Originally posted by: Genx87
btw I can probably agree with the idea you dont see a huge increase in speed between 1.5Mbps and 6Mbps for web surfing. But the internet is growing and more online apps will require bandwidth. Some websites are offering broadcast of TV, videos, movies, music. This all requires bandwidth.
I tend to disagree on the point of not seeing a huge difference between 1.5Mbps and 6mbps. For instance, its greatly dependent upon how one uses the Internet. Example, I would never watch movie trailers online if I was stuck on 1.5Mbps. Go to
www.apple.com/trailers/ and see how well those trailers play on basic consumer broadband compared to higher level of services.
The constant pausing while waiting for additional information to come across the bottleneck service that 1.5Mbps can present is not just annoying, but distracting as to inhibit watching all together.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
meh, while countries like south korea get massive bandwidth and are enjoying its benifits(workable video on demand) silly american companies hold us back for whatever reason. its 2006 and most of our broad band still only supports feeble looking real player type video streaming and such garbage. pretty sad.
Not all of those American companies are holding back. Cox offering 16Mbps and Verizon Fios offering 15/2 and 30/5 services for very reasonable rates.
Originally posted by: shira
I'm sure that no one who participates in usenet would appreciate the difference between 1.5 and 6 Mb/s.
Give me a neutrally-controlled network where consumers are not being abused and I should be able to get IPTV on 6Mbps service. Actually, it should be capable (SDTV only, though) on 4Mbps. But, this is not possible on 1.5Mbps pipe without reducing the resoluting and applying too-aggressive compression to make it unappealing.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well compare our landsize to South Korea while also comparing our infrastructure to South Korea's.
You will notice a lot of these places with the benefit of extremely high speed are either small countries\cities or didnt have a very large expensive infrastructure to upgrade in order to achieve these speeds.
I hope we can continue to see massive upgrades in bandwidth but I also realize our countries previous growth is now hampering the growth for tomorrow.
I use to argue the same point! But then I realized there is only so far that the argument can be applied without seeming illogical. For instance, BellSouth and SBC wish to continue to leverage 50-year old infrastructure. There comes a time when investing in new infrastructure is highly applicable and very rational (and logical).
And while it is convenient that places like South Korea have limited lands for which to distribute better broadband, their entire government philosophy is pro-broadband. I now look at tier-1 American cities as individual examples of little South Koreas. There is no excuse for taking the five or ten most populated cities in your market-control and building fiber infrastructure. No one is suggesting laying fiber to farmer john's barn.
Originally posted by: FlashG
Where your going to see it in quality IPTV and other services that are in the pipe.
Exactly!
Originally posted by: charrison
Lightspeed is going to be providing iptv and broadband. VDSL is going to be able to provide up to 100Mbit connections. While we can all agree FFTH is a better long term solution, they will be able to more broadband and more iptv to more customers in a short period of time with their current plan.
But he is right, for the majority of the users out there, 1.5 dsl is fast enough and that is why they offer higher service tiers.
Lab theory and field reality are completely different worlds. Even SBC assumes to only get 25-30Mbps out of their solution. Sorry, SBC is still in the Alcatel Bed of DSL. Lightspeed is a funny term to call your solution that isn't going to see any light at the end user.
I really wonder what SBC will offer their consuerms if they do not want IPTV from SBC. Will they offer 25-30Mbps broadband service instead? And if they do, will they inhibit 3rd party IPTV service providers enough to degrade the service such that they are willing to lose that subscriber's VDSL service revenue in addition to losing the IPTV revenue?
Originally posted by: charrison
Either way giber to the home is getting closer. IT will take far longer to roll out FTTH than shortening the copper to house and rolling out vdsl/adsl2+.
Hmm, laying fiber could have been done twenty years ago. Its take a mental commitment before you can spend time deploying it. How much do you think they could have deployed in the past two decades? Even if they had focused only on new subdivisions in their opt markets, that could have spelled much better conditions now. In Atlanta, hundreds of new subdivisions have been built in the last decade alone. Hundreds.
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
meh, while countries like south korea get massive bandwidth and are enjoying its benifits(workable video on demand) silly american companies hold us back for whatever reason. its 2006 and most of our broad band still only supports feeble looking real player type video streaming and such garbage. pretty sad.
The vast majority of other countries subsidize broadband internet.
I call this the USF slush fund.
Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
The appetite for 100 megabits is there it's just the big corps want to make money milking the cow as long as they can. It's sad when New York, Chicago, LA even the biggest American cities don't offer 100 megabit service.
Don't limit the thinking to 100Mbps pipes. There are routers today that can be installed with +200 ports each capable of 10Gigabit throughput. If you are going to install FTTH then go ahead and deliver them on GigE connectivity and traffic-shape according to subscribed service(s).