said by bigjimc :

How many "new" Linux ISOs can a person download in a week?

Add it up. People do not need the speed. They just want it really really badly.

Unless you are a family of 10 who each game on-line with individual VoIP phones and want to listen to your Sirius radio on-line while downloading a new linux isos.

said by wifi4milez :

You are correct though, nobody, not even the people on DSLR need 100Mbps home connections at this point in time. Sure I would like one, but thats about where it ends.

said by XBL2007 :

Your argument is flawed, the economy is not based on what people need but what they want.

People want SUV's.
People want big houses.
People want faster computers.
People want faster internet connections.

Also when we all get 100mbps connections it means that a lot of things connected will have to be updated. Just imagine at what services will come online once 100mbps is available.

said by wifi4milez :

Here is why your argument is flawed, its called economies of scale. People want SUV's, and because they are mass produced they can be procured for around the same price as a car. Thus there is no real difference. People want big houses, and because there are many people with enough money to buy them they are easily available. People want fast computers, and again, due to economies of scale, fast computers are relatively cheap.

Now lets explore why economies of scale do not apply to bandwidth (in the US today). People CAN buy 100Mbps connections today, in fact, almost everyone can. The problem is however, that they cost between $4000 and $20,000 per month depending on where you live. This is because the back end infrastructure necessary for mass "production" of 100Mbps connections isnt deployed. Once the telcos have spent the necessary billions (yes, billions) needed to support every customer potentially ordering a 100Mbps circuit, they will be just as common as regular DSL and cable lines. To wrap up this brief "Economics 101" lesson, the economy is certainly driven by what people want; assuming its something the market can support. If not, a separate niche market develops for those products, and the niche market is not hindered by cost at all. Hope this helps!

said by XBL2007 :

You forgot to mention that the telco's recieved $200 billion in fees and tax breaks to build a fiber network that could handle 45mbps symmetrical and 500 channels: »www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007···683.html

said by Cringley the nutjob :

Over the decade from 1994-2004 the major telephone companies profited from higher phone rates paid by all of us, accelerated depreciation on their networks.....

said by wifi4milez :

Well, to begin with your first issue is reading/believing anything put out by Cringley. Even the staunchest of whackjobs on these forums tends to shy away from backing most of his blather. The other thing is that even if you examine the $200 billion figure, you will find that he uses "fuzzy math" to come up with it. He is considering profit (yes, profit) achieved by rate increases something that was given to the telco companies. Now lets be serious for a moment here, regardless of what side of the proverbial "fence" you sit on that is just ludicrous. Rate increases are a part of life, and they happen in every industry. To say that the profit made by said increases is "given", "received", or anything other than "earned" is just nuts. Lets examine his quote for just a minute, shall we?

Wow, so rates increased over the course of ten years and the value of assets depreciated over time?? Sounds like I should give him an economics/finance lesson too!

Do yourself a favor XBL2007, delete any bookmarks you have pointing to Cringley's site; that shit will rot your brain!

said by XBL2007 :

The copper network value is degrading every year is the point. Using DSL tech is only a stop gap measure and won't fix the problem. They have to replace their entire network at some point and it won't be with more copper.

said by wifi4milez :

That is 100% correct. When the time comes and they do that however, THEN you will see higher capacity connections available to far more people. Thats my whole point, the telco's/ISP's need to spend a few billion (collectively) for 100Mbps connections to be the norm. Until then, we can all want them but they arent needed, nor will they be provided on a large scale.

said by DHRacer :

The one thing we're all forgetting is how much consumer hardware doesn't even support more than 10Mbps on the WAN port (or some that say 10Mbps WAN port but can't even deliver that).

It would take a serious re-education of the greater portion of American public to tell them that 99% of their home routers will need replacing to get more than 10Mbps down. Most would probably say "f-that!", especially since stuff that is 100Mbps on the WAN side is always a bit more money (though that is slowly changing on the latest offerings).

So, no, anything above 10Mbps is definately enthusiast level, and who owns (and paid a good penny for) enthusiast level equipment to have it. We'll see 100Mbps maybe when our kids are grown and buying HSI, because only a few today see the need for more than 10 (and they're pretty much all here at DSLR). Our kids, who have grown up in the Internet age and are fully into being bandwidth consumers will drive the rollout...

said by XBL2007 :

Since you can't get more then 10 megabits from any ISP what's the point of going beyond a b router?

said by reelbigfish :

I agree with the comment for more upload. I need to upload some stuff at about 200Megs. 384Kbps is just pathetic.

said by mdembski :

I would much rather that they improve the latency than give me more speed

said by CoxCable4 :

I would gladly drop any connection on the market for 256k/256k as long as it was over fiber optic and had reasonably good peering.

said by DaveNJ :

Why is always down-speed the issue. I could never use 100m, just give me 10/10.

said by DaveNJ :

Why is always down-speed the issue. I could never use 100m, just give me 10/10.

said by Sammer :

Add HDTV and it's more like 40Mbs.