the cynic
join:2003-01-25
Harbor City, CA | reply to Derch
Re: It'll never work
Lets see FIOS will be in 0.00001% of homes by the end of this year..... |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | reply to Rob A
This is assuming the premise equipment can handle the extra speed. Although i see it having no issues though 30mb/.
Wonder what the absolute MAX would be for the hardware being installed. |
|
rewket
Premium
join:2003-08-21
Longueuil, QC
| reply to dscline
said by dscline  :You seem to be countering your own point. Yes, the whole internet is shared, and yes, you are limited by the weakest point. But even with cable, your home connection is often not the weakest point. I "only" have 8MB cable, yet my download speeds are still frequently limited by the source. Very few of MY common everyday sites can saturate my pipe. Of course, that only holds true for downloads. Pure download speed is not what's attractive about FIOS. It's the upload speed, and lack of a download cap. But I think an earlier sentiment holds true: for most of the market, the differences aren't great. Right on, YOUR SOURCES
Most people who are tech-savvy or teenagers in need of porn/movies/games will find everything they want at the speed they want
4years ago i could get access to the local university's connection a couple times a year(back then the standar broadband speed was 1.5mbps here)
back then they were still people like you saying ohh most sources cant handle over 4-6mbps
Then why the heck could i download EVERYWHERE i went at over 10mbps? Most webhosting companies offer at least 6-10mbps, most torrents have enough people to go at 10mbps especialy if its a private tracker, most irc chans have 10-100mbps bots, most high-tech companies have big pipes
dont forget the linux distros these are on the biggest pipes ever i could even get 25mbps from free.fr here in canada |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | reply to BosstonesOwn
quote:
Answer these 2 questions. How much throughput per channel on cable nodes and how much per channel on fiber ?
Well, on a 800mhz system, there's 133 6mhz channels. At QAM256, that's 38mbps per channel, or 5054mbps per fiber node shared amongst everyone connected to it.
At the moment 70-90 of those channels are being used by analog cable on most systems. And of course all the digital cable and HDTV channels. Can you see why they want to switch everybody to all digital now? That analog cable takes up an enormous amount of their available bandwidth.
Bottom line, there's really an enormous amount of bandwidth that can be pumped through coax. It's just a matter of management.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| reply to Time
said by Time :said by Rob A :No one on cable with be able to hold 20Mbps/2Mbps consistently and will be capped very easily. And not to mention, when this things goes final, Verizon will just flip a switch and upgrade their speeds with no hassle. Just because FiOS is fiber, doesn't mean there is an unlimited amount of bandwidth. Verizon can't just "flip a switch" without gaining more bandwidth from their end, it's common sense. FiOS is still a shared source, just like cable. For the most part cable can't compete with FIOS. FIOS can handle multi-gigabit networks, the problem is the cost of peering with the actual internet, that is why we only see 15/2 in 2005 and not 1500/200 like in the future.
-Tzale
--
Was ich nicht weiß, macht mich nicht heiß.~*~Keep learning because knowledge is the key to power.~*~Czego Jaś się nie nauczy, tego Jan nie będzie umiał. |
|
Kylemaul
Lovin' My Firefox 1.5.x
Premium
join:2001-03-30
North Port, FL
clubs: | reply to TKJunkMail
Agreed! Let the new broadband wars be over lowest LATENCY! |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to SirXILE
Heck, sometimes it's good to have downloadable nudie or porn pix of your real life SOs.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) |
|
SirXILE
The SolWar 2-1
Premium
join:2001-02-24
Brooklyn, NY
·Optimum Online
| said by nixen :Heck, sometimes it's good to have downloadable nudie or porn pix of your real life SOs. -tom I completely CnC! 
--
There can only be one..."X.I.L.E" |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to djrobx
said by djrobx : quote:
Answer these 2 questions. How much throughput per channel on cable nodes and how much per channel on fiber ?
Well, on a 800mhz system, there's 133 6mhz channels. At QAM256, that's 38mbps per channel, or 5054mbps per fiber node shared amongst everyone connected to it. At the moment 70-90 of those channels are being used by analog cable on most systems. And of course all the digital cable and HDTV channels. Can you see why they want to switch everybody to all digital now? That analog cable takes up an enormous amount of their available bandwidth. Bottom line, there's really an enormous amount of bandwidth that can be pumped through coax. It's just a matter of management. While I agree I must say that that is the problem they are packing channels. 38 megs per channel and a whole city using that channel. Or even a whole node using that channel.
FIOS 622 mbps per channel. You see my point I hope by this time. But I will keep going. 32 Users per channel, not a whole city. Less shared means less likely that little johnny can completely suck down the bandwidth if him and his friend decide to fire up bit torrent with 20 mbit links.
In order for cable to sustain 20 mbit + links. They are going to need a major addition of line cards. Then they have to dole out 5 or 6 people to each channel. Can that even be done with some sort of reliability ? Docsis standards with other technologies may help but there is less likely that fiber will be bogged down.
Then we are still down to the slowest part of the last mile being our cap. In this case for cable the channel per node and for Fiber the amount of money they want to spend on thier equipment
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
MrPib
join:2002-02-15
NJ
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant :Cable's topology lends itself to costly bottlenecks in the field so they cap or have tons of trouble when they try to offer their dense subscriber areas 10Mb+ service. That's a little harsh! I prefer to think of their subscribers as misinformed or perhaps ignorant  |
|
Dr Demento
I Vant Blud
join:2002-01-02
Denville, NJ
| reply to Jeffrey
said by Jeffrey :said by Dr Demento :And as a former OOL user myself, since I am in PA now I can tell you that I usually got 9/900 out of my 10/1 connection with virtually no downtime. And for people that are having problems on OOL are either on a really crowded node, which is seems apparent since you're in Long Island, you were truly downloading to much or just one of those victims of circumstance. P.S: A crowded Node or server can happen on any ISP or connection medium. It could even happen on Fios if Verizon ever mismanages it.;) And to anyone who said cable is the weaker link, yours is still weaker than the guy appointed to manage an OC-48, do you feel comfy now?  I also got roughly 9/1 out of my OOL connection from 1999 through 2003. After 2003, it got steadily worse. I don't buy the argument "downloading too much". That's a weak, catch-all phrase that depends upon opinion, and in no way can that be used to describe general degredation of a service for 2 years. You're just jealous because you don't have Fios. You pretty much confirmed on what I have stated. Your connection got steadily worse as more people signed up in your area. Since FIOS basically works on the same principle but with less, but larger nodes how can't Verizon guarantee the same thing might happen?
I'm not jealous of your connection, I am just current satisfied with mine. However, if Verizon FIOS becomes available in my area and is being offered a better price not to mention better packaging for their TV service then I will give it a try. 
I'm sorry but like others say, it isn't only about the bandwidth. |
|
Jeffrey
too dark too early
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Dix Hills,NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FIOS
·Vonage
·magicjack.com
2 edits | said by Dr Demento :said by Jeffrey :said by Dr Demento :And as a former OOL user myself, since I am in PA now I can tell you that I usually got 9/900 out of my 10/1 connection with virtually no downtime. And for people that are having problems on OOL are either on a really crowded node, which is seems apparent since you're in Long Island, you were truly downloading to much or just one of those victims of circumstance. P.S: A crowded Node or server can happen on any ISP or connection medium. It could even happen on Fios if Verizon ever mismanages it.;) And to anyone who said cable is the weaker link, yours is still weaker than the guy appointed to manage an OC-48, do you feel comfy now? I also got roughly 9/1 out of my OOL connection from 1999 through 2003. After 2003, it got steadily worse. I don't buy the argument "downloading too much". That's a weak, catch-all phrase that depends upon opinion, and in no way can that be used to describe general degredation of a service for 2 years. You're just jealous because you don't have Fios. You pretty much confirmed on what I have stated. Your connection got steadily worse as more people signed up in your area. Since FIOS basically works on the same principle but with less, but larger nodes how can't Verizon guarantee the same thing might happen? I'm not jealous of your connection, I am just current satisfied with mine. However, if Verizon FIOS becomes available in my area and is being offered a better price not to mention better packaging for their TV service then I will give it a try. I'm sorry but like others say, it isn't only about the bandwidth. No, I didn't say that it got worse as more people signed up in my area. I can't quantify that because I don't know who/what makes up my node, and I don't know the net # of subcribers in 2005 as opposed to 1999. I have no idea if my service degraded because of node congestion. What I do know is that repeated attempts to get technicians out here to address problems the phone-techs saw did little. They would get here, find nothing wrong, and leave after tightening some bolts.
What I said was that my overall service got worse from 2003 on; Usenet, email, web browsing, download speeds. After being presented with a nice alternative, I acted on it.
As for the future, I think Verizon has the ability to throw much more money into their system then CV can throw into their own, which is why, for the long-term, my money is on Verizon.
Not to say that CV's product is a bad one, it's not. I still post here to help others, or to see the goings-on. I just don't think CV can compete with Verizon in the long-run.
--
"When you get lost in your imaginatory vagueness, your forsight becomes a nimble vagrant."
Wikipedia |
|
