On 12/25/20 2:32 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article <3b0bc95b-c741-7561-1692-75fac74d5883@mtcc.com> you write:
I'd definitely appreciate symmetric, or at least better in upstream. Obviously zoom and all of that has made a lie of us not needing upstream. It would make cloud based "filesystems" more feasible too.
But the larger point is why bother going to all of that effort if you're just going roll it out with low bandwidth? I mean, 100Mbps isn't even competitive with cable these days. But they're a somewhat crazy amalgam. They have POTS everywhere, cable tv everywhere, cable IP in some areas and DSL in others. I wish I knew somebody there to talk to this about because it's really odd. I agree it is odd to make 100/100 the top speed. The fiber service I have from my local non-Bell telco offers 100/100, 500/500, and 1000/1000. FiOS where you can get it goes to 940/880.
The obvious guess is that their upstream bandwidth is underprovisioned, or maybe they figure 100/100 is all they need to compete in that particular market.
What's weirder is that it's most likely not going to allow them to retire their copper plant since they are a phone company and i'm fairly certain that regulations won't allow them to say "get a battery for this phone dongle". Given PG&E's antics, this is no small thing. I assume it would allow them to retire their cable plant eventually, but then they become yet another over the top provider without adding much if any value. But they are an odd and very old family run company, so who knows what's going on in the C-Suite. Mike