 |
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | google will pay for it! aren't they just going to charge google, yahoo, etc. to pay for these upgrades?
that seems to be the business model touted by the telcos - heaven forbid they actually lay out any of their own money and take a risk. | |
|
 | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: google will pay for it! You know you're posting in a cable discussion, right? | |
|
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: google will pay for it! said by RadioDoc  :You know you're posting in a cable discussion, right? as a matter of fact, I do. you know I'm being sarcastic, right?
besides, just because the cablecos haven't been stupid enough to publicly announce their desire for a two-tier internet doesn't mean they don't share that viewpoint (you know, the one where Whitacre says google, etc. should be charged more so the network can be upgraded). | |
|
| | | |
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: google will pay for it! My local cable company, Charter, has been running ads for months that proclaim net neutrality is bad. I think the ad was sponsored by the MCO (Missouri Cable Operators?). Although not specifically mentioned, that's a public declaration that they indirectly support the same thing the telcos want. | |
|
| | | | 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs: | Re: google will pay for it! I hope you people don't think so called *Net Neutrality* will help nobodies like you. Do you like caps? Then you will love *Net Neutrality*. | |
|
| | 
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by RadioDoc :You know you're posting in a cable discussion, right? He's making a net neutrality argument here...
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
|
| | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: google will pay for it! Badly. | |
|
| | |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by nasadude :aren't they just going to charge google, yahoo, etc. to pay for these upgrades? that seems to be the business model touted by the telcos - heaven forbid they actually lay out any of their own money and take a risk. Yes google, yahoo and M$ should take risk and run their own cable. | |
|
|
| 
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Perhaps in some areas... said by dadkins :... but in others there seems to be an abundance of available bandwidth. Read up on PowerBoost, then do a search here(in Comcast HSI) for PermaBoost.  Instead of getting the first few MB at wild speeds and then tapering back to rated service line speed, some of us are seeing wild downloads for entire multi-hundred(thousand?) MB downloads.  The main problem seems to be finding sources to utilize these speeds. Of course, YMMV. My Milage DOES Indeed Vary.. no *Boost here at all. Can't wait for DOCSIS 3 to arrive.
--
Webmaster - Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»ppnhosting.com
»www.1-gb.net
»pokemonpalace.net | |
|
| | 
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: Perhaps in some areas... That sucks!
It's not all roses though... I only know of a couple places that can push the killer speeds. 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | | 
cothrom
join:2005-12-01
Greer, SC
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Perhaps in some areas... said by dadkins :That sucks! It's not all roses though... I only know of a couple places that can push the killer speeds. Too true!
I was one of the first to get the 10M/1M speed increase with Charter cable at the beginning of Sept. 2006. it was absolutely killer too, everything they promised. By November I started to first see latency issues, speeds were still good for the most part but it would take a minute to access most web pages. By December we started to see speed degration to the point where I switched back to their 3M/256K service. High speed cable works well till it starts getting loaded, but with cable that is the nature of the beast.
--
Some people should'nt | |
|
| |
| |
deadi
Premium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH
| Yep, I'd have to say there is a crunch based on what my friends with cable are stating. There are times when playing a game becomes impossible due to high and wildy fluctuating ping, most likely caused by over saturated cable. I dont have that problem with DSL.
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... | |
|
| |
|
| 
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs: | Re: Its already here Someones hungry for more bandwidth | |
|
| op
join:2005-07-16
Smyrna, DE | Must of been hired by the telcos'  . | |
|
| 
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA | Next DSLR article...FiOS workers dressed as bears purposely destroy cable infrastructure. | |
|
| |
| | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: The rest of it... Unless Comcast is in the electric power business now, I doubt it. Those pictures have nothing to do with them. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| Re: The rest of it... said by RadioDoc :Unless Comcast is in the electric power business now, I doubt it. Those pictures have nothing to do with them. Hey, logic, common sense, and the truth have absolutely no business here.
--
Go Colts | |
|
| | 
digiblur
Got Sipura?
Premium
join:2002-06-03
Louisiana | Thought the captions with those pictures were saying it was a Sprint cell tower this was at. | |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | The Next telecommunications boom? Sounds like its going to happen again. Not only with teleco but with cable.
I should invest more in fiber | |
|
op
join:2005-07-16
Smyrna, DE | Wait If cable co's do fiber strait to the home then what happens if there is fiber already in the home a la Fios? I don't want 2 pieces of fiber from 2 different companies when 1 piece of fiber is doing enough. | |
|
| 
ss4vegito7
join:2004-07-24
Cranbury, NJ
| Re: Wait said by op :If cable co's do fiber strait to the home then what happens if there is fiber already in the home a la Fios? I don't want 2 pieces of fiber from 2 different companies when 1 piece of fiber is doing enough. why not? its the same width as coaxial, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Plus cable companies aren't going to run fiber to your home anytime soon anyway.
--
»www.rockinthebury.com
andhttp://www.cranburypcrepair.com | |
|
| 
MadMANN
Premium
join:2005-08-19
·Comcast
| The fiber that would be at your home already would be owned by Verizon and connected to THEIR network. So the cable company would HAVE to run a second piece of fiber to THEIR system. And most likely, they would do what Verizon does already and remove the coax that already exists to your home from your previous service.
It's no different than areas who have two different cable systems with two separate coax drops to a house, if a sub has used both at one time or another. | |
|
| |
|
|
| Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX | Re: HDTV and Internet Access 6Gbps is enough to give 120 customers 50Mbps each. That's twice what AT&T is offering. That could provide several HD streams and internet to boot. Kill analog, replace the DVR with VOD and they should be set for years. Right? | |
|
| | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: HDTV and Internet Access said by Enlightener :6Gbps is enough to give 120 customers 50Mbps each. That's twice what AT&T is offering. That could provide several HD streams and internet to boot. Kill analog, replace the DVR with VOD and they should be set for years. Right? The only problem is, cable nodes are not that small. | |
|
| | | 
kpfx
join:2005-10-28
Kerrville, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: HDTV and Internet Access Typically slightly larger, but close if you're counting HSD passings (total passings are much higher but you never have a 100% connect rate).
Throw in DOCSIS 3.0 and things get interesting. Instead of 6Gbps you now have a theoretical 22Gbps to play with. That can easily handle over 100Mbps per customer.
Of course we're all talking theoretical stuff here. Only time will tell how it gets played out. | |
|
| | | | |
bhorow
join:2004-05-17
Forest Hills, NY
| I don't know about apocalypse but.. Generally speaking competition is driving the need for faster speeds, I don't know about some of the conclusions people are making. I would say that DSL is now the old dial up. At $19.00 a pop. And the defacto standard is do you have at least 5 Meg per second.
The Low end is low 768K, the days of dialup is now gone. In fact unless you talk about $9.00 dialup...almost everyone can now talk about $19.00 DSL.
The speed wars are going to conclude though since. Verizon and Cable companies realize that. They have to cover there expenses. If you noticed Verizon's prices are similar to that of cable. The fact is you have to make an operating profit. | |
|
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: I don't know about apocalypse but.. said by bhorow :The Low end is low 768K, the days of dialup is now gone. Oh really. Posters to this site are not normal users and should get out more. | |
|
voipguy
join:2006-05-31
Forest Hills, NY
| SDV Won't Help - Hogwash Switched video will OF COURSE help.
Once the number of switched channels approaches a large portion of the number of TV sets hooked up in a given node, the channel capacity goes to infinity! This will take care of broadcast, VOD, network DVR, and anything else video (because each set can only watch one or perhaps two streams at a time, and sets watching the same program watch the same stream).
For data, sure there are limits. But if the bulk of the data path is used for video anyway, SDV could accomodate that too. By bonding DOCSIS channels, speeds well over 100 Mb/s are easily achieved.
The biggest limit cable faces is the size of the upstream path. This could be addressed by splitting nodes small enough such that all the coax behind them is passive. Then, the upstream/downstream split could be changed without reconfiguring field amplifiers. This will be more easily done once the analog TV channels go away, and downstream channels 2-6 can be vacated. | |
|
Quaoar
join:2004-08-11
Fort Collins, CO
| The Apocalypse So today, NetFlix has started their video download service. This is directly bandwidth-consuming, and I expect that bandwidth in all venues will start to be consumed in a huge way, likely (on cable connections) resulting in the apocalypse of bandwidth availability far sooner than we all realize that it could happen.
Net Neutrality will be the watchword for the next year, when ISP's like mine, Comcast, start invoking the invisible quotas for their customers on an exponentially increasing basis.
The delivery of massive content, i.e., a simple DVD amount of data to subscribers, will very quickly destroy the fast connections we have all had for these few years into another version of broadband 'dial-up' equivalent.
None of the broadband ISPs had one inkling that the net would advance in download demand that things like NetFlix would have a debilitating effect on their networks.
I await the apocalypse with trepidation. The electronic world is moving faster than the capital investment world can respond. I predice meltdown!
Q | |
|
| Davemaster
Premium
join:2006-03-02
Marietta, GA | Re: The Apocalypse The bear was electrocuted? | |
|
| | travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
| Re: The Apocalypse said by Davemaster :The bear was electrocuted? Nah... He was justing watching too much HGTV. | |
|
| | |
Vamp
5c077
Premium
join:2003-01-28
MD | they SHOULD run fiber. They already have fiber, they should run it the extra mile. | |
|
| 
RolteC
0h
join:2001-05-20
Fresh Meadows, NY | Re: they SHOULD run fiber. True they should run it further.
Would be nice to have multiple fiber optic ISP's to choose from.
That sounds nice.
But unlikely to ever happen. | |
|
DufiefData
join:2006-06-13
Gaithersburg, MD
| How could SDV not help? I don't get it--how could SDV not make a difference??? You're talking about overturning the entire current paradigm of cable TV (i.e. everything gets pushed to the STB 24/7), and changing to essentially a Multicasting model. In that case the only bandwidth "constraints" are between headend and SDV edge node. Right?
Virtually all current bandwidth constraints should be removed--future limits should depend only on the processing power at each SDV node. It seems like an obvious bandwidth solution.
What's the issue then? The costs of each node? | |
|
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: How could SDV not help? said by DufiefData :I don't get it--how could SDV not make a difference??? You're talking about overturning the entire current paradigm of cable TV (i.e. everything gets pushed to the STB 24/7), and changing to essentially a Multicasting model. In that case the only bandwidth "constraints" are between headend and SDV edge node. Right? Virtually all current bandwidth constraints should be removed--future limits should depend only on the processing power at each SDV node. It seems like an obvious bandwidth solution. What's the issue then? The costs of each node? Wow, that is beautiful, why aren't you king of all cable. | |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| symantics Docsis 3.0 is a cable equalizer.. what is LOST upon the analysis is the necessity to run fiber (FTTN) anyway deep into the neighborhood nodes to SUPPORT the increased bandwidth caps capable for docsis 3.0, Actually-- they could be doing some of this DEEP fiber node construction NOW under docsis 2.0 nodes and just switch the nodes/headend/cablemodems when the time comes.. but cable companies are: LAZY, GREEDY, and STUPID.. because they think a few pennies saved today is better now than dollars spent later.. (2 years down the road). Which by all accounts will have some means of competition breathing down their necks in the form of xdsl or fttx from telcos, or in some circumstances MUNI fiber/broadband shutting out the competition from BOTH cableco and telco alike.
They need to plan where to make the upgrades and implement ASAP,network upgrades.. telcos were never complacent in upgrading AT LEAST the head-end equipment and the backbone infrastructure.. they always migrated to new cheaper, more cost efficient technologies (in most cases) because they had the money (but, until recently the residential customer got the crumbs of bad dsl deployment).. with the new ROUND of cable (tv) rate increases.. cablecos SHOULD be putting some of this new cash to work on network upgrades NOW, not later.. they just need to choose some OUTSIDE plant upgrades in addition to the INSIDE plant upgrades--(it won't get much cheaper to do this later) DOCSIS 3.0 migration costs are relatively fixed industry wide-- it's doubtful any ONE cable company would get an unfair advantage on the equipment/labor/deployment costs anywhere. Telcos are starting to get their ducks in a row and significant increases in bandwidth are coming-- and winning over customers in the process. In addition they need to get some certified docsis 3.0 cable modem design specs to the manufacturing process by q3 2007 or they will be swamped with customer churn as telco broadband overbuilds the faulty DSL that exists today with something as good as (AT&T) or better than (Verizon FTTP) docsis 2.0. | |
|
|
|
|
|
The Cable Bandwidth Apocalypse Is Coming
·
Ouch!
·
.preview.jpg "37130 bytes")
.preview.jpg "32760 bytes")
·
·
how can this be?