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