Gigabit Internet Access Now Supported By 84 US ISPs 120
An anonymous reader writes: According to Michael Render, principal analyst at market researcher RVA LLC, 83 Internet access providers have joined Google to offer gigabit Internet access service (all priced in the $50-$150 per month range).Render's data shows that new subscribers are signing up at an annualized growth rate of 480 percent each year. That "annualized" is an important thing to note, though; this is early days, and adding a few households, relatively speaking, means an impressive percentage change.
84 US ISPs offer ***RESIDENTIAL*** gigabit access (Score:4, Informative)
The article summary needs to specify that it's about offering RESIDENTIAL service. Thousands of ISPs offer gigabit Internet access in datacenters and businesses all over the US. 84 of them also reach the home.
Of note - ALL current US ISPs offering RESIDENTIAL gigabit service do so on the oversell model, such that they CAN deliver UP TO 1Gbps to a customer, but likely will be delivering less as they share upstream bandwidth across facilities, areas, and customers. This is not a Bad Thing -- it's how the costs are leveraged across multiple residential customers so it is 7-10x lower than business-grade gigabit service.
This is a really great thing!
E
Re: (Score:3)
It is in theory... However right now I am not seeing the need for it. I am currently at 10-15mbs about 100x slower... I am able to stream HD video, while browsing the web at the same time. Unlike the old days of dial up when I started at 2400bps and even when I went to 14.4k and 28.8k even when I got to college and we had about 1-5mbs It was a point where we wanted more speed. However now unless I am downloading the latest Linux/BSD distribution ISO that I feel like playing with. It doesn't feel slow or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try putting in a (Tomato/OpenWRT/DD-WRT) router and enable the fq_codel (or a similar) QoS algorithm - Multiple video streams, torrenting, surfing and video calling at the same time all became much better/possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm at 100Mbit/s nominal(110 down 105 up actual), and for my family, sometimes we actually congest it badly, especially now that the kids are getting older.
The ability to download a game at 80Mbit/s while there are 4 different HD streams going etc is a boon, for example. Or being able to send friends, family or work large files without needing an hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A file download and upload can certainly be a priority task, like for example sending my father a clip of something at the same time I'm talking to him about what I've filmed, for example.
But it's also a convenience thing: As it is now, we can now decide on a movie we want to watch and then go and make tea, and when we get back, it's ready to watch, while with your approach, we'd have to schedule it hours or days ahead, which is just head-up-your-ass retarded.
Also, capacity reduces the time it takes to inst
Re: (Score:2)
He's not just talking about traffic shaping. He's also talking about personal priorities and behavioural patterns.
Re: (Score:2)
They simulated 10s of thousands of flows with a typical peak hours distribution of the types of flows from realtime UDP to bulk TCP transfers.
1) Never more than 200 flows of packets in the buffer at any given time. 2) Never more than 30 flows had more than one packet in the buffer at any given time
Their conclusion was that keeping all f
Re: (Score:2)
Your problem isn't the capacity, you have more than enough. You just need to prioritize access to the network.
That's the wrong end to start in, if removing the resource limitation is trivial [thedailywtf.com] that's a better solution than any resource management system, whether good or bad. At least if you're fixing this problem for you and not rolling out a resource-gobbling solution to a million devices. Before lots of applications running at the same time would trash the disk, with an SSD I just don't care since at >10000 IOPS it serves everything at once. The side effect is of course that I'm becoming more indifferent to inef
Re:84 US ISPs offer ***RESIDENTIAL*** gigabit acce (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see why a file download or upload should be done in seconds
Years sound fine to me. Why do we even need to communicate in the first place? The quicker the better, within reason. 1Gb/s is cheap, 10Gb is still expensive, but not for long. There's no reason we should have the fastest cheap networks.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the Advertisers! Without gigabit residential service, how can they add all that garbage to useful content?!
"Gigabit service" is FRAUD. (Score:3)
At OSCON 2015 last week, I talked with several people about technology companies being wildly mis-managed and very poorly communicated.
There is apparently no "Gigabit" service. "Gigabit" only refers to the electrical connection speed. The real speed of actual data delivery is whatever the providers want it to be.
My experience is that speedtest.net [speedtest.net] exaggerates the actual speed of delivery. Numion [numion.com] is realistic.
Re: (Score:3)
I found that Numion did not realistically measure my connection. In fact, when I do manual tests of my own, I easily reach 110Mbit/s on actual transfers(downloaded a game from GOG for example), at 15:09 Swedish time on a saturday, on a nominally 100Mbit/s connection. Upload, I get 105Mbit/s. However, running the Numion tests, it claims I only get 1Mbit/s.
In a cache at your ISP? (Score:2)
My guess is that someone else had already downloaded the same game, and it was being held on your ISPs hard drives. So, it wasn't actually being transferred over the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know of a single ISP in Sweden that does that kind of caching. The only broadly similar thing I know of is ComHem with their NetFlix agreement, and in their case it's essentially stream relaying/reflection and not a fully local(to the ISP) cache.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real speed of actual data delivery is whatever the providers want it to be.
Not entirely true. the real speed of actual data devliery depends on many factors including
1: the speed of your client hardware and software
2: the speed of your local network
3: the speed of your customer premisis equipment
4: any congestion/shaping/prioritisation on your ISPs network
5: any congestion between your ISP and the server host.
6: any congestion on the server hosts network
7: the speed/congestion of the servers connection to it's hosts network
8: the ability of the server itself to keep up
9: TCP issue
Exactly. Thanks. (Score:2)
"AFAICT speedtest measures the best case, it uses a nearby fast test server and it waits for the speed to stabilize to allow for TCP slow start." (slightly edited)
Yes, SpeedTest.net [speedtest.net] is not giving information that reflects the actual user experience.
Re: "Gigabit service" is FRAUD. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Numion? That looks like something from the 80's. Java: Check. FRAMES: Big fat CHECK.
And I'm sure various site admins love being selected by him as a traffic source. This alone makes his data completely unreliable -- who knows what state those selected sites are in at any given moment.
Yes, but the speed reflects real experience. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More than 84. My small local ISP offers it and they aren't on the list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> all priced in the $50-$150 per month range
>> Of note - ALL current US ISPs offering RESIDENTIAL gigabit service do so on the oversell model, such that they CAN deliver UP TO 1Gbps to a customer,....
No duh
Re:84 US ISPs offer ***RESIDENTIAL*** gigabit acce (Score:4, Interesting)
Of note - ALL current US ISPs offering RESIDENTIAL gigabit service do so on the oversell model, such that they CAN deliver UP TO 1Gbps to a customer
My Midwest USA ISP sells 1Gb/s residential, and they do not say "up to". Instead they guarantee that you will not get congestion on their network or to their transit provider. I have called in on 10ms ping increased and they have fixed the issues. They take congestion spuriously.
Taken from marketing
1 Gbps Symmetrical. It’s dedicated symmetrical fiber so speeds never go down or change.
Extremely large online backups
Web hosting
Webinar hosting
Cloud computing
Online gaming
Uninterrupted HD streaming (Netflix, YouTube, Hulu)
Taken from terms and conditions
No Unreasonable Discrimination
The Company does not unreasonably discriminate in its transmission of lawful traffic over the broadband Internet access services of its customers.
The Company does not block, impair, degrade or delay VoIP applications or services that compete with its voice services and those of its affiliates.
The Company does not block, impair, degrade, delay or otherwise inhibit access by its customers to lawful content, applications, services or non-harmful devices.
The Company does not impair free expression by actions such as slowing traffic from particular websites or blogs.
The Company does not use or demand “pay-for-priority” or similar arrangements that directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic.
The Company does not prioritize its own content, application, services, or devices, or those of its affiliates.
The Company does not retain, store or provide customer traffic information, except as required by law under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
Re: (Score:2)
You think there is no oversell on business-grade or even carrier-grade bandwidth? Even in a datacenter, the bandwidth is oversold easily at 100:1, unless you're actively peering with someone (at which the point is moot) you're being oversold to an extent. If you want dedicated bandwidth between 2 points, you can typically get that at a 10x price point but that will still be on the same network but at the cost of someone else's bandwidth (residential or business-grade).
Business-grade is typically just reside
Re: (Score:2)
Re:1st post ! (Score:4, Funny)
Guess who's not using a gigabit connection?
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Gigabit speeds, though? (Score:4, Insightful)
Speedtest sites don't tell the whole story, especially at higher speeds...
Some of the speedtest sites are only on 100mbit themselves, even those on gigabit are usually sharing the bandwidth at their end... And then there's peering, the interconnect between your isp and the speedtest site might not have 1gbit of free capacity at the time your testing. The end devices (or the software running on them) might also not be up to the 1gbps rate - lots of cheaper gigabit nics can't handle wire speed, long or bad cabling, flash based speedtest apps etc.
I've had a box with 1gbps in a data centre for a few years now, and i can quite happily pull 1gbps doing torrent downloads and from some linux mirror sites, but i get a lot less from speedtest sites and many things download a lot slower because the other end or something in between can't handle it.
You need to test a variety of different things, and at different times of the day...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A friend of mine consistently gets high speeds both up and down on his 1gbit/s down/500Mbit/s up residential connection, here in Stockholm. He frequently does SCP/SFTP transfers to and from clients where he gets 900Mbit/s+ down and 480Mbit/s up, even during primetime. So it all depends on where you are, your ISP etc, and not generalize that just because ComCast and other US ISP's do something, the rest of the world is the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Most speedtest servers are hosted on 1 gigabit/s which means you will probably never be able to get a clean 1 gigabit/s reading from those. That would require that you got the server all by yourself and that wont happen.
We are an ISP that sell gigabit. We host our own speedtest.net server on a 10 gigabit/s. It might be considered "cheating" as the user will only be measuring our internal network. But there is simply no other speedtest server nearby that is able to give consistent good readings. There are a
Re: (Score:2)
The company I work for only has a 2Gb connection to the Internet and hundreds of thousands of live connections at peak usage, yet our peak bandwidth is around 1.2Gb/s. Of course those 100K+, if they all had 1Gb connections co
Whats left unsaid... (Score:4, Informative)
Whats left unsaid is how many ISPs (including those that dont yet exist except on paper or in someones head) would LIKE to offer super fast broadband but are unable to because local or state authorities have been convinced by dinosaur companies like Comcast and Time Warner to block alternative ISPs comming into the area and providing good access.
If governments at all levels stopped listening to the dinosaur ISPs and their friends in Hollywood and started listening to the people who elected them, the number of people able to get gigabit service (or even just super fast service) might start to be a meaningful percentage of the total population.
Re:Whats left unsaid... (Score:4, Interesting)
How is someone going to track an ISP in someone's head? Townships are not going to allow some ISP to pull out the 15% most profitable customers so that Comcast or Time Warner pull out and 85% of their township has no internet or all. Which means the contract is going to highly regulated and expensive. Someone is going to have to come in with a credible claim. To do that they are often going to need to provide other utility services cable TV and phone being the most common. Those are both regulated industries.
The business internet market is a much less regulated market and while the quality is much higher, the prices are many times higher. Commercial gigabit connections are generally a few thousands not a few hundred dollars a month. Connection charges can range from say $1500 to $11k, they aren't $99-129.
Smart people are doing a very good job weighing the various interests in networking and putting together compromises that meet most of them. Those dinosaurs are doing a very good job of providing tremendous bandwidth at low cost to 99% of America's 130m households. There is no conspiracy and there are no easy fixes. Government is tremendously supportive to increasing bandwidth almost everywhere. I'm sure there is some corruption but corruption is a lazy excuse for people who have no clue about the economics of the industry to pretend that things could be fixed if only the government got out of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Smart people are doing a very good job weighing the various interests in networking and putting together compromises that meet most of them. Those dinosaurs are doing a very good job of providing tremendous bandwidth at low cost to 99% of America's 130m households.
Did you pull that 99% figure out of your ass? Here are those "smart people" at work:
http://www.publicintegrity.org... [publicintegrity.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What does public broadband have to do with the discussion? This was about cost of providing service not how it should be paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about big ISPs and government screwing up broadband access. You decided to pull the 99% figure out of your ass. You defended the big ISPs and government. Now when presented with some contradictory information, you want to dodge it.
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't contradicting anything I'm saying. You are talking about something entirely irrelevant, the payment model. Big ISPs are not screwing up broadband access in preventing municipalities from offering it, they are screwing up socialized access. Socialized access has had huge problems remaining viable where it has been tried as costs of management and administration explode. Whether one things those viability issues can be overcome or not has nothing to do with whether fiber gets laid. A socialize
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't contradicting anything I'm saying.
You claimed, "Those dinosaurs are doing a very good job of providing tremendous bandwidth at low cost to 99% of America's 130m households."
I challenged your 99% figure. I also linked an article that shows "those dinosaurs" preventing access from being expanded to people who don't have it.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.statista.com/statis... [statista.com]
http://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/f... [mapbox.com]
Also the dinosaurs they weren't preventing access in the sense we were talking about. If the municipality was being blocked from offering wifi then a local company had wired up the area. No one prevents access where they can't or won't provide service.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.statista.com/statis...
http://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/f [mapbox.com]...
So your 99% figure was bullshit, based on your own links.
Also the dinosaurs they weren't preventing access in the sense we were talking about. If the municipality was being blocked from offering wifi then a local company had wired up the area. No one prevents access where they can't or won't provide service.
Read the fucking article. These were areas whose needs were not being met and the dinosaurs lobbied, threatened to sue, or sued their way to prevent municipalities from offering services that would meet their needs.
Re: (Score:2)
If TWC/Comcast threatens to pull out, I would let them and give the copper to the newcomers. The copper in your street (cable, phone, even fiber) has been paid several times over by the taxpayers from federal, state and/or local funds. Give it back already or charge a reasonable price.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you mean copper when we are talking internet. In terms of copper though Verizon and AT&T would love to rid themselves of all their copper. Whenever they get the chance they dump it on less regulated providers who bundle it up for PRI or bonded T1s.
As for fiber no generally it hasn't been paid for. The companies are still paying down their investment in residential internet. And this is happening as the number of subscribers is dropping not increasing meaning they might never pay it dow
Re: (Score:2)
Copper as in either cable or DSL has been paid for under FCC Title II. Verizon FiOS has classified itself as Title II to get the subsidies and tax breaks for it's rollout. ISP's have been collecting and permitted to keep federal and state "taxes" on every bill to implement higher bandwidth services since at least the nineties.
Re: (Score:2)
Fios was until recently not Title II. The FCC classified it as such, potentially not Verizon. Verizon wanted FIOS private. As for the fees on the bills, they haven't been able to keep that. That's a tax collected by the FCC and used as a subsidy for rural access. It was working well until a few years ago and now is starting to fail as the FCC keeps raising the minimum bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I have to point out some thing that was widely covered by media about a year ago: http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the article it is a bit more nuanced:
FTTP, the fiber is Title II
FIOS the service is Title I
Which makes sense. But I don' see how that proves that the public has paid for the fiber that exists on modern broadband connections. You certainly could argue in a well populated area that's had broadband for 20 years that something like 3mb/sec broadband connections were semi-public (since things like the colo to remix signal were never public). If that's what you mean by copper... I guess one could
Re: (Score:2)
European and most Asian countries have much higher average population densities than the USA. Suburban living / a car culture makes lots of services much more expensive to deliver. Internet is one of those services. Put the 130m American homes into apartments concentrated inside cities with limited numbers of suburbs and heck 10g residential internet might well be reasonable.
That's not the world we live in. In the world we live in, the USA is going to lag Hong Kong forever and it should.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the world we live in. In the world we live in, the USA is going to lag Hong Kong forever and it should.
While I agree that places like Hong Kong are an anomaly, you also lag countries like Sweden and Finland...
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden and Finland are perfect examples where median population density is quite a bit higher than the USA. Both countries have huge spaces which are very sparsely populated. However for both countries the vast majority of their population is concentrated tightly in narrow areas which are very cheap to wire. So the result is almost all Finns and Swedes can get internet more cheaply.
You really won't find anything like America's population distribution anywhere outside Africa, that's the point of compariso
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden and Finland are perfect examples where median population density is quite a bit higher than the USA. Both countries have huge spaces which are very sparsely populated.
Yes, that is true. However, even these parts of the country, at least in Sweden, have good broadband access. It's actually cheaper and easier for them than more urban areas, since there's more farmland/forest where digging is cheaper and easier. They're using national government money/legislative support to get a feed and then create co-ops to do the actual installation. It's been quite a thing for the past decade at least. (As a case in point a friend just got fibre to his farm, where his nearest neighbour
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what a coop means. Fiber costs about $300/m to fully install. But 1km is still within the range of a fast local ethernet connection and that can be done in a way that's durable for about $10/m. Those are the sorts of prices American businesses pay for getting access from an access point. Possibly rural Sweden is more like the USA business market. Which BTW has lots of competition but the prices are way higher.
As for government subsidy, we don't have subsidy for internet in urban areas. W
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, sorry I meant co-op. As in "cooperative".
And of course I meant "oligopoly"...
And the subsidies are mainly EU, subsidies. Not Swedish per se. (And they're for rural areas. In the cities we have competition, which makes the market work.)
Myself, I pay $50 or so for 100/100Mbps including IP telephony. Fibre in an open city network (laid down by one of the utilities, district heating in my case), with my choice of ca eight different ISPs. I paid nothing for installation, but a more reasonable price would ha
Re: (Score:2)
$50 for 100/100 is about what Americans pay in almost all areas. Certainly it is well above what Americans pay just for port excluding line. The issue of EU subsidies I think is important because I was trying to look at total cost not cost to consumer. A taxpayer subsidy is just cost shifting. That would be like Americans talking about how much cheaper cell phones are in the USA excluding the fact that $20 / mo of their bill goes to subsidizing the purchase price of the phone.
$2500 for a rural connectio
Re: (Score:2)
$2500 for a rural connection seems very cheap.
No, its usually about twice that, with the rest in subsidies from the EU. But, the power of a co-op should not be underestimated. Since they can both do work and grant land (cheaply).
And when I check speedtest net, they list an average of $3.52/MBps which would give a much higher cost for 100/100. This [bbc.com] article from the BBC also lists much higher prices; $90 for speeds over 45 Mbps on average. (Granted it's two years old).
Now, that rural infrastructure is subsidised is no surprise. Everyone does that, even y
Re: (Score:2)
We do subsidize rural internet. There are several dollars per month used to pay for rural connections. Also LEC charges are designed to encourage telco expansion into rural areas and thus move money from the phone system to the business internet.
As for 3.52 MBps that's 2 T1s. In lots of rural ar
Re: (Score:2)
In other words they don't want socialized internet.
And this is why I'm glad that I'm here, instead of over there. What purpose does the municipality serve other than to serve its inhabitants? And what better way to serve them than with infrastructure, especially that kind which succumbs to a natural monopoly anyway? (Running many different fibre networks is as dumb as running many different electricity lines, or roads, to a house).
Now, if you want to preserve the market, then by all means, do what we do here, and stipulate that the municipality can't offer
Re: (Score:2)
Well government's primary purpose is law enforcement and public essentials (like fire). In general America, particularly our red states like services to be provided by private organizations. But again the laws here don't prohibit a municipality from offering those services. You cited Tennessee. Tennessee prohibited public electric companies from offering those services without running it like a public utility. Which meant n
Re: (Score:2)
You cited Tennessee. Tennessee prohibited public electric companies from offering those services without running it like a public utility.
That's not what I've read from the FCC ruling that nixed that law. I must confess that I haven't read it all, but can you cite that which supports your point? What I've read from i.e. the amicus briefs to the FCC the law prohibited the electric company from servicing someone that didn't get their electricity from same company (or wasn't "in the area serviced"), not that they did any of the things you mention. (And in either case the FCC didn't like that law and struck it down).
But I am saying that you are mischaracterizing the problems in the USA.
OK, I'll bite. What would be a
Re: (Score:2)
I think what you are talking about is one case the Electric Power Board (EPB) of Chattanooga offering Internet and video service to residents. Absolutely terrific internet service. Comcast claimed they were using ratepayer funds. Ratepayer funds are fro
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC can't strike down a state law. They can argue in court against it or work towards its repeal. They aren't that powerful.
I'm going to have to leave this now, but as a parting shot: The Washington post explicitly says [washingtonpost.com] that the FCC does indeed have the power to "preemt" state law (direct quote). (As I understand it without having to go via a court, though I assume that the state can sue the FCC if they want to appeal the decision).
Is this a mischaracterisation of the actual legal process?
Re: (Score:2)
First off I want to point to one paragraph: Nineteen states have laws on the books that limit such networks. They range from strict prohibitions on any or most municipal broadband service (Texas and Nevada), to requirements that a municipality hold public hearings or a referendum before offering service, as in Alabama, Colorado, Minnesota and Virginia. At least 89 communities around the country have publicly owned fiber-optic networks.
As for this case of preemption in Tennessee this is kind of nuts but ove
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to get the fiber to them. Even if it costs 10x as much to hit 50-150 apartments there is huge savings both in wiring them up and more importantly getting the fiber to them. For example Verizon spent $23b for the FIOS footprint is has. For NYState where the footprint is suburban that works out to $750 per house to get fiber to them and $600 per house for installation. They can do city apartments much cheaper than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh just realized you were saying big city vs. medium city. That I'm not sure about. It might be cheaper to do smaller buildings than the very high costs in a big city. I'm talking suburbs, and X-burbs vs. big or medium cities.
Re: (Score:1)
That doesn't excuse poor access in places like NYC, LA, Seattle, Chicago (you name it) - the conditions in those localities are similar enough to places like HK, Singapore or Tokyo that there's not a sufficiently significant difference in the actual technical ability or financial outlay for companies (or municipalities) to install properly high speed Internet and charge what users pay in a place like HK.
Re: (Score:2)
LA and Seattle don't have densities close to HK or Tokyo. HK is $200 / home to wire. But you are absolutely right those cities have densities that make replacement plausible.
New York has even better densities, it does has geological problems and incredibly old infrastructure. New York still has some of the public water using wooden pipes, I have no idea when they stopped using wood but.... However we are lucky because New York is right now doing a major build out in the poorer areas starting. The prel
Re: (Score:1)
It's a combination of more than just stupidity and corruption - many other things are at play, in my view.
A 5 year ROI is basically unheard of in an infrastructure build - 20-25 is about where it's at, because it's expected to last 50 (or more). Besides, it's fiber - the infrastructure required to put in 1gig vs 10gig is basically no different - you replace a device on either end when it comes time to upgrade, no extra building required.
One thing we also have to remember (which is often not cited or taken i
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. 25 years ago the home internet infrastructure didn't even exist. A few years later it would have been extra capacity at LECs since people were using the cooper phone lines more hours per day. A few years after that it would have been DSL and coax connections capable of 5mbs or less. All of which are totally worthless now. Payoff in 60 months was on the
Re: (Score:2)
-- 100 towns * 5000 residential homes each * 2 gb/s * .2 average usage = extra 200k gbs of traffic or 200 pb/sec of traffic. That's a big deal.
Sorry that should be 200 tbs not pbs .
Re: (Score:1)
No it isn't. 25 years ago the home internet infrastructure didn't even exist. A few years later it would have been extra capacity at LECs since people were using the cooper phone lines more hours per day. A few years after that it would have been DSL and coax connections capable of 5mbs or less. All of which are totally worthless now. Payoff in 60 months was on the high end, the company needs to make some profit on their infrastructure spend. If people start demanding faster relative speeds that means faster upgrades the spend goes from 60 months down to 36 or so. I'm not picturing 300 months for decades if not a century.
You say that 5 years is about the maximum but here's the thing though: most of the copper in use for the DSL and cable networks is a decade or more old. Sure, it wasn't designed or installed with even an inkling of what was to come, but your twisted pairs are probably nearly as old as your house - which could be 20, 30 or even 50 years.
I can't speak for you, but my house in the US was built in the 1930s, and the internal telephone cabling looks like it was installed in about the 70s or early 80s - and many
Re: (Score:2)
Remember this thread started with a conversation about the cost of going to 1gbs. Customers that are having to move from say 30-200mbs to 1gbs+ are going to want more than 1-2mbs dedicated. They are going to want much more than 300gb / month total. Your numbers are way too low for connections that fast. For example residential traffic in the USA is becoming much more steady because of things like Netflix. Netflix needs about 7mbs and that's not including other traffic in the household. And that's al
Re: (Score:1)
Remember this thread started with a conversation about the cost of going to 1gbs. Customers that are having to move from say 30-200mbs to 1gbs+ are going to want more than 1-2mbs dedicated. They are going to want much more than 300gb / month total. Your numbers are way too low for connections that fast. For example residential traffic in the USA is becoming much more steady because of things like Netflix. Netflix needs about 7mbs and that's not including other traffic in the household. And that's all running comfortably on today's 50mbs type connections not for near future when Netflix is using 8x as much and people are pulling down multiple streams.
You're quite right, but even then the increase in usage per subscriber doesn't necessarily correlate with the increase in speed, that is to say, a 50mbps customer going to 100mbps doesn't necessarily double their usage - it may go up by 20-50% or it may even stay near the same as it was before. A much larger jump, say, going from 2 or 4mbps to 100mbps might have that effect though.
We know that home providers right now are underprovisioned. 7pm to 11pm they are only able to deliver 4mbs per home on average, while at times like 4:00 am they can do 18mbs / household and customers express satisfaction. And again that's with many customers buying as little as 10mbs. We know that 2mbs dedicated is less than 1/2 what customers are getting now in the worst markets.
My .2 multiplier I think is fair for good quality peak usage (what the original poster wants). But even if I am to high it is nothing like a .001-.002 as a multiplier. 1000x to one overprovision you just aren't delivering anything like 1gbs of bandwidth.
That's why my numbers are padded to account for 10mbps dedicated which is what I'm working from - that works out to a contention
Re: (Score:1)
What I meant to say in the last paragraph was:
that $2,000 becomes $500 or $300 or whatever the case may be **per household**
So you have it.... Now what??? (Score:2)
How many sites will let you download an ISO at gigabit speed?
So this Gig speed will only be used by a junkie with a 4K TV, or a dozen kids with 802.11ac laptops with malware. Maybe you will try to use it for work so they can replicate the SAN to your house? Maybe you will try to run your own mail server or serve up ammeter porn?
How many SOHO WIFI routers can really do GIG on the Ethernet ports or even supply 802.11ac at full speed for 1 client? Sounds like a lot of clueless home users calling into the IS
Re: (Score:2)
60Mbps = 7.5MBps.
Not sure at all that I'll judge my future spending on someone who doesn't get this.
Gigabit has tons of uses and don't equate "ISP's" with "consumer-only ISP's". Businesses will happily pay for Gigabit speeds, therefore small businesses will do too, therefore work-at-home people like graphic designers or similar will do too.
It's not a question of whether the hardware can take it (the ISP's can always supply compatible hardware because nobody knows what the fuck ADSL2 vectoring, or DOCSIS 3
Re: (Score:3)
The general rule I use is to divide mbps by ten to get MBps, rather than 8. The slight over-division compensates for various overheads - headers, dropped packets, etc.
It'd be better if we weren't stuck on such tiny MTUs still, but backwards compatibility demands it: Anything over 1500 bytes is probably going to run into an ethernet segment somewhere and go wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, Well, Well...
I think you might be the .01% of the Internet users. Most can't spell computer or know how to use it.
I agree on the backup, but all the commercial companies know how to do backups at night with something as slow as DSL, and all those Cable modem users are not symmetric either.
If your doing work from home, you either have a competent IT department or you don't. Most larger companies have a remote solution, Server based computing using RDP. PCoIP or the like.
Graphic designers... Hell the
Re: (Score:2)
Editor fail (Score:2)
We always suspected that submitters and editors do not understand maths, but now we know it.
The key word is "percent", not annualized. There is nothing sneaky about annualizing - they just compare one quarter to the same quarter next year. But putting it into relative growth figures makes it look impressive.
Personally I think we will see tremendous growth in 1Gb connections for a while. It is a standard technology transition process, and it is clearly entering the rapid growth phase.
craptastic (Score:4, Informative)
Meanwhile, people still pay ~$40 for a 4mbit at&t line. There being lots of smaller regional players providing some service to a limited population doesn't mean crap in the more global view of how things are standing. Reality is, very many cties how only 1 to 3 choices, none of them really good, and absolutely none of them priced realistically. I don't care about statistics, when we can see the reality wit our own eyes.
Re: (Score:1)
$45 for 12mbps/1 after bundling with phone on att buisness uverse dsl here in town of 8k no caps
$55 for 10mbps/10 standard rate munifiber buisness
$135 for 8mbps/1 suddenlink cable for buisness
no caps for business on any
caps for residents on suddenlink and att
no caps on munifiber for anyone
And IPv6? (Score:2)
Great. Now when are they going to offer IPv6? A gigabit bandwidth should be enough for anyone (for the new few 100 years anyway) so time to start concentrating on native IPv6 support as the next "killer feature".
Re: (Score:2)
Most of these newcomers do it. They'll give you both an IPv4 address and an IPv6 range. Even TWC is doing it, I currently have IPv6 connectivity directly to my computer (which is behind IPv4 NAT).
For extremely limited definitions of "offer" (Score:2)
Sure, the ISPs offer it... just not to your home. Or mine. Or in 90% of the country. I'm sure many of the ISPs /technically/ provide the gigabit-speeds but the area where people can actually get it is probably very, very limited. This is just another fluff piece from the telecom industry hoping to make people believe America isn't as technologically backward as Europe, Japan or Korea; "Look, American Internet is as fast as in the rest of the world!". They hope to forestall government regulation enforcing m
Comcast’s 25 Mbps internet costs $50 per mon (Score:2)
...In the final analysis, if Comcast’s 25 Mbps internet costs $50 per month ...
Around here, since Comcast has little competition, Comcast's 25mbps internet costs well over $50 per month.
.
Hopes of seeing anything approaching gigabit speeds this decade are quite low.
Re: (Score:2)
Your use case is very last decade.
Nobody downloads single files over HTTP for anything serious. Half my users don't even understand what a ZIP is, and those that vaguely do think of it only as a folder.
Streaming, multiple cloud servers, torrents, etc.
A Gigabit isn't to have a 1 second download. It's to have multiple downloads simultaneously at the speed that only one download can enjoy now. Hell, even web browsers download multiple things in parallel from a website nowadays,
Re: (Score:2)