dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
924
share rss forum feed

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

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.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

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/


funehi

@nycourts.gov
reply to silbaco

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



dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus

join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
kudos:1
reply to silbaco

No. Just because you make one bad deal does not mean you should be forced to make another.


maestro7

join:2004-08-31
Loganville, GA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Southeast
reply to silbaco

"...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.



workablob

join:2004-06-09
Houston, TX
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Comcast

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.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to funehi

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.


n1581j

@wildblue.net
reply to workablob

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.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to maestro7

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.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to silbaco

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.


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to n1581j

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.


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to silbaco

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

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to Skippy25

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?


Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to FFH

Geeze Tommy. Repeat yourself much?



Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to silbaco

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

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to firephoto

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.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

reply to silbaco

So you want to put the onus on me for the need, sure thing.

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.


ltecajun

join:2012-10-02
Rayne, LA

So do I, but at what cost? There is always a cost involved whether it is shared or not. I simply don't trust Google because they have no transparency like a muni would. LUS in Lafayette, LA is an example of a fairly successful muni project that provides fiber to all of the locations that they service and they even haven't seen the need for peer to peer connections above 100mbps for residential customers.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to Skippy25

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. A world where we get everything we want would be a great place. That world doesn't exist.

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....


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Oh how silly you are.

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.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to ltecajun

At what cost?

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.



mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:12

1 recommendation

reply to silbaco

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

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to Skippy25

Ah. So you can't debate worth a crap, you instead of debating the subject at hand, you debate about me and make petty insults? Interesting.



Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
reply to silbaco

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]

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to mackey

Our economy needs the internet, or it would collapse. Our economy does not need gigabit internet.

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.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to Simba7

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.

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.



ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast
reply to silbaco

Yep, lets just half ass every form of infrastructure for the next 100 years.

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?



ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
reply to silbaco

It's needed tomorrow, not today.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 edit
reply to silbaco

3 Things

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.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

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.

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.