Why is the major ISPs like Comcast, Version, and Time Warner not implement any of the newer data-transferring technologies? I have a wireless card that runs at 1 Gpbs, but my internet connection is at a miserable 11 Mbps down. I won't even mention the upstream. :red
It would be nice to see that they do this at no charge to their customers. I estimate that it would probably only take a cut of 5% of their profits. Then again, maybe I'm being too hard on them -- 4% of their profits. :lol
What do you all think about this?
You're lucky.. down here we get ripped off for a measily 384Kbs.. a monopoly, that need to be broken. :tdown
Computers a getting faster; Ethernet cards are getting faster; wireless cards are getting faster.
But yet we have speeds that can not fulfil these speeds. Not only that, but we are lagging behind other developed countries. Their average speeds are double to triple our national average. What happened with us being on top; the innovators, what happened?
"About 15 percent of Americans still use dial-up to connect to the Internet ..." <http://www.betanews.com/article/US-Internet-speeds-still-slow-compared-to-the-rest-of-the-world/1218831113>
if you look at it from the ISP's perspective, i think "speed" is in the overhead part of their profit equation
bandwidth is in the cost part
at the end of the day, the bandwidth you use (or don't use) has more of an effect on their profit margin than speed
this applies in cumulative form - it is the total bandwidth of all users at any given moment that costs them profits
you can see how faster connections could cause them problems
the ideal situation for them is a constant total bandwidth - far from reality
It could be a government funded project that can help with the fundamental American -- uhhh -- pioneering. Yes, that's it; networking is fundamental to our pioneering spirit.
The government should just be helping pay for the laying of the newer pipes and cables and that is it, period.
So you think we all should have a T3 or a E5 directly to our houses at a cheap price (That would be awesome)? C'mon this is a capitalistic country now, you want a big pipe they make you pay for it. Although it is PITIFUL many countries pay more attention to technology than we do and give their citizens bigger pipes...
It would or it may be against our capitalistic ways by a fraction, but it would create jobs, and along with advancing us into the future. And, I don't mean to include job creation into this. It's just what everyone wants to hear.
And in times like this, making a few changes in our system doesn't sound too bad right now.
Yes, T1 cables linked up directly to each household would more than awesome.
you must be a RPG gamer - lol
most businesses of signifigant size already have fast stuff
the demand in the private sector just isn't there - mom and pop don't need fast to check their email and lottery tickets
the exception to this would be web servers, of course
if you're in that business, you probably have fast, too
ok, ok - the porno servers can afford speed as well as anyone
that leaves the gamers - stuck in the middle :P
low speed and high demand
i swear, there is money to be made by someone willing to properly design games that do not require so much bandwidth
You also have to take in protocol overhead.
Ethernet is cheap, but can only use about 30% of total bandwidth. Talked to a friend at a 5000 person college, 60% of network traffic was ARP routing.
I currently get about 1.6 meg / second here depending on the server load at the other end, I can if I want download free to air TV at about a half gig in less than 5 minutes. Its a souped up version of DSL, what we call here ADSL2+ but there has been big debate here in OZ about a national broadband network that the federal government is committed to, its talking about 100 mbit with the option of gigabit on the same optic fibre network. It is being fought tooth and nail by the conservative opposition and at least some of the independent ISPs.
Sad to say the same government also wants to politically filter the internet by secret and arbitrary means and it remains in limbo as the greens and opposition oppose the filtering. They try and justify it with the same old bullsh*t, pornographic child terrorists sitting in front of a heater increasing the global carbon foorprint but it is not washing with most people here who see it for what it is, political control of the internet. Criticise something the government does and BINGO, your site is blocked in secret.
Uh oh, Hutch, you might what to be careful about that last sentence. :lol
Quote from: Horton
Yes, T1 cables linked up directly to each household would more than awesome.
Let's just recover the copper, and trench in fiber. Doesn't carry electrical power well, but people are migrating from land lines to cell phones anyhow.
Certainly the type of shovel ready infrastructure investment that makes at lot of sense right now.
Here in PA the bigger cities where they have fiber optic laid Verizon offers a service they call Fios. I doubt it will ever get here where I live. Most all phone, electric and cable are still strung across poles here. Would love to have it though. Fios handles Internet access, telephone, and television service all on the same fiber cable. Cost, $100 a month for all three services.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS
FiOS is one of the things I was thinking about with the fiber comment, but what rates are they quoting for $100? 15/5 + other services? I think Horton wants the 150/35 ($200) deal. The local fiber guys are talking about 1 Gbps, but you're going pay through the nose for a fiber drop, and monthly service.
Verizon bailed on the land lines here, pushing them off to Frontier, basically going all-in on wireless. Lot of the infrastructure is on poles, so when the trees fall or the dump truck hits them, you get the electric/cable/phone all going down, so the emergency contact issues with fiber aren't that much worse. I think those things are significantly mitigated be the prevalence of cell service, although clearly there are going to be places where that sucks.
The telcos need to do something, DSL is pretty much limited to 3 Mbps, or 1.5 Mbps on the longer runs. The cable cos are spanking them with 50 Mbps offerings, admittedly at higher pricing, but even on equivalent up/down plans. The Telcos need to catch up, or may be this is the time they should be unified seeing as the services are now becoming more or less the same thing. They need to be focusing on fiber, and upgrading the infrastructure or they are going to die. As much as I hate monopolies, I can't see ComCast+Frontier both succeeding in this market, sooner or later one provider is going to lose critical mass and stall.
WiMax is not working out, my friend in Madison WI said they were abandoning that market, his service had been alright, but other had lots of problems.
government is helping pay for upgrade to the network. Small towns in Iowa are getting fiber to the home, probably partially funded by the Stimulas. Town has 1200 people.
We have the same problem here. DSL service everywhere, simply because BT can keep on using 40 year old copper cable instead of rolling out fiber.
There is a major con with ADSL here in the UK. My service right now is limited to 2 Mbps, though I pay for "up to 8 Mbps" - it is clearly being artificially limited, though why, I'm not sure (haven't bothered to call them). That said, I get better service now it is limited to 2 Mbps than when it was free to run up to 8 Mbps. Even 3 Mbps didn't seem much of a improvement, and actually seemed a bit worse as the rate was so variable across a transfer.
I'd actually prefer to go back to a 2 Mbps service (or 3 Mbps if they can keep it consistent) than "up to 8 Mbps" as it is smooooooooooth. I don't think servers like highly variable rate transfers even though they should be able to handle it. I get less problems now streaming video than when the line was technically faster, but much more variable.
(http://i.imgur.com/rKUZD.png)
The pictures above is not random, they truelly represent an example of people who have practiced the two different directions, the lefthand side won.
People who work to "close" and "control" the internet are really people who have absolutely no clue what they are doing, they just think of the internet as something "fun" that is not really all that important. So they work to close it, because they don't use it all that much themselves so it isn't necessarily an important thing. :lol
I truelly don't care whether they want to protect businesses, their income, warez, whatever the reason is. World Wide Web was made for information sharing, not for business. If they want to do business, I suggest they get off the web and into old fashiional stores. It is a tragic thing that the internet is becoming a tool of the business world and that individuals like you and me have to suffer the consequences.
If I were to deside, I would put a minimum requirement for people who want to destroy the internet, the minimum requirement should be that they know html, if they dont know html, they should not be legitimate decision takers in such a question. If all your background is rooted in the kitchen, you have no business in destroying a global concept like the internet.
What is more important, business or enlightenment.
Beware the ignorant.