Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Next-Gen Broadband Primer

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the faster-and-faster dept.

Networking 274

Aaron writes "Broadband Reports has a good read on the real deal behind next generation broadband deployments. In four years: half all Verizon DSL users should have fiber, half of all SBC subscribers should have 10-20Mbps DSL, and one tenth of all BellSouth customers should have 50Mbps DSL. At the same time cable companies should begin deploying DOCSIS 3.0 technology in 2006, eventually bringing 100Mbps speeds to end users."

cancel ×

274 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014408)

fp

I'll believe it when I see it! (1)

montreal!hahahahah (880120) | about 9 years ago | (#13014519)

BBR: While we're only starting to see DOCSIS 2.0 deployment, and the higher speeds it can bring (Adelphia & Cox 15Mbps), DOCSIS 3.0 should only be a few years behind. Do you see the cable industry having any trouble keeping up with these bell plans?

DB: The "15 meg" speeds Cox is offering where they compete with Verizon fiber are mostly advertising. It's really 38 meg shared among 100 or so users, the same speed as the current services advertised at as 3 and 7 meg. That's too much oversubscription to deliver 15 meg most of the time, if even 5 or 10 people are downloading on the node. To regularly get past today's 5 meg or so, you need to bond more channels, which is what DOCSIS 3.0 offers.

DOCSIS 3.0 is real, mostly agreed, and the key vendors have the details and are making equipment for 2006. It's a shared 160/120 or higher, easily expandable to a shared gigabit. Real speeds to users will often be 20-50 megabits. It was developed to compete with higher speed DSL in Asia. Early in 2005, the U.S. cable companies realized Verizon was serious about fiber, and pushed CableLabs and suppliers (Cisco, Motorola, Arris, Broadcom) to get DOCSIS 3.0 ready for the U.S. ASAP, and 2006 is realistic with some pricey gear.

I will believe it when I see it. Depending on your home area, overselling of bandwidth can be a real problem. I have seen both DSL and Cable providers routinely claiming speeds "up to". 5mpbs but real speeds are usually in the 3mbps range. Of course, the cable/DSL providers claim that "few sites allow you to take full advantage of your maximum bandwidth", which is a pile of horseshit, plain and simple. 92% of their userbase will believe that while the 8% that don't the broadband companies don't want on their networks anyway.

While highspeed connections are great, I want to know where this backend bandwidth is coming from and who's paying for it? T3+ downstream speeds for only a tiny fraction of the real cost? I will be that 30+ megabits is nothing more than a pipe dream/marketing ploy. The real speeds we will be seeing are in the 10 to 15 range for "premium" members and will likely come with heavy "unadvertised". monthly caps. They want you to see webpages come up lightning fast (which happens at 1mbit) but they don't want you to actually see 10GB of torrents come in a day. They will still be catering to the 92% of their userbase that is the "mom and pop e-mail and CNN checkers". The people who would really be excited about paying higher fees and getting the advantages of the massive bandwidth will end up with ToS violation warnings and slower than expected speeds.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it! (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 years ago | (#13014610)

Is there any consumer broadband provider out there who doesn't use the qualifier "up to" in advertising their speeds? DSL providers (in the past at least) were notorious for claiming that, but still throttling connections, while cable companies have often oversold their lines so that the theoretical limit is almost never likely to be hit, or even approached.

I'll believe when I see it... (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | about 9 years ago | (#13014411)

BBR: While we're only starting to see DOCSIS 2.0 deployment, and the higher speeds it can bring (Adelphia & Cox 15Mbps), DOCSIS 3.0 should only be a few years behind. Do you see the cable industry having any trouble keeping up with these bell plans?

DB: The "15 meg" speeds Cox is offering where they compete with Verizon fiber are mostly advertising. It's really 38 meg shared among 100 or so users, the same speed as the current services advertised at as 3 and 7 meg. That's too much oversubscription to deliver 15 meg most of the time, if even 5 or 10 people are downloading on the node. To regularly get past today's 5 meg or so, you need to bond more channels, which is what DOCSIS 3.0 offers.

DOCSIS 3.0 is real, mostly agreed, and the key vendors have the details and are making equipment for 2006. It's a shared 160/120 or higher, easily expandable to a shared gigabit. Real speeds to users will often be 20-50 megabits. It was developed to compete with higher speed DSL in Asia. Early in 2005, the U.S. cable companies realized Verizon was serious about
fiber, and pushed CableLabs and suppliers (Cisco, Motorola, Arris, Broadcom) to get DOCSIS 3.0 ready for the U.S. ASAP, and 2006 is realistic
with some pricey gear.


I will believe it when I see it. Depending on your home area, overselling of bandwidth can be a real problem. I have seen both DSL and Cable
providers routinely claiming speeds "up to". 5mpbs but real speeds are usually in the 3mbps range. Of course, the cable/DSL providers claim that "few sites allow you to take full advantage of your maximum bandwidth", which is a pile of horseshit, plain and simple. 92% of their userbase will believe that while the 8% that don't the broadband companies don't
want on their networks anyway.

While highspeed connections are great, I want to know where this backend bandwidth is coming from and who's paying for it? T3+ downstream speeds for only a tiny fraction of the real cost? I will be that 30+ megabits is nothing more than a pipe dream/marketing ploy. The real speeds we will be seeing are in the 10 to 15 range for "premium" members and will likely come with heavy "unadvertised". monthly caps. They want you to see webpages come up lightning fast (which happens at 1mbit) but they don't want you to actually see 10GB of torrents come in a day. They will still be catering to the 92% of their userbase that is the "mom and pop e-mail
and CNN checkers". The people who would really be excited about paying higher fees and getting the advantages of the massive bandwidth will end up with ToS violation warnings and slower than expected speeds.

Garcia? (1)

montreal!hahahahah (880120) | about 9 years ago | (#13014417)

hahahahahhah!

Re:I'll believe when I see it... (1)

Bohnanza (523456) | about 9 years ago | (#13014548)

I want to know where this backend bandwidth is coming from and who's paying for it? T3+ downstream speeds for only a tiny fraction of the real cost?

It's possible for a product to improve while the "real cost" remains the same. Why should broadband connections be different than anything else?

Re:I'll believe when I see it... (1)

Shaman (1148) | about 9 years ago | (#13014621)

Right you are. Bandwidth is expensive.

And frankly, few sites DO have the bandwidth to really push a broadband connection.

Re:I'll believe when I see it... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014645)

Except for other broadband users, all on kazaa/bittorrent/whatever will be hot in 2006. Of course, we're ignoring legal uses of the bandwidth like hosting websites, and camwhores will finally get to use something better than 320x240 5fps video.

WOW... (2, Interesting)

leon.gandalf (752828) | about 9 years ago | (#13014419)

nothing like bandwidth better than most of the servers you connect too..... You would practically cause a DOS attack with prefetch alone.....

4 Years... I wish (4, Interesting)

Armando_Mcgillicutty (773718) | about 9 years ago | (#13014430)

I'll be moving up from my 768k dsl sometime around 2020 I'm afraid...

Rural America is fun fun fun.

Re:4 Years... I wish (1)

ajiva (156759) | about 9 years ago | (#13014452)

I live in San Jose, CA and I have 768k DSL and that was just as of last year, before that I had 384K DSL and for a LONG time I had 144K IDSL (DSL over ISDN!). So yeah you rock for being in rural America :)

Re:4 Years... I wish (1)

Armando_Mcgillicutty (773718) | about 9 years ago | (#13014508)

Ok...so even some parts of less-than-rural America are way behind the times too... All while we keep hearing stories of people in some Asian Countries with 90% penetration of 10Mbit+ broadband.

Re:4 Years... I wish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014498)


Just got my 7MB connection today ( 1MB up ).. yee ha

Re:4 Years... I wish (1)

Donniedarkness (895066) | about 9 years ago | (#13014806)

I hear you, man...I'm stuck on 56k. Broadband has only become available here recently... with Comcast :( I'll be upgraded when I move out of this place.

Buy Stock! (4, Funny)

MandoSKippy (708601) | about 9 years ago | (#13014434)

I guess it really is time buy stock in the adult entertainment industry... mainly web sites ;)

As for us TimeWarner/RoadRunner users (2, Insightful)

BandwidthHog (257320) | about 9 years ago | (#13014438)

We'll continue to make do with 50K/sec. upload speeds.

So true, sadly. It's a conflict of interest. (3, Insightful)

ShinSugoi (783392) | about 9 years ago | (#13014769)

It would be nice if more companies realized that the internet is not one-way communications, and that its real strength lies in allowing everyone to both create and share content. Of course, considering that Time Warner is a media company at its core, they have a bit of conflict of interest with providing lots of upstream bandwidth as long as they continue to fear file-sharing.

Goodie (3, Insightful)

Swamii (594522) | about 9 years ago | (#13014441)

With these speeds and wide accessibility, why is Google investing in Broadband over Powerline technology?

Judging by the tiny speed increases for broadband over the last few years, I'll believe this when it comes to fruition, which probably won't be for another 10 years or more.

Re:Goodie (1)

CompSci101 (706779) | about 9 years ago | (#13014591)

Because the network is already much larger and nearly universally connected. And probably much cheaper, too.

Plus, I'd predict people disconnecting from the power grid once advances in fuel-cell generators make owning your own power plant feasible.

The power companies are going to have to do something with the miles and miles of high-capacity wire they already have strung up to everybody's house...

C

Re:Goodie (1)

spxero (782496) | about 9 years ago | (#13014618)

Don't worry, it'll come to fruition- at the price of an arm, leg, and $100 a month.

Re:Goodie (1)

dagr8tim (866860) | about 9 years ago | (#13014759)

I've heard that BPL will be around 14 Mbps with the next generation of equipment (already in the process of being deployed).

Besides, you'll probably have to be within 100 yards of the nearest switching office in order to get the blazing fast speeds of DSL.

Re:Goodie (3, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | about 9 years ago | (#13014799)

There will for a very long time be rural areas that won't get broadband access. Their options will be wireless, satallite, or powerline.

ZOOOM! (-1, Troll)

Zediker (885207) | about 9 years ago | (#13014444)

ZOOM ZOOM!

Someone should tell Google (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014449)

... as they throw their shareholders money at broadband-over-power-line providers who are busy trying to force the 60-Hz powerline distribution network to carry broadband signals on the order of 1 MBPS.

For the money they are spending, the power companies could run fiber, scale their speeds up in the future to compete with these higher-speed providers, and not pollute the entire HF spectrum. Instead, they are going to trash a very real natural resource and end up with a hopelessly-uncompetitive system even if it does work.

Re:Someone should tell Google (2, Insightful)

SoCalChris (573049) | about 9 years ago | (#13014611)

The rural market is pretty much untapped, as far as broadband goes. There are many people who can't get DSL or cable, let alone have fiber run to them. The infrastructure for BPL is already in place.

I don't think BPL would work in places with other options, but for rural America, it is the best option at this point. Google knows what they're doing.

Re:Someone should tell Google (1)

pablo_max (626328) | about 9 years ago | (#13014643)

Think back to couple months ago, there was a story about google buying up a lot of dark fiber.....I'm thinking they are stupid. I seriously doubt you know something they dont. By the way...one great way to send packets via powerlines, is not "through" the power line as you may be thinking. It's actually "around" the power line. Power lines emit a field. That field acts a wave guide whereby nice little signals can be sent.

wait (1)

sakura the mc (795726) | about 9 years ago | (#13014450)

so its gonna take ANOTHER FOUR YEARS to get what japan has already HAD for FOUR YEARS?????

Re:wait (1)

gothzilla (676407) | about 9 years ago | (#13014504)

It takes longer than that for us to get what's new in club music and fashion from Europe so it's okay.

56k Dial up line (1)

Mr.No (752782) | about 9 years ago | (#13014461)

snif snif :-), and I'm typing this on a 56k dial up line .....

Re:56k Dial up line (0, Troll)

Swamii (594522) | about 9 years ago | (#13014733)

I'm typing this on a 56k dial up line .....

You must feel like Microsoft: everyone else is running faster, more powerful and reliable technology, while you're stuck on your sluggish, unresponsive junk.

[disclaimer: Unlike most of you, I don't hate Microsoft. Some of their products are good, I'm even writing this on XP. But hey, this is /., where every post must be qualified with an "I hate M$ as much as the next guy, but...". And in that sense, I am karma whoring. Mod this as funny and help my karma. Thank you.]

Re:56k Dial up line (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014773)

I'm so, so very sorry.
5mbit/384kbit cable here. I see download rates of 550KB/s just about daily.

You're only more than 100 times slower, don't feel that bad. Remember, it could always be worse. Just in your case, you're pretty close already.

I think I'll be ok (5, Insightful)

Hachey (809077) | about 9 years ago | (#13014464)

Google loads fast enough for me as it is. Make my internet cheaper in 4 years, then i'll be happy! ;)


--
Check out the Uncyclopedia.org [uncyclopedia.org] :
The only wiki source for politically incorrect non-information about things like Kitten Huffing [uncyclopedia.org] and Pong! the Movie [uncyclopedia.org] !

...uphill, both ways - without shoes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014707)

Dad, is that you?

Re:I think I'll be ok (1)

egypt_jimbob (889197) | about 9 years ago | (#13014772)

Google loads fast enough for me as it is. Make my internet cheaper in 4 years, then i'll be happy! ;)

Right, so you get this new Super-Badass(tm) broadband and toss up a wrt54g and split the cost with your entire apartment building.

And if your apartment building doesn't have enough people interested in Super-Badass(tm) broadband, move to a college town.

My aDSL cost me about $12.50/month until summer started and all my neighbors moved.

Re:I think I'll be ok (1)

kryogen1x (838672) | about 9 years ago | (#13014832)

Google loads fast enough for me as it is. Make my internet cheaper in 4 years, then i'll be happy! ;)

You have your own internet? No way!

My provider barely offers current gen broadband (1)

niskel (805204) | about 9 years ago | (#13014468)

Broadband has been around for how long now? My provider still can't get the basic sevice right. Living in a lesser populated area of Canada, broadband providers seem to be able to get away with offering the bare bare minimum quality and still manage to charge more than the average good broadband provider. Maybe a switch to faster broadband around all of Northa America might help pressure them in to improving their service but I am not very hopeful.

Re:My provider barely offers current gen broadband (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014512)

Living in a lesser populated area of Canada Isn't that a redundant statement?

Re:My provider barely offers current gen broadband (1)

niskel (805204) | about 9 years ago | (#13014567)

Jokingly, yes. What I actually meant is that I'm not in a big city (Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, etc.) but I'm not in the backwoods rural areas either.

the pertinent question (1, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | about 9 years ago | (#13014476)

[quote]"Broadband Reports has a good read on the real deal behind next generation broadband deployments. In four years: half all Verizon DSL users should have fiber, half of all SBC subscribers should have 10-20Mbps DSL, and one tenth of all BellSouth customers should have 50Mbps DSL. At the same time cable companies should begin deploying DOCSIS 3.0 technology in 2006, eventually bringing 100Mbps speeds to end users." [/quote]

The question is: At what cost? I would not want my provider to shovel DSL [and associated costs] down my throat when I do not need all that speed. I only do email, slashdot and online banking on the internet. My current service which is cable restricted to twice the speed of dial-up is more that adequate.

I call bullshit (1)

not-real-sure (859388) | about 9 years ago | (#13014479)

The purpose of advertising these speeds is to undercut each other in the marketing arena. I would love to see this come to light but with the cost of of DS-3 / OC3 lines this will never happen. They may offer 100mb download with a 256k upload and a 25gb limit for the month. Kinda makes the service worthless in my eyes

Re:I call bullshit (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014573)

end users always seem to not be able to understnad this. There's only "cost" with a DS3/OC-3 because you're leasing it from someone else. These big ISP's own their own pipes, then have peering agreements with other providers. They don't have to "buy" a DS-3, they only have to slap some hardware on either end of their fiber to make it a faster pipe. It doesn't cost them "more" to up end-user speed unless they're breaking peering agreements, which isn't likely.

100Mbps (5, Insightful)

drgonzo59 (747139) | about 9 years ago | (#13014489)

What are ordinary people going to do with 100Mpbs next year that they have such a difficulty doing now?

I am not talking about Slashdotters who will put spinners on their Cable Modems and will overclock the cpu to the limit, but about ordinary people who still only use their computer to look at web pages and write email. Will 100Mbps provide 50x better experience than 2Mbps? I would rather them lower the cost by at least by 50% that would be much better.

Older computers that run Windows 98 that a lot of people still use, probably can't even handle a consistent 100Mbps stream.

Re:100Mbps (5, Insightful)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | about 9 years ago | (#13014553)

I believe that ordinary people will be downloading a lot more content- How long before we can get all of out tv shows etc "on demand" from our computer?
There is a chicken and egg thing going on- With more out there, people want higher speeds, but with higher speeds, more will be created out there---
Real world example- I used to work for a newspaper website, a big one, and in late 90's early 00s our big problem was that with slow load times and dialing in (5-10% of people had broadband) it didnt make sense for people to read the paper online from home as it took too long. With broadband, it does. Once everyone has the capacity, it will make sense to oofer more video on demand etc. The real money is in the 99% of users that don't know much tech, just from a #s standpoint.

Re:100Mbps (2, Informative)

FidelCatsro (861135) | about 9 years ago | (#13014574)

ITs a future development , The web will expand as the bandwidth becomes available
on the good side we shall see richer content , on the bad side we shall see um richer content.

Re:100Mbps (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 9 years ago | (#13014805)

Well this has always happened. For example when Modem speeds went at 1200bps we dared to use 8 bit ascii with special charactors such as lines and block charactors. Then at 2400bps we pushed it further with color ANSI so we could have colored text, at 9600bps we would use a lot of those advanced charactors and colors that filled the screen, then at 14.4k we started to use vecor based graphics (Like RIP Script and whatever Prodigy used at the time) then at 28.8k we started to have bitmapped graphics, 56.6k we pushed to digital audio content. And then broadband we have more realtime audio and vecor based animations (flash) and as Broadband speeds increased we have more realtime movies increasing audio quality. and as speed increase you will see more things happining in realtime. Which will make HDTV's and Telephones Obsolete. Perhaps if we can get Broadband at 1gbs or faster we will have enough technology for 3d stuff.

Sure a lot of traditional technologist call this stuff bells and whistles and fluff. But in reality computers are here for our own benefit. So if we want to use our spare bandwith and cpu cycles for our enjoyment we should be able to. (On the same note as a technologist I would like the ability to turn it off so I can use the speed as I choose)

Re:100Mbps (1)

Nos. (179609) | about 9 years ago | (#13014585)

Exactly. While I would love 100Mbps at home, I'm more interested in relatively high speed wireless internet that is portable and doesn't require line of sight. I'd rather be able to have a 1Mbps connection in my car and on my PDA. Things like VoIP, mapping services with real time info, and such will become commonplace. Hence my intrest in WiMax.

Re:100Mbps (2, Insightful)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | about 9 years ago | (#13014594)

What are ordinary people going to do with 100Mpbs next year that they have such a difficulty doing now?

Simple -- download and play HDTV shows and movies on demand and buy music and other pay-per-use bandwidth-intensive high-quality content. This is *really* what the broadband providers have always been counting on as a business model and is where the real money is.

Besides, I could have asked the same question 10 years ago when you had a 14.4 modem and were waiting to a full minute to download a graphics-heavy web page.

Re:100Mbps (5, Insightful)

John Miles (108215) | about 9 years ago | (#13014657)

What are ordinary people going to do with 100Mpbs next year that they have such a difficulty doing now?

Actually, ubiquitous speeds on the order of 100 Mbps will change everything.

Right now, with a one-megabit DSL connection, it's possible for me to use a Terminal Services client at home to run basic apps like Outlook and Perforce on my machine at the office. It's slow, clunky, and not especially pleasant, but it works, and it beats the hell out of juggling multiple email clients (and .PST files). Even things like streaming video almost work.

At 10 megabits/second, this process will still be slow, but not all that clunky, and a lot less unpleasant. More apps will live on my machine at work, without having to be duplicated at home.

At 100 megabits/second and up, the distinction between remote computing and local computing will disappear entirely for most users. Software and services subscription models for commercial applications will actually make sense for PC users for the first time. The client operating system -- be it Windows, Linux, MacOS, what-have-you -- will shrink to almost zero-importance.

And Microsoft will either be bankrupt or they'll own the inner planets, depending on whether the entire company goes down with the sinking Windows/Office ship.

Since the entire Internet will be one huge client-server network at that point, worms, viruses, and malware won't be a concern for most users. Monopolization will be. Whose machine is going to run and maintain 99% of your applications? If you think you're married to your software vendor now, you haven't even met her daddy yet.

Re:100Mbps (1)

UtucXul (658400) | about 9 years ago | (#13014686)

I agree that I want more bandwidth for different reasons that the "average" broadband user wants it. I would like it so when I log onto my work machine at home X-Windows forwarding and things like that work a little better (although I bet latency hurts me there too). I would like my remote backups to go a bit faster. I would like emerge --sync to go a bit faster too.
But an average user (say my mother) could definately use more bandwidth when she emails a picture to someone, or receives a picture in an email. A 5 megapixel digital camera makes a pretty big file. And most people with those 5 megapixel cameras take a whole lot of pictures.

Re:100Mbps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014695)

Also webcams that don't look like shit, games that download new levels from the net near instantly.

Real-time backups over the internet.

Plus other stuff we haven't thought of that requires serious bandwidth to work well.

Re:100Mbps (1)

MindStalker (22827) | about 9 years ago | (#13014725)

Resell bandwidth of course! Actually many DSL providers allow this, I guess as they are used to allowing their T1 customers to resell. Cable does NOT allow this, obviously as they are used to cable sharing being theft.

Re:100Mbps (1)

Sketch (2817) | about 9 years ago | (#13014760)

> What are ordinary people going to do with 100Mpbs next year that they have such a difficulty doing now?

If you had read the article, you might have noticed that much of it was talking about HDTV over IP, and the bandwidth requirements per channel being on the order of 10Mbps (with overhead, etc). Want to watch HDTV on 3 TVs? You need 30Mbps. Hope you have some extra bandwidth for your internet browsing too...

Re:100Mbps (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 years ago | (#13014767)

It'll suck for webserver administrators who will have their servers pegged-out by a single user with a fast connection. I wonder if the prices for colocation will scale appropriately. Why should I pay $100/mo for 1.5mbit bandwidth at a colo when I can get 100mbit at home? The only difference, of course, being reliability and the prohibitive contracts forbidding servers.

I wonder what the upstream bandwidth will be? Probalby 100mbits down and 1mbit up? No doubt.

Yeah, bandwidth is great. (3, Interesting)

bersl2 (689221) | about 9 years ago | (#13014496)

Now, what about latency and QoS?

And there was way too much mention of IPTV and you-know-who, with their "the future may run through us alone" attitude, in that article for it to be palatable.

Re:Yeah, bandwidth is great. (1)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | about 9 years ago | (#13014584)

Not enough people know what latency and QoS are for the telcos to care. It's the same reason Intel did nothing but pump clock speeds for years. People hear "WE HAVE MORE MBS! WE'RE BETTER!" and get suckered in. They don't understand that more bandwidth won't help them as much as they think it will. I'd trade half my bandwidth on my home RoadRunner connection if I could actually get under a 100 ms latency in online games. I'm sure people who use VoIP have similar problems with their latency and QoS. But because the vast majority of people using broadband don't understand or care about anything but their provider screaming "WE HAVE MORE BANDWIDTH!!!" the providers don't give a rat's ass.

20 Mbps (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | about 9 years ago | (#13014510)

Err... here 20Mbps is already available for $30/mo + phone and dsl-tv. How is the DSL landscape in the US... I am going to study in the US in september. What connection speed can I expect ? Are there any geek-friendly provider ? (Mine for exemple provides a local mirror for almost all linux distro)

Re:20 Mbps (1)

Renraku (518261) | about 9 years ago | (#13014590)

Well, if you're with a college, your residence will probably have a 100MBps connection, but it'll be heavily shared.

As for general living, it depends on the area. Cities usually have several choices of DSL/cable providers, but the speeds seem to be mostly below 5MBps.

Right now, I have 1.5m down and 256k up, and I'm paying $40/mo with Bellsouth DSL.

Re:20 Mbps (1)

niskel (805204) | about 9 years ago | (#13014642)

I don't know about the US but that would be the deal of the century in Canada. I'm stuck with a 3MBPS ADSL (in actuality runs much slower) as my fastest consumer option. And it costs ~$40 cad a month on top of phone costs.

Re:20 Mbps (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | about 9 years ago | (#13014744)

It's free.fr in France. Heavily geek oriented... ( NO connection kit, RJ45 by default (usb possible),modem router with configurable NAT and wifi, free phone, free TV, 1Go adless webpages, official linux support, fixed IP etc) I'm so gonna miss my ISP :(((

FTTP (1)

m3rajk (670560) | about 9 years ago | (#13014517)

My prof last semester at grad school works for verizon where they have the FTTP in development. it's being tested and their only real problem right now is a battery they trust to work like they want it to for traditional phone service simulation.

Verizon isnt playing with BITS like everyone else. it's a BYTE rating for fiber. 50 MB capable. 15 MB base. like with DSL. they plan on switching all DSL over once it's running. they will pipe direct tv THROUGH the fiber. Unlike DSL this goes through repeaters and amplifiers. remember, DSL REQUIRES unbroken path. and maxes out at one-mile. Cable needs to start DOCSIS3 now if they want to keep ahead of verizon. after the 911 suing by attorney genereals, people dont have as much confidence in VoIP. Fiber from Verizon has already promised to mimic traditional or improve upon it. no lost features. that's what's cauing the battery problem

Re:FTTP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014559)

PSST... [slashdot.org] E911 for cable VoIP is just one rulling away from being vanquished.

Re:FTTP (1)

operagost (62405) | about 9 years ago | (#13014804)

remember, DSL REQUIRES unbroken path. and maxes out at one-mile.
That's not true. It's three miles. Of course, you don't get full speed at that length.

slow backend connections (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014527)

my broadband provider is a little phone company going balls-to-the-wall...they plan to have 50% fiber in their area and i'm about to get their fiber all in one service (phone, TV, internet). they're capping people pretty low for fiber, but the higher end is still cheaper than T1 for T1 speeds.

unless you're using the pc at 2 in the morning, you still won't get your full bandwidth potential.

BPL (2, Interesting)

Skynet (37427) | about 9 years ago | (#13014544)

One little mention of broadband over the power lines (BPL)?

Interesting since Google just made a huge investment [zdnet.co.uk] in it.

Snowcrash! (1)

Kookus (653170) | about 9 years ago | (#13014546)

I just can't wait until we all can have realistic mmorpgs that simulate life!
Anyone know how much bandwidth we needed to play in the metaverse?

What about latency? (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 9 years ago | (#13014564)

I would gladly trade some of that extra bandwidth for better responsiveness.

Re:What about latency? (1)

pizen (178182) | about 9 years ago | (#13014833)

Latency is the key. For your money the best bandwidth is a FedEx box full of DVDs...but the latency is killer.

Qwest customers? (4, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 9 years ago | (#13014566)

...half all Verizon DSL users should have fiber, half of all SBC subscribers should have 10-20Mbps DSL, and one tenth of all BellSouth customers should have 50Mbps DSL.

And what will Qwest customers get?

Why, they get the shaft!

Qwests idea of fiber to the curb is to leave a bran muffin on your sidewalk every day for just $50 a month.

Upstream? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014568)

This high bandwidth sounds cool, but I'm betting it's all download ... what's the upstream like? It would be nice to have a little more bandwidth for my servers ... assuming these providers don't go the way of some current fascist providers like my current one. They block off vital TCP/IP ports. No incoming port 80 for my web server - no way do the corporations want us to turn into producers on the internet, the corporations only want us to be consumers of their own content. Blocked outgoing port 25, crippling my mail server - naturally, only corporations should be allowed to send e-mail ... we can't be trusted to communicate, and should place our trust in the corporations to "help" (read: censor) with our e-mail.

Railroads Arguement (2, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | about 9 years ago | (#13014570)

A long time ago in America, railroads used fluff pieces like this to justify to their investors that they needed more money to stay competitive.

Because everyone needs faster trains right? Well as history has shown, yes to a point in time when a disruptive technology comes along to do the job cheaper/better in one way or another.

Off-Topic:
I'd be interested to find some non-marketing stats on how many homes have computers in America and the breakdown of dialup/broadband.

OT: Faster air travel would be nice (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 9 years ago | (#13014800)

If it weren't for the ground-level sonic boom, we'd've had supersonic transport from LA to NY decades ago.

If the Concord's replacement is only porportionately more expensive per hour of travel time including in-airport delays than subsonic first class and provides first-class space and amenities, it will make a lot of money. The Concord was simply too expensive to operate.

Now, when human-capable matter transporters come online to disrupt things, air travel will have to adjust. Ditto, for some purposes, real-time holograms a la Star Wars. The airlines have already had to adjust to video conferencing cutting down on the need for face-to-face meetings. Oh, before someone mentions suborbital flights, I view it as merely an extension of air travel in the same way that jets are an extension to pre-jet-age air travel. Or at least it will be if the airlines choose to invest in that technology.

Naked Fiber? (1)

polyhue (38042) | about 9 years ago | (#13014577)

So will freakin' Verizon finally allow me to get "Naked DSL" if it's over fiber?

Right now I'm paying $20/mo for a dial tone. No features, no calling plan, nothing. ~ $9 for the dial tone, the rest taxes and [BS] fees. So my "more affordable" DSL costs the same as just getting Earthlink cable internet from TimeWarner.

As soon as I can get back to cable [or powerline, flying monkeys, whatever] I will...

Re:Naked Fiber? (1)

SoCalChris (573049) | about 9 years ago | (#13014666)

I called Verizon about a month ago with that question. According to them, you don't need phone service with them to subscribe to the FIOS service (Or whatever they're calling it). Unfortunately, the fiber service isn't available in my area yet.

From what I've heard... (1)

Run4yourlives (716310) | about 9 years ago | (#13014582)

the US market needs to get with the times regarding this gen's broadband before worrying about things to come.

What if I told you guys south of the 49th that personal Internet access in canada is almost exclusively broadband - either cable or adsl?

What if I told you that most common folk up here don't even know you can use a phone to access the net?

I looked over the mac mini when it came out, and sat there wondering who the hell would be using the included modem... but then I remembered that in the US, a lot of people would.

Re:From what I've heard... (1)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | about 9 years ago | (#13014674)

The majority of the Canadian population, about 60% is concentrated within a thin belt of land representing 2.2% of the land between Windsor, Ontario and Quebec City. [atlas.gc.ca]

Canada might have a low population density overall, but that's because there are vast vast areas of sparse population. Most of their population is much more concentrated than America. It is significantly harder to provide all the infrastructure necessary for broadband in America than in most other countries.

Re:From what I've heard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014724)

What if I told you that most common folk up here don't even know you can use a phone to access the net?

I'd believe you. I've met some really stupid Canadians.

Re:From what I've heard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014830)

"the US market needs to get with the times regarding this gen's broadband before worrying about things to come."

The US is a pretty big and spread-out place, if you know of a magic technology that'd be able to unite the US without an incredibly prohibitive cost of infrastructure, I'm listening.

Fiberoptics Infastructure (1)

Ossus_10 (844890) | about 9 years ago | (#13014588)

I have a friend who works for a major phone company on the engineering end of their fiberoptics division. It seems that they are laying the infastructure right now (in the chicago area at least) and are using a loop style of wiring (they make huge circles that interconnect to give redundancy). He quotes that fiberoptics will start being offered in 2006 and will become common by 2008/2009 (in the chicago area) ossus

I don't need faster, I need higher caps (1)

strider3700 (109874) | about 9 years ago | (#13014595)

Shaw recently increased their speeds and for only $15 more per month I could be getting much faster speeds. Of course they only increased the cap by about 10 gig/month so I'd be going from fast and able to blow my monthly transfer cap in 4 days to really fast and able to blow my cap in 3 days.

I don't care if I'm only getting 2 mbit instead of 30 mbit, let me max it out and leave it there forever without penalties and threats of kicking me off the network. Hell I'd pay the higher fees for a slower but truely unlimited connection.

This just in... (5, Funny)

nrlightfoot (607666) | about 9 years ago | (#13014596)

And the cable companies will still only give you 32kb of upstream.

Is this going to replace current services? (1)

ShyGuy91284 (701108) | about 9 years ago | (#13014604)

My big question (if it was in the article, sorry, It's a lot to read word-by-word) is, is this going to be an upgrade to current services as a lot of ISPs have done over the past 10 years, or a new service that is going to cost $100/mo the first year or so? It'd be nice if it was a free upgrade to existing service, but pretty unlikely with the cost involved....

stuck in diap-up hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014623)

Broadband was available where i ws living back in 1994 as a pilot project and it quickly became the standard against which everything else was judged. Through various moves I have changed broadband suppliers many times and found the service to be at least acceptable in all cases. Now I have moved to a rural area where the phone lines are so poor that my max speed is 28.8 and it is frequently 14.4. I have had to set up my primary online-box in a friends basement in town so I can get online without pulling my hair out. It would be nice to see some badly needed infrastructure upgrades in rural parts of the country so we can all enjoy what the net has to offer.

What about rural areas (1)

0ber*n (230448) | about 9 years ago | (#13014630)

...and there will be 31% as opposed to 30% market penetration? How about we focus on making broadband universally available rather than making it faster for a select few.

TV and TIVO replacement? (1)

JehCt (879940) | about 9 years ago | (#13014637)

Will the next generation of BroadBand enable massive increase in pay-per-view programming? At those speeds you could download live or recorded TV and movies from anywhere, not just your local cable co. So content producers could sell directly to customers, and bypass their current distribution networks.

What does this mean for broadcast TV, movie houses, and the local cable monopolies?

Price reduction is where it is at (1)

GweeDo (127172) | about 9 years ago | (#13014647)

Would I love saying I get 30+Mbit to my house? Sure...am I even happier that SBC dropped DSL to $14.99/month (1.5Mbit) and $24.99/month (3.0Mbit)? Crap yeah. More is better...but cost is a big factor, and SBC has the winner for that right now.

DDoS Possibilities (4, Insightful)

mpeg4codec (581587) | about 9 years ago | (#13014648)

Has anyone considered the implications of a DDoS involving a zombie army of machines with 100 mbit uplinks? This could spell disaster for just about everybody except those with the absolute fattest pipes. It takes an awful lot of hosts to swamp an OC3 now, but that's with hosts that rarely have a half megabit uplink, if that. It would be frighteningly easy to swamp the heavy links with a few 100 mbit links.

That is, of course, unless the bigger pipes grow at a rate proportional to the smaller ones. That also assumes symmetrical links for the home connections. Oh the irony of a 100 mbit / 128 kbit connection.

Fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014656)

I don't like Verizon fiber. I prefer Metamucil.

Re:Fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014742)

That was pure genius - I commend you on your wit.

A few problems (1)

suitepotato (863945) | about 9 years ago | (#13014661)

First, cable systems are already on the edge of capability across the country at the current 256QAM/6Mhz slot format. At the high end and low end ingress and leakage are problems and I've seen no widespread deployment of new actives and passives that change that. The biggest problem is signal security and prompt termination of any line allowing ingress/leakage. Most cable users are blissfully unaware of the basics and will still buy Rat Shack crap, still splice with a carpet knife and electrical tape, still hook to bad devices, etc. The cable industry needs intelligent taps which are not only addressable, but monitor the signals for ingress and terminate if they go above a certain threshold.

In most systems, addressable taps end up being useless because the field workers refuse to follow the rules and keep port assignments in line with records so the wrong people get terminated all the time, lockboxes are broken into so people splice into active lines, etc.

I don't see any systems I've ever worked as being able to adopt the newer standards without a huge amount of capital investment into infrastructure improvement. There's rumblings of wanting to save bandwidth by going to 8, 12, or even larger slots to reduce guardband loss and be able to more stably use 1024QAM which works better with larger slots (IIRC, at 6Mhz, 1024QAM gives maybe a 25% increase or so in the lab, is disasterously unfit for any system I know in practice). Such a change involves a lot more than just DOCSIS standards and would have had to begin five to ten years ago to be anywhere near to deployment today.

Second, most DSL providers have at most two DS-3 backhauls from each DSL colocation. The phone company tends to own major amounts of backbone to start with themselves so they can roll out bigger services than CLECs, but the ILECs are talking about rolling out aggregate bandwidth of thousands of gigabits per second across a region and their existing backhauls are nowhere near that size. Oversubscription will be an issue, the connections wil not be unlimited and all you can eat.

Then there is the matter of CLECs and whether those fiber rollouts must be open to them and if so, how will that work and if not, how will that affect the end-users' price structures?

This seems to be putting us into a new broadband age where we have our own LAN at home, wired and/or wireless, and a sort of community LAN (Metropolitan Area Network) in the form of this LAN-speed connection, and then we are hobbled once again the way we were when we simply had an Ethernet LAN but our Internet access was across at most a T1 but more usually dial-up or ISDN.

Area Bittorrent sort of thinking might work. By having caching through each others' machines we could better make use of the MAN and reduce duplication of information transmitted from the ILEC/cable network's backhaul to the Internet at large. Granted, a lot of security work would be needed to create a good stable and secure distributed proxy that didn't personally identify anyone and merely distributed the data without regard to who originally downloaded it. But until the backhaul pipes rise to the level of reducing the problem of logjams due to overusage and oversubscription, which may be never since the last mile capacity is outstripping the backhaul now, it's something we could use.

BTW, if anyone wants to write such a distributed proxy system, they may feel free to call it Area Bittorrent. Just so we're clear on the IP angle. ; )

Increased bandwidth, is it a good thing? (1)

swordsaintzero (665343) | about 9 years ago | (#13014690)

I recently had an ask slashdot question about rolling out fiber via a co-op. While thinking about this I realised the hardest part of running a network with huge pipe available to every john h. windowsuser, is the end user themselves. A botnet with 10 to 30 megabit upstream per drone is nothing to sneeze at considering the hard time data centers are already having with less than one meg up on most home connections. (at least here in the bible belt one meg up at most is the norm =P) I sincerly hope that Verizon keeps good logs and they as well as anyone rolling out DOCSIS 3 will contact users whos machines are behaving in an abusive fashion or to much of a good thing might well lead to the self destruction of the net. As to the fibre project I have a meeting with the local electrical company the are interested in backing the project. I will let you all know as it progresses.

Yay, so fast (1)

binkzz (779594) | about 9 years ago | (#13014692)

I have 8mbit at the moment, and I'm a fairly heavy user in downloading (legal!) isos and multimedia. Unless I'm having to download many complete DVDs soon, this is more than fast enough. I could do with a quarter of the speed and be happy enough as it is.

I remember the 14K BBS days and downloading 300MB files with a 56K modem. 1Mbit is the minimum I really want to have, although I need less. Truth is, most sites can't keep up with my 8mbit anyway, I usualy download big files at 100/200 kb/s, it's rare that I can download at 500kb/s or faster.

I wouldn't stand in line for anything faster. But I would like something cheaper or have the upload speed go up instead.

With Verizon's mobile phone record (1)

thammoud (193905) | about 9 years ago | (#13014713)

we will be forced to use voogle.com

perhaps: lower prices OR higher speeds (1)

VolciMaster (821873) | about 9 years ago | (#13014731)

I'd like an option to keep my current service, but drop prices by 50% (which is direct line with the dial-up user base still running). Alternatively, for the same cost, bump my access speed up. There's a bunch of the 'mom and pop CNN and email checkers' who also help their kids with homework, play Yahoo! Games, and download music from iTunes. I wouldn't even be using the full bandwidth available to me, and I consider myself a fairly heavy power user. I don't download music over P2P (other than stuff that's in the public domain, or that I already have in some other format), so the speed incentive wouldn't be seen there for me.

But, for families with more than one box hooked up to the otside world through a router, a big speed boost would be great. The kids can play games, do homework, etc, and still not slow down mom and dad.

They need a glossary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014737)

"...from existing boxes 2,000-5,000 feet away (FTTN)."

What the heck is FTTN? Fiber To The... Nerds? Is that like Power To The People??

Faster What? (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 9 years ago | (#13014750)

And I'm sure that P2P users can't barely wait.

Will this actually help? (1)

Kelbear (870538) | about 9 years ago | (#13014785)

If the public has a big increase in bandwidth, that'll afford the content producers to create bigger and bigger forms of content. That's great. However, if these increased pipelines don't result in cheaper costs as well, it's going to be a bummer to have all this massive content, but with me still paying the same cost per gb as before. Video files used to satisfy at 30-50mb per episode. Now I'm seeing 100-300mb episodes, great quality. Lots of growth in DVD-quality files getting passed around, 4gigs-ish. Dual-layer DVDs'll or one of the new HD-DVD formats'll become commonplace in the future(or something bigger). If each gb doesn't get cheaper along with the simultaneous growth in bandwidth and filesize, my wallet is going to be doing all the shrinking in return. Already living in fear of Optimum's Online secret bandwidth caps which they are deathly afraid of disclosing.

What about Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13014790)

These stats are bogus! They aren't taking into account the number of Apple wireless subscribers there will surely be in a few years! /Read it on slashdot, so it has to be true

Hard Drives.. (1)

Polarism (736984) | about 9 years ago | (#13014792)

need more love than internet bandwidth does right now.

You could have a 10 terabit connection, but if your HD writes are 8-12mb/s it's kinda pointless.

No Way... (1)

dan_sdot (721837) | about 9 years ago | (#13014813)


Come on, nobody's ever going to need more than 64 K/second of bandwidth.

Already next gen! (1)

whitelabrat (469237) | about 9 years ago | (#13014820)

I just bumped up to Verizon fibre to the home (FIOS) yesterday. Smokes my cable modem and it's cheaper! I don't have to rent or buy my own modem... and it shouldn't be affected by things like lighting or nuclear bomb radiation.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>