April 30th, 2004, 04:28 PM
Future of cable and dsl?
I was just having a little chat about cable vs. dsl, and I learned some things I didn't know
In Belgium, there's a war going on between cable and dsl providers.
Right now, standard cable is approx. 4 Mbps down, and standard adsl is about the same. Both have capped upstreams (around 192kbps), and both go for around Euro 40 per month.
The cable down speed isn't capped, meaning that the maximum down speed you get, is determined by the pure maximum speed of the medium.
Now, both providers (Telenet for cable and Belgacom for dsl) have big plans, and that's where it gets interesting.
Before the end of 2005, every standard cable user in Belgium will have 81Mbps at his fingertips (30 Mbps up and 51 Mbps down). Belgacom (the dsl provider) on the other hand, is investing in vdsl, and will be able to offer 52Mbps by the end of 2005 (all over normal copper wires) to all of its users.
Keep in mind that cable users don't get lower speeds anymore when other people in the neighborhood are surfing.
The cable standard being used is DOCSIS 2.0, or EURODOCSIS 2.0 to be exact, a European variant of the DOCSIS standard (a standard developed by the ITU, a United Nations division).
Good to know that people in Belgium will be surfing at 50Mbps while American users still have to pay a lot more for far lesser speeds (we have Comcast cable here... 3Mbps for $49.95... not bad, but keep in mind that until three months ago it was only 1.5Mbps... dsl in the US seems to be pathetic with speeds under 1Mbps for the same price...).
Hope this sparks up some discussion, and somebody please answer this questions: why is it that in the land of technology and communication (the US, that is) people are being ripped off by internet service providers? Don't tell me that Comcast isn't technologically able to offer its users a far higher speed, or that dsl providers are only able to offer 768kbps...
April 30th, 2004, 04:36 PM
err... Neg have you seen how much 'broadband' costs in the UK lately ??
cable - soon to be upgraded for free to 768kbps (currently still at 512kbps) but it still costs £25/$45/€37a month
adsl is a similar price depending on the 'type of service you want - it's not just the US whose being screwed
I think Belgium is being progressively foresighted!
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
April 30th, 2004, 04:49 PM
Example of a hardcore capitalist state.
The above sentences are produced by the propaganda and indoctrination of people manipulating my mind since 1987, hence, I cannot be held responsible for this post\'s content
May 1st, 2004, 01:36 PM
Negative, Belgium has the big advantage that it's:
b) concentrated population (high density)
Perhaps that are reasons why the companies can offer less expensive connections?
For example for the price you pay I can have a 8Mbps down and 512k up speed today!
So, indeed the US has still a long way to go.
May 1st, 2004, 02:22 PM
Fiber to the home in the future for me ...
Btw Telenet is really getting on my nerves, forcing me to change my dynamic ip every 2 days, and filtering port 1 - 1024 , and some ports above even ....
Anyway , Neg you had skynet, can you turn servers on skynet ?
May 1st, 2004, 02:41 PM
I think that it is a question of "what service" the vendors think that they are supplying?
In the UK, I am sure that they think they are providing crap TV channels or a telephone service, computer users are a "poor relation"
All I seem to get is some shower of a$$holes trying to steal the billing rights from another shower.........no offer of better service..........hey some of them are so good I guess they must have their phone on "hands off" because they surely have not figured out what the opposable thumb is for?
I believe it is loosely described as "marketing"
Cable?................what is that?.............sorry, this is so sticksville we don't have it!
As Zone~ said 512kbps ADSL (although I am doing a bit better at the moment......576)
May 1st, 2004, 03:08 PM
This was an interesting item in ZDNet as an alternative.
\"You got a mouth like an outboard motor..all the time putt putt putt\" - Foghorn Leghorn
May 2nd, 2004, 09:15 AM
I'm not sure about other areas of the country, but I know here in Ontario currently there is an inverse situation to what you are suggesting, VictorKaum. The LESS populated areas have better access speeds than the large metropolitan areas. Toronto is the largest city in canada, with around 15 million people in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area), but when I was living there I was getting cable speeds of around 3mbps/192kbps (and those were rare maximums), and DSL offered similar speeds. I moved to North Bay, some 400km north of Toronto, last fall and the cable 'net access up here is 5mbps/640kbps for $10/month cheaper. It's a different cable company, which services largely low-population areas. In other areas of the country (Nova Scotia) I know people who get 5mbps/1mbps cable and adsl. We're talking almost 2/3 of a T1's upload speeds, and reliably too.
I think that to upgrade to fibre is going to be definitely a long term goal of every major telecommunications company in the world. Keep in mind though, counterintuitive as it may seem, you will likely see less populated areas or areas outside major urban centres get the higher speed access first, since it is easier financially to upgrade low-population areas. Fibre is fast, but unfortunately it's both expensive just to buy, but doubly so to implement because you have essentially replace the aging copper systems in place now. There were some subdivisions in Markham and Richmond Hill (suburbs of Toronto) that were built of the last couple of years and one of the selling points they were advertising was that the entire neighbourhood was wired for fibre.
To answer your question Negative, the answer is that honestly, they can't offer you better speeds. The US is somewhere below 5th I believe in number of homes that are capable of being internet-connected with one form of high-speed consumer access or other. South Korea would be #1, and I know that Norway and Canada fall above the US. The truth is, the majority of the cabling in major US centres is still an old copper Telephone + TV-Cable system. The expense of providing access to as many customers as it can is what keeps their bandwidth down. The initial outlay to buy the cabling and pay for all the trunks and routers and so on keep their hooks to the 'net lower in number, until they can generate revenues capable of supporting higher bandwidth. The result is that until the system pays for the initial costs in a certain area they can't justify giving you more bandwidth. Whether you believe they are that close to bleeding red on their quarterlies or not, that is the reason I've heard from people I know who work in such organisations. I personally don't see why bleeding a little red in one area is so bad when they make hundreds of thousands to millions in other areas, but hey, what do I know?
The Nelson-Shepherd cutoff: The point at which you realise someone is an idiot while trying to help them.
\"Well as far as the spelling, I speak fluently both your native languages. Do you even can try spell mine ?\" -- Failed Insult
Is your whole family retarded, or did they just catch it from you?
May 3rd, 2004, 01:38 AM
You think you are being ripped off?!? As Zonewalker pointed out, try coming over to the UK sometime. I know someone in the states who gets a connection 6 times faster than mine (downloading, and probably similar uploading too) for about the same price I pay. We can't get anything faster than 2Mb/s unless you live in London or purchase a leased line (for £1000+ per year) and even that costs £60+/month.
May 7th, 2004, 07:40 AM
I just want to toss in (somewhat late) that 40+ mbit/sec ADSL (1mbit up) speeds have been avaliable in (at least Okinawa) Japan for a few months already. For about $30-40 a month. With free VOIP service between all customers of Yahoo! BB.
I think I paid about $20 a month to get 12mbit down and 1 mbit up. Plus I got a free router with an IP phone connection/converter built in. Plus a free month of service. It was so good that Wired Magazine was excited over it and described how they ditched traditional teleco hardware to use huge amounts of Gigabit Ethernet equipment for the backbone of the network and could therefore offer much cheaper service...
If anyone remembers my posts from nearly a year ago they will probably remember me mentioning this stuff, and my extreame happiness over it. Enough said. I can't wait for this to spread to the US since I do happen to live in the US right now... I hate the high prices here in the US...