Cisco Leaks Vague Plans To Upstage Google Fiber One analyst wonders if we shouldn't just stick to 5-10 Mbps... Cisco is apparently hoping to piggyback on the excitement surrounding Google's recent announcement that they're deploying 1 Gbps fiber service to a limited number of consumers for testing purposes. According to the Financial Times, Cisco is "developing an ultra-high-speed system for internet access" in cooperation with a number of US service providers. Given Cisco already sells hardware to most of the major ISPs, many of whom already are cooking up "ultra-high-speed" service (like Comcast's exploration of 100-250 Mbps service), the leak is annoyingly vague: Cisco declined to comment on its plans. But it said the US "needs high-speed, future-proof broadband networks that are accessible and affordable to all” and that it "looks forward to being part of this exciting transformation". David Kaut, an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus in Washington, said Cisco’s move, like Google’s, would help the private sector determine whether there was real consumer demand for huge amounts of bandwidth, or whether current levels of 5 or 10 megabits were sufficient. Mr. Kaut's quote is particularly odd for several reasons. One, we're already quickly pushing past 5 to 10 megabits per second speeds for even standard service in many markets, with several carriers launching 50-100 Mbps service. Two, why would anybody think that the evolution in broadband speeds should just stop at 5 to 10 megabits? Today's power user is tomorrow's regular user; you don't just stop upgrading networks because you think Joe public currently doesn't need faster speeds. Cisco's "leak" offers no details, though the company tells GigaOM that they're holding a press event on March 9 where Cisco "will make a significant announcement that will forever change the Internet and its impact on consumers, businesses and governments." From the sound of it, ISPs are working with Cisco to design a public relations counterpunch to Google's announcement, which as we noted at launch is in part designed to give Google policy and political ammunition in the fights over open access, network neutrality, and competition.
|
 | | Makes sense This makes sense for Cisco. The higher the bandwidth, the more (sophisticated) hardware that's needed to manage it. Cisco is probably betting that home and small business users will need to upgrade their routers, switches and access points to accommodate the higher speeds. That means that more Cisco/Linksys devices will be sold. | |
|  |  swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
1 edit | Re: Makes sense I suspect it's more than a new line of equipment.
First, the reference to "future proof" implies at least some new level of support for ipv6. (I suppose heavy-duty network equipment already has ipv6 support, but anything that makes the transition much easier would be welcome.) Hopefully this would not require anything proprietary or patented to be used by customers connecting to the network.
And, in recent years Cisco has been buying up security tech companies like crazy. I'm guessing it will be something that purports to improve "security", and will be sold on that basis, even if in their concept it means something more like "surveillance, filtering and remote control". | |
| | |  tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | Re: Makes sense said by swhx7:First, the reference to "future proof" implies at least some new level of support for ipv6. in some instances yes. as you get more and more sophisticated in terms of network gear, you have to understand the architectural differences that exist between platforms and even different versions of the same linecard or platform. each code version offers different features (and bugs) that interact in different ways with each linecard/platform.
many service providers, especially in the "business customer" space, often do weird types of packet manipulation/packet marking/policy forwarding that has unintended consequences when migrating to ipv6 at the provider edge (where all marking/routing/forwarding decisions are made before entering the core). until ipv4 features *fully* find their way into ipv6 (and performing these features in hardware, on a per-card basis), there will always be room for improvement, or at least until the power of a software router (such as the new cisco asr line) becomes more affordable.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." | |
|
| | Sounds likes this is the invisible hand of competition, working its magic. | |
| |  Shack
join:2002-01-17
Bloomington, IN | Re: Sounds likes this is This is not competition, neither Google nor Cisco intends to be large scale ISPs. Google wants to push other ISPs to roll out more sophisticated networks to push there content over and Cisco wants to sell th equipment. | |
|
 pwrtopplC-C-C-Combo Breaker
join:2008-11-21
Broomfield, CO | well... i honestly think its a space race between google and cisco at this point to see who can get the most media attention
itll be sad when that limited number of testers will still be the only in a year from now
affordable, i can put money on, wont be cheaper then 15mbps cable, and that itself isnt cheap
i think if we all downgraded to dial-up, at least there wouldnt be a competition over whos got the greater speeds
on the other hand...if google and cisco follow through and really make 1gbps to the home at an affordable cost, then i tip my hat to mega corps doing something that would actually be useful while not being spoon fed updated content
...after that, metered mbps speeds, 1gb? no problem, $20
500gb? sorry, youre over, heres your 600$ bill
--
tainting the world since 86 | |
|
2 edits | Competing I think ultimately we will see a plateau around 1Gbps, because that allows us to use a single home connection for all the necessities and luxuries. It would allow several very high quality HD streams, along with the rest of our internet and phone requirements. At that point I would see little motivation from a consumer standpoint for more. I think the best game plan for ISPs is to split the company into two, a "dumb-pipe" provider and a content provider, and with the actual content and some bundling incentive I see the consumer and the provider winning in the end.
People have responded well to the recent honesty and openness of Comcast, and I think if they continue that trend they can really improve their business and their customer's value from the content. | |
| | | | Re: Competing That's what they said about 1k then 1 meg then 10 meg connections etc. We WILL find a way to max out 1Gpbs to the home and be wanting more than that. There is no doubt about it. | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: Competing I always thought that it was silly back then. When DSL became the next big thing and they talked about it solving all the problems, I immediately saw issues with the future of content delivery. But I just don't see a demand upcoming that goes far beyond that bandwidth for consumers. I do see a need to constantly improve the quality of the service, but the bandwidth I just don't see having a high demand beyond that. I'm not saying SOMEONE won't want it, just that not enough people will demand it to be worth widespread adoption.
And I think this is a plateau we will reach, not permanent, just a spot I expect it to settle for longer than usual. | |
| | | |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·voip.ms
| Re: Competing I agree, even though you are a Maimi fan. 
Lots of geeks here on BBR take for granted that connections need to get faster and faster, but your view is closer to reality. Did anyone in the 60s think we'd still be driving our sleep modern cars at 65-70 mph on the freeways 50 years later? Hardly.
By the time we get around to 1 Gbps to the home, who's to say we won't have a ubiquitous wireless spectrum (think "subspace" from the Star Trek universe) that makes data conduits obselete. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Competing I think you guys are completely wrong. I am fine with a 1 meg connection and couldn't care less about having more than that. However, I would bet my life savings that within 20 or 30 years a 1gbps to the home connection would be consider obsolete. | |
|
| | Not enough If we get to 1gb, i hope its soon and symmetric. I hate this async crap. They don't need to do that. I want more upload. I want it as fast as my download. Thats whats holding us back the most is our upload. I would be uploading and backup a ton of stuff to my online storage if there were faster options. Maybe 50mb+ uploads would be better. We need 100mb as the standard already. Cable can do hundreds of megs and can fiber. No reason not to upgrade. Gives the consumer an incentive to upgrade to a higher plan. Both sides win. | |
| |  joebarnhartPaxio evangelist
join:2005-12-15
Santa Clara, CA | Re: Not enough Your dream connection is already here, depending on where you live. My provider, Paxio offers 1G/1G today for $245/mo. I understand there are not that many takers, but a few are in that tier.
The exciting thing about the Google approach is the focus on open access. Paxio also takes this approach, so I will soon be able to get DirecTV and other competing video services on the same fiber as my internet and phone. I doubt I'll ever get DirecTV over FiOS or U-Verse.
Paxio's only downside is its small service area. But with the attention of companies like Google and Cisco, they may get the resources to grow and offer service to a larger part of the S.F. Bay Area. | |
| | | | |  Re: Not enough
said by joebarnhart:Your dream connection is already here, depending on where you live. My provider, Paxio offers 1G/1G today for $245/mo. I understand there are not that many takers, but a few are in that tier. The exciting thing about the Google approach is the focus on open access. Paxio also takes this approach, so I will soon be able to get DirecTV and other competing video services on the same fiber as my internet and phone. I doubt I'll ever get DirecTV over FiOS or U-Verse. Paxio's only downside is its small service area. But with the attention of companies like Google and Cisco, they may get the resources to grow and offer service to a larger part of the S.F. Bay Area. These speeds will never get adopted by anyone, if they are not willing to lower the prices. 
Paxio's pricing is amazing for the gigabit tier (it's about $0.25/Mb). Their lower tiers however, are just as expensive as every other provider offering those speeds, $2+/Mb. (up to $8+ per Mb on their 3Mb tier!!!!)
Webpass has the best, by far, pricing per Megabit than any provider I know of, though their footprint is small--serving only certain parts of San Fransisco and Oakland. Price per Megabit ranging from $0.50 to $1.
How is it that in places like Japan, they can offer speeds exceeding 100Mb for less than $1 or $0.50 per megabit? Can someone explain that to me, please?
thanks | |
| | | | | | Re: Not enough said by BxBoy :said by joebarnhart:Your dream connection is already here, depending on where you live. My provider, Paxio offers 1G/1G today for $245/mo. I understand there are not that many takers, but a few are in that tier. The exciting thing about the Google approach is the focus on open access. Paxio also takes this approach, so I will soon be able to get DirecTV and other competing video services on the same fiber as my internet and phone. I doubt I'll ever get DirecTV over FiOS or U-Verse. Paxio's only downside is its small service area. But with the attention of companies like Google and Cisco, they may get the resources to grow and offer service to a larger part of the S.F. Bay Area. These speeds will never get adopted by anyone, if they are not willing to lower the prices. Paxio's pricing is amazing for the gigabit tier (it's about $0.25/Mb). Their lower tiers however, are just as expensive as every other provider offering those speeds, $2+/Mb. (up to $8+ per Mb on their 3Mb tier!!!!) Webpass has the best, by far, pricing per Megabit than any provider I know of, though their footprint is small--serving only certain parts of San Fransisco and Oakland. Price per Megabit ranging from $0.50 to $1. How is it that in places like Japan, they can offer speeds exceeding 100Mb for less than $1 or $0.50 per megabit? Can someone explain that to me, please? thanks Are you f**king kidding me? For FIOS I pay $140/mo for 50/20. Paxio has 100/100 for $94.50/mo. Some places FIOS and Cablevision offer 50/20 or 50/10 or 50/5 for $99/mo. Do the math. Sure other countries have much cheaper internet, but they also have less people and less infrastructure issues to deal with in getting people on FTTP.
Here it is much tougher and if Paxio was nationwide today it would drive cable internet and other FTTH providers crazy. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Not enough said by pappy97:said by BxBoy :said by joebarnhart:Your dream connection is already here, depending on where you live. My provider, Paxio offers 1G/1G today for $245/mo. I understand there are not that many takers, but a few are in that tier. The exciting thing about the Google approach is the focus on open access. Paxio also takes this approach, so I will soon be able to get DirecTV and other competing video services on the same fiber as my internet and phone. I doubt I'll ever get DirecTV over FiOS or U-Verse. Paxio's only downside is its small service area. But with the attention of companies like Google and Cisco, they may get the resources to grow and offer service to a larger part of the S.F. Bay Area. These speeds will never get adopted by anyone, if they are not willing to lower the prices. Paxio's pricing is amazing for the gigabit tier (it's about $0.25/Mb). Their lower tiers however, are just as expensive as every other provider offering those speeds, $2+/Mb. (up to $8+ per Mb on their 3Mb tier!!!!) Webpass has the best, by far, pricing per Megabit than any provider I know of, though their footprint is small--serving only certain parts of San Fransisco and Oakland. Price per Megabit ranging from $0.50 to $1. How is it that in places like Japan, they can offer speeds exceeding 100Mb for less than $1 or $0.50 per megabit? Can someone explain that to me, please? thanks Are you f**king kidding me? For FIOS I pay $140/mo for 50/20. Paxio has 100/100 for $94.50/mo. Some places FIOS and Cablevision offer 50/20 or 50/10 or 50/5 for $99/mo. Do the math. Sure other countries have much cheaper internet, but they also have less people and less infrastructure issues to deal with in getting people on FTTP. Here it is much tougher and if Paxio was nationwide today it would drive cable internet and other FTTH providers crazy. Actually Japan's lack of organized city planning makes providing fiber to city dwellers extremely difficult. The super-high density ironically makes it more difficult to install fiber. The sweetspot is somewhere in the middle of super-high density and medium density. | |
|
| | ................. Can I get an employee discount? | |
| | | Marketing and PR move .... Marketing and PR move to sell networking equipment ... is it just me or is this not obvious? | |
| | | cisco Cisco does make equipment that Cablecompanies can use for docsis 3 that can turn a cable network into a ftth network.
They would just change the line cards or something like that .
Its actually pretty neat technology. Gives cablecompanies docsis 3 then a cheap way to convert to ftth in the future.
Maybe they will be announcing cablecompanies that are adopting this tech from them ? | |
| | | | Re: cisco How do you turn a cable (COPPER) into a ftth (FIBER)? Yeah, no. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: cisco RFoG is just WDM (wave devision multiplexing). It's for RF signals only (TV). It's like FiOS, but FiOS is the same medium all the way to the house, over a single strand.
Not as simple as changing a line card. As was mentioned above.
On a side note, can I get an ONS box in my house for this?  | |
|
|
2 edits | My guess is 4G LTE and WiMAX ....
»4g.telecomskorea.com/2010/02/liv···gbs.html
Live Demo of LTE with Speeds of 1Gb/s
Cisco PR quote.
"Those networks will be predominantly built by the private sector, including new and existing operations using fixed and wireless technologies, various business models and partnerships and industry structures to create the next generation Internet." | |
| | | | | Re: cisco I call BS accessible to all that live in a city, if these companies really want to bring America into the 21st century everyone needs to be wired not just in the cities but in rural areas as well, down to the "last mile". | |
| | | |
1 edit | Re: cisco The only way to bring the cost down to rural america is to use wireless technology.
»www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/ns···ion.html
The access-independent ASR 5000 can be transparently deployed in mobile networks including CDMA, LTE, UMTS/HSPA, femtocell, Wi-Fi, and WiMAX networks | |
| | | | | | | Re: cisco said by Headtalk:The only way to bring the cost down to rural america is to use wireless technology. » www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/ns···ion.htmlThe access-independent ASR 5000 can be transparently deployed in mobile networks including CDMA, LTE, UMTS/HSPA, femtocell, Wi-Fi, and WiMAX networks Rural fiber deployment is not anywhere near as costly as you might think. It's actually only a couple hundred more per home for a city-wide deployment. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| means nothing these big companies need to put their money where their mouth (PR) is.. just providing these blazing speeds where there ALREADY IS A TON OF FIBER deployed means nothing, actually deploying fiber, then running these speeds to premesis actually might mean something.
anwho, when the time comes.. I'd like to see the kind of apps people utilize those speeds for.. I find it difficult to fully utilize 25/15 at the moment 24/7/365. more bottlenecks exist on the servers you connect to than on the internet itself. wouldn't it be nice when the mass market gets ahold of these speeds.. hard drives will certainly get a workout then. 2tb drives will seem quite small when the day comes... but by then 6tb hard drives will be in the mass market... hehe | |
| |
| |
|
|
