North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: AT&T: 15 Mbps Internet connections "irrelevant"

  • From: Bruce Pinsky
  • Date: Sat Apr 01 01:51:42 2006

Hash: SHA1

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> "In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is
> irrelevant because the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds," he
> told the conference attendees. Stephenson said that AT&T's field tests
> have shown "no discernable difference" between AT&T's 1.5 Mbps service
> and Comcast's 6 Mbps because the problem is not in the last mile but in
> the backbone."
> Is this something held generally true in the US, or is it just pointed
> hair-talk? Sounds like "nobody should need more than 640kb of memory"
> all over again.
> I can definately see a difference between 2 meg, 8 meg and even faster,
> even when web browsing, especially transferring large pictures when
> running gallery or alike. When I load with 130ms latency I
> get over 1 megabit/s and that's transatlantic with a lot of small
> objects to fetch. Most major newspapers here in Sweden will load at 5-10
> megabit/s for me, and downloading streaming content (
> will easily download at 10-20 megabit/s if bw is available.
> around a couple of megabits/s. (all measured with task-manager in XP,
> very scientific :P)
> I can relate to there being a sweetspot around 1.5-3 megs/s when larger
> speed doesn't really give you a whole lot of more experience with
> webbrowsing, but the more people will start to use services like
>, the more bw they will need at their local pipe and of
> course backbone should be non-blocking or close to it...

Sounds like FUD to me...

Perhaps trying to downplay the push to FIOS?????

- --

Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -