What happened to high speed internet?

dvduval · #1 (**permalink**) 10-14-2007, 06:43 PM

I continue to wonder if big business is blocking high speed internet. You figure as soon as 50-100 MB upload/download speeds are available, the following will be possible:
1. Movies on demand that can be downloaded in just a few seconds (whether the source is legal or not).
2. Everyone can open up their wifi and create a network that allows your cellphone to connect to a network and call anyone for free, no contract needed anymore.

What do you think?

**wige** · #2 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 09:51 AM

1-A form of this already exists - most cable providers offers movies "on demand" over the high bandwidth cable line.

2-You would still need to pay for the service that connects the call, transitioning from the Internet to a phone system.

I think eventually the move will be made to everything coming over the Internet. Phone, tv, etc. It is already starting, but in order to make the transition fully a lot of infrastructure must be upgraded. For example, full fiber optic cable needs to be available to maintain the bandwidth for all of the customers in the area. This can be expensive to implement, and at this point there is not much need for faster speeds. I have a practical download rate of 10Mbps, but nothing I do comes close to using that bandwidth. Most download servers can not handle that much data, and online games do not come close to using even 1Mbps in most cases.

jmiller · #3 (**permalink**) 10-17-2007, 03:54 PM

easy answer...yes, major companies like Verizon and AT&T would rather speed you up gradually and make money along the way...it's much more lucrative to charge incrementally, especially if you charge 40 times bandwidth

In Hong Kong, to use a recent example, the lowest speed one provider offers is 25Mbps, but you might as well get the 100 Mbps for the same price Verizon offers 5 Mbps...or just go all out and get 1 Gbps for $215 per month.

Whoddathunk we'd all be looking to Hong Kong for hope? Who knew such speeds were even currently possible?

Hong Kong's Broadband Is How Fast? | WebProNews

there is no free market in the States anymore, the market is controlled by a few key players who, ironically, use the free market argument to keep the government out of their business. Their business, by the way, is controlling the market and you.

Ah, corporatism, the New American Way...but don't expect to hear much about it on the major networks; they're all owned and carefully directed, and would rather keep you up to date on the latest Lindsay Lohan drama.

Orion · #4 (**permalink**) 10-17-2007, 05:46 PM

I currently have a 10Mbps connection (standard high speed with cogeco cable) at home... for 42.95 a month, for 64.95 I can get to 16Mbps.
If I want to put a commercial line into the house it's available.. heck I can get a T1 or T3 into the house if I like, just costs too much to do it, lol...
Have to remember though even though I have 10Mbps coming in every online service I have running takes a little piece of that and I have 3 computers online (at least) at all times, so downloading a movie or show bang doesn't work..

I can download them in 15 or 20mins though (750MB).. normal is more like an hour though. Far cry from a few years ago!

TrafficProducer · #5 (**permalink**) 10-17-2007, 05:47 PM

What happened to high speed internet?

Yes maybe it should be what's the price.

I belive big business, (I live in "Rip-Off Britian" where it's about 2Mb for £20.00 a month via cable), are slowing things to get more value to them for the Old Gear they have.

But then they don't, (are scared), of investing in something that will be out of date in 6 Months.

Great Question, by they way.

Orion · #6 (**permalink**) 10-17-2007, 05:51 PM

Couple companies here in Canada have started offering a true wireless Internet.. Portable.. small box you carry with your laptop and you can get 3Mbps connection through the cellular network..

Just tear down the red tape on the satelites and let us all get our Internet like the government does, and it's available anywhere!

It's coming!

DrTandem1 · #7 (**permalink**) 10-17-2007, 08:35 PM

The Hong Kong example is FTTP (fiber to the prem). Verizon is in the process of making their network all FTTP. AT&T is doing a combination of FTTP and FTTN (fiber to the node. the last feet brought in on twisted pair using VDSL.). Cable is using a marketing gimmick in some areas claiming to boost your speed, "when you need it," whatever that means. Actually, it means robbing Peter to pay Paul. DSL still chugs along at up to 6 meg for less than $50/month in most metropolitan areas.

Unless you are uploading or downloading huge files, the average user won't experience much difference between 1.5 meg and 15 meg. The reason? Those are connection speeds, not to be confused with end-to-end speeds. It does little good to visit a site with your 15meg sync rate and the site is only able to crank out 6meg or the route is overbooked. Bottle necks are bottle necks.

Movies are already downloaded quickly with AT&T's U-verse product. Likewise with Verizon's FIOS. IPTV is here, too. Wireless is still is far slower, but its future holds promise.

Wireless and cable TV data connections are very susceptable to snooping. Wireless, because it broadcasts everywhere and cable because it loops through every subscriber on it's way to and from the node. Surprisingly, DSL is the most secure, with its dedicated pair to the central office.

craigmn3 · #8 (**permalink**) 10-17-2007, 08:58 PM

For a good majority of Americans any more the computer is something for work. We spend 8 hours a day perched at desk infront of a monitor and eyes squared and squarely glued to the LCD or Cathode ray display. Mice wrists get stiff and the neck gets wearied for balancing the overwieght gourd on top of it's stalk.
When we get home, we want the Lazy boy and the boob tube, or playing on the carpet with kids and dogs, or cooking a nice meal or mowing the grass, or fixing the TOILET ANYTHING but being stuck infront of a computer for two mkore hours so I can watch a movie.

Just because we can do a thing, doesn't follow that we should do a thing. Shall they seal us up in caccons with wifi and lap tops?

anyway that's my two cents,

Calius · #9 (**permalink**) 10-17-2007, 09:20 PM

From my perspective, download is ok. It's upload that sucks. Anything on the horizon for increasing that speed?

cass-hacks · #10 (**permalink**) 10-17-2007, 09:37 PM

Here in Japan, government and business got together to fund the laying of fiber.

Now, in the area I live, I have 4 different choices of 100mbs synchronous fiber service providers, which include phone service, and I pay about US$70 a month.

For ADSL, there are easily three times the number of sources.

Cable though is almost dead because there is not enough competition so prices are high and service is terrible. Cable here is now the new "300 baud", i.e. NOT "the new black".

On the subscriber side, things are great.

On the provider side, they are making money hand over fist, except the cable providers who are dying.

Other countries that have followed pretty much the same road map are not that much different while countries that allow and support companies in their imposing and inflicting of monopolies find they don't have as much money for expansion. There are even still providers in some countries that actually have bandwidth caps!

Go figure.

DrTandem1 · #11 (**permalink**) 10-18-2007, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calius

From my perspective, download is ok. It's upload that sucks. Anything on the horizon for increasing that speed?

FTTP or FTTN as well as DSL are better at uploading than cable. As a matter of fact, cable companies will not allow you to act as a server. They compromise the upstream and promote the downstream. There are "flavors" of ADSL that allow for the larger portion of the bandwidth to be designated for upstream.

DrTandem1 · #12 (**permalink**) 10-18-2007, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cass-hacks

Here in Japan, government and business got together to fund the laying of fiber.

Now, in the area I live, I have 4 different choices of 100mbs synchronous fiber service providers, which include phone service, and I pay about US$70 a month.

For ADSL, there are easily three times the number of sources.

Cable though is almost dead because there is not enough competition so prices are high and service is terrible. Cable here is now the new "300 baud", i.e. NOT "the new black".

On the subscriber side, things are great.

On the provider side, they are making money hand over fist, except the cable providers who are dying.

Other countries that have followed pretty much the same road map are not that much different while countries that allow and support companies in their imposing and inflicting of monopolies find they don't have as much money for expansion. There are even still providers in some countries that actually have bandwidth caps!

Go figure.

The comparison of the US telecom industry to that of Asia or Europe is flawed. The major US telecom companies have been restricted by government regulations while that of their foreign counterparts have been subsidized, if not owned, by their respective governments. Here in the US, cable companies have flourished without regulation and without competition due to their competitors being stifled by the government and their "franchise" agreements with cities that block competition from other cable companies.

In both models, the consumer suffers. While the telecom rates and service may be better outside the US, the citizens outside the US are paying extremely high taxes on their incomes to pay for the subsidy. Governments, the US and all others, are not known for their wise shopping habits because they are using other people's money.

**wige** · #13 (**permalink**) 10-18-2007, 10:20 AM

Satellite is not all that reliable for internet, especially streaming applications. I used to do tech support for a large consumer electronics corporation, and I would get calls from the military and military contractors that were having trouble with IP-based camera systems. One call was from a remote research post that had a dedicated satellite uplink. It was completely unable to handle a simple 500kbps video upload. The round trip for data takes about 4 seconds, simply because of the massive distances involved.

dolly1234 · #14 (**permalink**) 03-03-2008, 04:54 AM

You should use Broad Band to high speed internet .

TrafficProducer · #15 (**permalink**) 03-03-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

You should use Broad Band to high speed internet.

That would raise the question what speed is Broad Band, is it 56k plus or is it over 2Mbp/s or faster...

It appears that anything over 1Mb/s can be classes as Broad Band. Remember this is the fastest speed it can go, the actual user speed could be a lot less due to bad quality wires/light fibers, etc...

Just what speed is high speed?

deepsand · #16 (**permalink**) 03-03-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dolly1234

You should use Broad Band to high speed internet .

That having been said, however, the problem is that a substantial portion of th US population does not have access to broadband.

DrTandem1 · #17 (**permalink**) 03-03-2008, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsand

That having been said, however, the problem is that a substantial portion of th US population does not have access to broadband.

I'm not sure what is meant by "substantial," but the majority of the US has access to broadband internet. Cable, DSL, FTTN, FTTP, Satellite, WiFi...

deepsand · #18 (**permalink**) 03-03-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

I'm not sure what is meant by "substantial," but the majority of the US has access to broadband internet. Cable, DSL, FTTN, FTTP, Satellite, WiFi...

Industry surveys here vary, both as to the measure used and the observed quantity of such measure. Various measures include 1) no. of households, 2) no. of adults, and 3) no. of persons. Further distinctions may or may not have been made, such as whether or not such access exists at home, as opposed to at work, school, public library or another location, to mention but one. Some surveys do, in fact, exclude those who do not, for whatever reason, use the net.

Among the results of such surveys, which obviously report greatly varying results, I have yet to see one claiming that more than two-thirds of the US population has broadband access, and some still report less than 50% penetration.

DrTandem1 · #19 (**permalink**) 03-04-2008, 07:23 AM

Unless someone is living under a rock, there is access to broadband in the United States. Whether they choose to subscribe is a different question. Yes, satellite service may be cost prohibitive, but it is still accessible. Even in metropolitan areas, "grandma" may not want the internet, let alone broadband.

deepsand · #20 (**permalink**) 03-04-2008, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Unless someone is living under a rock, there is access to broadband in the United States. Whether they choose to subscribe is a different question. Yes, satellite service may be cost prohibitive, but it is still accessible. Even in metropolitan areas, "grandma" may not want the internet, let alone broadband.

Since satellite service requires "line-of-sight," it is not always that case that such is available.

And, if the cost of any good or service is prohibitive, then it is, for practical purposes unavailable.