand the sight of it. Were it not for my wife's insistence on our AT&T local phone number -- I'd be back on cable/VoIP right now. Death to the the Death Star! (and keep your new toy)
--
"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country" - and stop the NeoCons | |
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Port your number from them to who ever you want. | |
Matthew
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-03
Emmett, ID
1 edit | reply to fiberguy
Re: im not impressed at all
fiberguy  , Just curious here, don't mean to romp on your little telco stomp.
Why doesn't your neighbor who can only get 256 DSL get Cable Modem? Does the Cable Foot Print not darker her door step, or is the service just That Bad?
Whats the difference between telco not deploying everywhere, and cable not deploying everywhere? Information services are not currently a utility. | |
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to en102
said by en102 :It works all ways... Satellite = Best value TV Unless you are like me and use HBO On Demand and Showtime On Demand all the time. Satellite has no On Demand options.
--
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father. | |
china crisis
join:2003-05-28
| reply to Matthew
said by Matthew : fiberguy Just curious here, don't mean to romp on your little telco stomp. Why doesn't your neighbor who can only get 256 DSL get Cable Modem? Does the Cable Foot Print not darker her door step, or is the service just That Bad? Whats the difference between telco not deploying everywhere, and cable not deploying everywhere? Information services are not currently a utility. The difference is the technology. If that person could get cable, it would be speeds with no matter of location. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | reply to Matthew
Telephone romp? Since when does anyone speaking against the graet kindom of telephone around here mark you an outcast around here? Truth hurt maybe?
Anyway - cable is available. But the question of why doesn't matter in this thread. The point is that telephone can't provide a uniform speed with-in their network.
As to why she has DSL and not cable? Don't know and really don't care. However, it can be possibly because DSL has been in Minneapolis MN longer than MOST cities in the US since it was tested here back in the MID-90s. Starting speeds here were 256/256 from US West. So, maybe she's an early adopter? Cable modem service didn't really start in the TC area until about 2000, at least 2-way service that is.
I generally don't go around sparking up conversations about broadband with people or friends. I believe that we are all capable for seeking out answers; many just don't care to look. And, often when I did used to make mention of "something better is out there" I am often replied with "but I like what I have, I know it, and it works for me".. again, another example of why price and speeds really don't always play factor to everyone.
You said: "Whats the difference between telco not deploying everywhere, and cable not deploying everywhere? Information services are not currently a utility."
... so did I. | |
Matthew
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-03
Emmett, ID
| I still fail to see how common sync rate throughout the network makes cable "superior."
It was the irony of your neighbor keeping DSL at only 256 vs using your Superior technology that was too ripe to leave on the vine without taking a bite.
Your right, I don't generally go around sparking up conversation with friends, family, neighbors about broadband. I'm not in $ales. But, said family, friends, and neighbors do talk to me about it when they have questions.
Fiber is greater than Copper (or Coax), both in potential and cost. Greater cost does not always equal the best investment. I like fiber, but if I can get competitive services at a lower cost, why wouldn't I?
| |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Toaster, before I consider this threat toast, please tell me where I used the word "superior" in which you not only bolded, but italicized too. And why are you gooing off on a tanget that means nothing about what I said in the first place? Are you bored?
My first and only comment was that until telephone can deliver a common speed to it's entire footprint, and not hit and miss speeds to about 70% of it's wired service area, all of these news tidbits about speeds and sync rates don't impress me.
Do you even know WHY DSL was pushed by the phone originally? It was for the desire to deploy their video service/video on demand serices (aka, cable tv).. in about 15 years, has it worked? If you want to get into a battle of cable internet vs DSL technology, cable internet has surpassed DSL by far in the short time it's been around and it's still getting better and better all the time, TO IT'S ENTIRE FOOTPRINT.
The point that I originally made, until you telco fanboys came in and spun it to high hell, is that if telephone wants to be a serious competitor in the market against cable tv, they are going to have to put their best foot forward, stop chasing their tails, and knock off this old technology that isn't going to serve their entire foot print. Verizon gets it, but at&t doesn't.
So, if you want to make a point, do you think you can stick to my original post above and stop spinnning it? Think you can stop hijacking my thread with your anti-cable spin? Really, there are pleanty of forums to bash cable - pick one. | |
58483323
Gurt me
join:2003-06-23
Normal, IL | reply to maartena
Yes, On Demand is definitely a HUGE plus for cable. | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to hottboiinnc
It is much cheaper than Comcast was (now TimeWarner) here in Los Angeles.
DirecTv: 3 Tuners, free installation, free tuners, 1 year contract, with local channels, $45.99 + $5 + $5 = $55.99 /month + tax
Comcast: Standard Analog (no cheap $13 packages here) = $50.40 / month + franchise fees + taxes
Comcast digital = $60.40 + installation + programming fees + rental fees (per TV) + franchise fees + taxes.
Cable was more expensive. | |
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Dish and DirecTV have almost a 2year contract: 17 or 18months at a time. It's just crazy to have to keep a video service that long to get "deals" on what they offer. | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| reply to fiberguy
It would seem to me that the reason you can get approximately the same speeds on the entire cable "footprint" is that the cable system has amplifiers built in at intervals along the cables which are an integral part of the design (and the old down only amps for analog TV have been replaced over time with ones that can handle two way communications) because, just like copper wire, the coax (being copper) has resistance and, therefore, attenuation (especially at RF) and that attenuation increases per foot as the frequency being carried increases, which is the very same problem POTS lines have.
Or, in the newer/upgraded installations, they have customer nodes fed by fiber.
The solution, of course, is more nodes (fed by fiber), or, two way amplifiers designed for both audio and DSL signaling on phone trunk lines replacing the old audio line amplifiers that were built into those trunks. Both of which are expensive propositions.
This will eventually have to be done if the telcos are serious about offering IPTV. | |
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| said by Fatal Vector :It would seem to me that the reason you can get approximately the same speeds on the entire cable "footprint" is that the cable system has amplifiers built in at intervals along the cables which are an integral part of the design (and the old down only amps for analog TV have been replaced over time with ones that can handle two way communications) because, just like copper wire, the coax (being copper) has resistance and, therefore, attenuation (especially at RF) and that attenuation increases per foot as the frequency being carried increases, which is the very same problem POTS lines have. Or, in the newer/upgraded installations, they have customer nodes fed by fiber. The solution, of course, is more nodes (fed by fiber), or, two way amplifiers designed for both audio and DSL signaling on phone trunk lines replacing the old audio line amplifiers that were built into those trunks. Both of which are expensive propositions. This will eventually have to be done if the telcos are serious about offering IPTV. Given the number of new RTs where this service is being offered, I would say they are quite serious. | |
Matthew
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-03
Emmett, ID
2 edits | reply to fiberguy
You never used the word superior, you did and continue to beleaguer your opinion that it is, as your point.
The Tin Man, The Lion, and Dorothy done found their way out of the poppy fields Straw Man, I suggest you do the same. This thread was started by Kearnstd about how un-impressed he was with the great VDSL sync rate at the under-quoted distance from the article. You began to radiate the thread with what comes across as cable fan boy rhetoric- and I had a lead blanket.
said by fiberguy :
said by bogey780 :
Since you don't talk about broadband with her, how do you know it isn't available and she just doesn't want more?
Do you even realize how wrong that sounds? Just because I don't sit around with her talking about broadband like some people might like to do (as it sounds from the level of emotion you have about it) doesn't mean I don't know what's available. (maybe in my line of work, it often comes across my days work load to know the layout of broadband availability) For one, have you ever heard of a qualification tool? Though I may be *curious* about it, doesn't mean I feel the need to worry about someone else's broadband service and speeds. If she felt the need to discuss it with me, she would.
Wow, can you show me the emotion? I didn't read any in the post, there were no emoticons and the question was rather, straight forward.
said by fiberguy :
And, really, what does any of what you say have to do with my point.
Its a question, isn't it? Should it end in a question mark? Or had you meant this statement to be rhetorical in value. The validity is in trying to establish credibility of the whole of your post. It speaks to the credibility of everything else you posted, and if you don't see the irony of holding up your neighbor who sticks with 256k DSL over going to cable than I don't know what to tell you.
said by fiberguy :
My point is very simple, AND VALID, so stop trying to spin it... let me make it easier for you, ok?.....
Whoa whoa whoa, you turned this thread about a sync rate at an under quoted distance into a cable fan boy spewing ground about how getting the same sync rate every where in the deployed network was so impressive. Then you complain about Spin? Are You Rove's Cousin? Come on, you can tell us.
said by fiberguy :
* does dsl sycn up at the same speed based on distance from the CO or RT in any given installation or are speeds distant dependant? *
No, it doesn't. And you mis-spelled sync. Good thing you don't live in the Dakotas, I hear there is enough potential wind energy out there to power the entire United States- probably enough so to blow your straw man into the next state.
The closer you are to a fiber terminated node such as a DSLAM, RT, or VRAD the better the signal is. As long as the services sold are within the distance that it can be maintained and the network designed to offer those competitive services at similar or lower prices why Does Sync Rate being the Same Across the Entire network matter, so much?
Could it be Astro Turf? Why else would you inflect emotion on someone asking you to clarify a simple faux pas in your original post? Why else would you spin such a seemingly trivial detail into "cable is better because" post?
Simple Trolling?
said by fiberguy :
It's an easy question. When you have answered it, all the spinning you are trying on my original point will become invalid.
Thank you!
You are welcome.
Now, why does the same sync rate across the entire deployed network seem to matter so much, to you?
IMHO, It just sounds to me like some little thing to try and market to the geeky and semi-geeky. Maybe a neat little play on people's "fairness" traits. "Its the same for Every One."
It stinks of bad spin about a little known fact that matters not to most folks. It stinks like astro-turf, and many people come here to this site for genuine information.
I don't know, maybe your not here to Astro Turf. But every post of yours on the front page within the cable/DSL topics that I have read has been decidedly cable fan boy. The fact that you spin, and spin, and spin, doesn't help that perception.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you on other things. | |
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
1 edit | reply to Matthew
said by Matthew :I still fail to see how common sync rate throughout the network makes cable "superior." I guess what he's saying by this is "AT&T, why are you trying to be cable when you can't even deploy steady speeds to your existing DSL customers. Why bother, if you don't plan on fixing what you've got." And generally this would apply to ALL DSL providers, but only AT&T is trying to fit 6 meg DSL + IPTV on a connection that can't be sold everywhere. This is a stupid move, because considering the situation, the telco needs a franchise agreement (costing money, by the way) to sell TV, once they have it, they will be limited to the number of people they can sell to. They will also be limited further by the bandwidth available to the settop boxes that make the TV work (i.e. only X amount of receivers allowed per home, only X TV channels viewable per subscriber because of bandwidth limits being exceeded, and TV packets fragmenting as a result). If telco's want to make IPTV to compete/offer new services, they need to invest in the needed technology first, and in this case, in order to do so, it would just be cheaper to DITCH COPPER and run FIBER to the home, thus taking one step above what cable does now.
In closing, Cable is currently only superior because it has enough bandwidth to supply phone, TV, and Internet, AND it can do it with equal speeds throughout the entire system. No "you're too far for this service" limitations. The only cable limitations would be for cable systems who have not envoked HFC services (like less than 2%). HFC stands for Hybrid Fiber Coax, meaning fiber to the node, coax to the house. Cable DOES have it easier when it comes to deploying their Fiber, simply because it's already ran to the neighborhood, all that needs to be done is removing coax, and replacing it with a fiber feeder, and swapping the HFC node out for a fiber muxing device. DSL doesn't compete with cable, they just offer slower connections. If it was a competition, they would also try to match speed with a low price. Actually, bit for bit, DSL is MORE EXPENSIVE. Say you get a Bellsouth lite line, at about $22 a month I believe. The line has 128 up, 256 down. Half the cost of Comcast Internet, and not even close to a quarter of the download speed, and 2/3's less upload. 2/3's less. Don't you think instead of being half the price, it should be less than 1/3rd the cost to make that competitive, don't ya think.
Edited for this: By the way, 100 Mbps service syncing at 97, which is 3 Mbps shy of what it's suppose to be, is a big deal, especially considering the RT was only 100m (allegidly) away. Whats the loss on that, about 1Mbps per 33.5m?
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
brandon
Some truth included in this post.
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to fiberguy
What's funny is, where I live, I can get DSL and Cable TV, but I can't get Cable internet. And it's not because the cable service doesn't provide it--about 5 minutes up the road there are people who have cable internet. No, I can only get digital cable TV, but not cable internet. Yet DSL is here.
Strange that it sometimes goes the other way, eh? | |
|
