North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
Jack Bates wrote: > > Jeff Shultz wrote: >> >> Alexander Harrowell wrote: >>> >>> >>> 768 ain't broadband. Buy Cisco, Alcatel, and Akamai stock! >>> > If you don't like it, you can always return to dialup. > >> It certainly is - just ask the CALEA folks.... and as for who is >> pushing the bandwidth curve, for the most part it seems to be gamers >> in search of the ever shrinking ping time. I suspect they make up most >> of our >1536kb/sec download customers. > > Gamers don't really need much in bandwidth. They need the low ping > times, so they *must* ensure that there is no saturation or routing > overhead. Granted, there are some games that are bandwidth intensive, > but everyone's busy playing WoW. Gamers are great for detecting those > really hard to spot problems that only effect gaming and voip. You do need a high symbol rate because otherwise the cost of putting the next packet on the wire is itself an intolerable delay. you can only put a 1500 byte packet on 256Kb/s dsl every 47ms or so. at 1.5Mb/s it's every 8ms at 22Mb/s it's one every .5ms... People pay proportionality more to get semi-deterministic low-latency. unfortunately there aren't a low of products offered specifically cater to that market. You get your choice of 8/768 cable 6/768 dsl or maybe fios if you happen to be in the right market. >> What "parts of the world" have long since upgraded to those speeds - >> and how do they compare size-wise to the USA? We've got an awful lot >> of legacy infrastructure that would need to be overcome. > > Japan has, for one. Definitely a size difference. In US metropolitan > areas we are seeing a lot more fiber to the home. The cost will never be > justified in US rural areas. Just look at Oklahoma. Most connectivity in > Oklahoma will actually be from Dallas or Kansas City. > >> I will happily agree that it would be nice to have higher upload >> speeds than DSL generally provides nowadays. What are cable upload >> speeds like? > > I would like to blame the idiots that decided that of the signal range > to be used on copper for dsl, only a certain amount would be dedicated > to upload instead of negotiating. What on earth do I want to do with > 24Mb down and 1Mb up? Can't I have 12 and 12? Someone please tell me > there's a valid reason why the download range couldn't be variable and > negotiated and that's it's completely impossible for one to have 20Mb up > and 1.5 Mb down. VDSL2 ITU G.993.2 supports variable and symmetric negotiation of rates. obviously distance is a factor, cause you're down to ~50Mb/s at 1000 meters. at&t and bell south, now at&t and at&t had vdsl rollouts that could in theory be upgraded to vdsl2. If you were in helsinki, I know Päijät-Hämeen Puhelin (php.fi) would sell you 100/24 vdsl2 for around 80euro a month. > > Jack Bates >
|