Comcast to deliver 160mgbits per second?

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
It's really sad in the US our internet speeds are quite awful even to 2nd and third world counteries. My wife is in china right now and she is paying equvalent to 7 bucks a month for about 25 down wireless and that's low end. The UK have plans for like 50 to 60 down.

Aren't those areas a lot more densely populated though? I suppose it's easier to deploy the equipment for high-speed internet when you don't have to run the wires nearly as far.

BS

It's mainly because those counteries deployed their telecommuncations systems massivley during the time of fiber optics. A lot of counteries had poor quality telecommunication systems that were copper based and were quite small. As a result when they created a new system they used fiber. Hence the pretty fast speeds. China has a population 6 fold that of US, probably even more. If it had to do with the population density it should be the other way around.

You're kidding, right? Tell me you're joking.

Fiber is great, but the farther you go the more amps and expensive gear needed. So for any given run the longer it is the more it costs. It has EVERYTHING to do with pop density.

A country like China has the ability to produce these types of media pretty cheap. On top of that they don't have to go though all of the "net neutrality" bull shit like we went though. Either way they are faster and faster for a reason. We as a country suck on broadband speed.

Do you have proof that, per capita, the chinese have better access to broadband?

You want numbers and stats to make you happy.

My wife is sitting in China right now with 7.00 a month 25 down wireless. I was just talking to a freind from the UK who's getting 50 down. THESE ARE COMMON SPEEDS IN THOSE COUNTERIES. With a country like china that has a pop 6 fold of US. I would expect slower.

Those are anecdotes, not proof. Get proof from a verifiable source.

Other countries may have spot internet speeds higher, mainly in the big cities. It's very easy to deploy them in those areas, but they have very low penetration outside certain distances.

You are forgetting that the US is a massive country with a very low population density outside the major cities. China is even worse.


Give me PER CAPITA DATA or just be quiet with your silly assertions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3699820.stm

That's not helping your case:

Although China has more DSL lines than any other country it is still only reached 1% of its massive population.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3699820.stm

That's not helping your case:

Although China has more DSL lines than any other country it is still only reached 1% of its massive population.

Not only that...from the very article he linked...

""People tend to live in large blocks of flats, so it is relatively easy to put DSL provision in basements.

"Where you have very dense populations in blocks, it is relatively cheap to provide," he explained. "

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3699820.stm

Nice job at you just owning yourself.

High-rise advantage


Locally-developed content, building on the skills of a computer-literate population, is seen as vital to growth.

Installing the DSL infrastructure and equipment required has proved to be economic in China because of the size of its population, as well as the geography of the state and how housing is organised.


Broadband net access is seen as a vital building block
In many areas, phone lines are being installed from scratch, so it is easier to make them DSL enabled from the start, said Mr Greggains.

"People tend to live in large blocks of flats, so it is relatively easy to put DSL provision in basements.

"Where you have very dense populations in blocks, it is relatively cheap to provide," he explained.

Industry analyst David Greggains said it was "amazing growth," but was still only 6% of China's total phone lines.

Although China has more DSL lines than any other country it is still only reached 1% of its massive population.

But because metropolitan areas in China tend to be densely populated, even faster technology can provide broadband 40 times faster.

Thanks for proving my point!

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: steppinthrax


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3699820.stm

Nice job at you just owning yourself.

High-rise advantage


Locally-developed content, building on the skills of a computer-literate population, is seen as vital to growth.

Installing the DSL infrastructure and equipment required has proved to be economic in China because of the size of its population, as well as the geography of the state and how housing is organised.


Broadband net access is seen as a vital building block
In many areas, phone lines are being installed from scratch, so it is easier to make them DSL enabled from the start, said Mr Greggains.

"People tend to live in large blocks of flats, so it is relatively easy to put DSL provision in basements.

"Where you have very dense populations in blocks, it is relatively cheap to provide," he explained.

Industry analyst David Greggains said it was "amazing growth," but was still only 6% of China's total phone lines.

Although China has more DSL lines than any other country it is still only reached 1% of its massive population.

But because metropolitan areas in China tend to be densely populated, even faster technology can provide broadband 40 times faster.

Thanks for proving my point!

It's already a new year. This gets ownage of the year nomination.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: Maleficus
what's a mgbit?

That's a megagigabit, also knowns as a petabit.

 

[esun]

http://www.oecd.org/document/5...690102_1_1_1_1,00.html

In particular,

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/60/39574903.xls

Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, and Canada all have greater broadband penetration despite having lower population densities than the US.

In fact, those spreadsheets are even nice enough to give correlation coefficients for the data. For broadband penetration vs. population density, the correlation is 0.24, and for broadband penetration vs. total landmass, the correlation is 0.07. That means that arguing that either of those factors is a significant reason why the US is behind in broadband technology is extremely naive.

 

[Demo24]

I've heard that a few companies in the UK have been public testing 1gb connections. Don't ever hear about that in the US. Simple fact, most companies here simply do not want to push the boundaries on what they could offer their customers.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: spidey07
LOL, most of the MSOs are already testing it and making deals with the chip makers.

It's very close.

On demand HD video, 100+ Mbs internet, all integrated on a single network.

I hope you're right. Out here in the sticks, we'll see it sometime in...2020? :laugh:

I'm more interested in the increased upstream capability. 20Mbit down is sufficient for me.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: steppinthrax


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3699820.stm

Nice job at you just owning yourself.

High-rise advantage


Locally-developed content, building on the skills of a computer-literate population, is seen as vital to growth.

Installing the DSL infrastructure and equipment required has proved to be economic in China because of the size of its population, as well as the geography of the state and how housing is organised.


Broadband net access is seen as a vital building block
In many areas, phone lines are being installed from scratch, so it is easier to make them DSL enabled from the start, said Mr Greggains.

"People tend to live in large blocks of flats, so it is relatively easy to put DSL provision in basements.

"Where you have very dense populations in blocks, it is relatively cheap to provide," he explained.

Industry analyst David Greggains said it was "amazing growth," but was still only 6% of China's total phone lines.

Although China has more DSL lines than any other country it is still only reached 1% of its massive population.

But because metropolitan areas in China tend to be densely populated, even faster technology can provide broadband 40 times faster.

Thanks for proving my point!

It's already a new year. This gets ownage of the year nomination.

Has the 2007 Ownage of the Year thread even been started yet?😀

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: DEMO24
I've heard that a few companies in the UK have been public testing 1gb connections. Don't ever hear about that in the US. Simple fact, most companies here simply do not want to push the boundaries on what they could offer their customers.

I believe both FiOS and ATT Uverse have been testing out 1000mb/s connections here.

 

[maxster]

Originally posted by: esun
http://www.oecd.org/document/5...690102_1_1_1_1,00.html

In particular,

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/60/39574903.xls

Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, and Canada all have greater broadband penetration despite having lower population densities than the US.

In fact, those spreadsheets are even nice enough to give correlation coefficients for the data. For broadband penetration vs. population density, the correlation is 0.24, and for broadband penetration vs. total landmass, the correlation is 0.07. That means that arguing that either of those factors is a significant reason why the US is behind in broadband technology is extremely naive.

WINNER :thumbsup:

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: maxster

Originally posted by: esun
http://www.oecd.org/document/5...690102_1_1_1_1,00.html

In particular,

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/60/39574903.xls

Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, and Canada all have greater broadband penetration despite having lower population densities than the US.

In fact, those spreadsheets are even nice enough to give correlation coefficients for the data. For broadband penetration vs. population density, the correlation is 0.24, and for broadband penetration vs. total landmass, the correlation is 0.07. That means that arguing that either of those factors is a significant reason why the US is behind in broadband technology is extremely naive.

WINNER :thumbsup:

Dismissing population density would also be extremely naive. It's just one aspect of it. Another part of it that I have read is that the US was amongst the first to lay their groundworks for broadband internet. As the technology evolved, other countries started laying their infrastructure with much more advanced equipment and therefore don't have to put in nearly as much work to get people up to higher speeds.

You also have x-factors. Like didn't the Canadian government mandate that broadband be available to the entire population, regardless of location?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: esun
http://www.oecd.org/document/5...690102_1_1_1_1,00.html

In particular,

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/60/39574903.xls

Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, and Canada all have greater broadband penetration despite having lower population densities than the US.

In fact, those spreadsheets are even nice enough to give correlation coefficients for the data. For broadband penetration vs. population density, the correlation is 0.24, and for broadband penetration vs. total landmass, the correlation is 0.07. That means that arguing that either of those factors is a significant reason why the US is behind in broadband technology is extremely naive.

Nobody ever said they were *the* determinant factors. Still, a correlation coefficient of .31 is pretty high for those two items.

There's no doubt there are other factors, such as age of infrastructure, competition (or lack thereof), cost of deployment inside of certain MSAs. Regulatory issues.

For example, one of the biggest things preventing FIOS from being deployed in many areas is the fact that Verizon cannot get the franchise to deploy TV. I will be getting FIOS in my building in manhattan within the next two months, but I won't be able to get TV, it will be DirectTV since TWC has a lock on the area.

However, the dude above is trying to say that they aren't really factors at all, which is false.

 

[frostedflakes]

Also according to a lot of the stuff I've read UK has pretty bad broadband. Just because your friend has 50Mbit doesn't mean it's the norm. You can get 50Mbit in the US in high competition areas (Tri-State region, for example), but that doesn't mean that all of the US has that speed available.

As far as DOCSIS 3.0, I wouldn't get too hyped up about 160Mbps, it isn't going to happen anytime soon. Don't forget that the current DOCSIS 2.0 standard theoretically tops out at around 40Mbps, yet <10Mbps is the norm in probably 90% of the US. As mentioned earlier 160Mbps is probably only possible under the most ideal conditions and is not at all duplicable in the real world.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: steppinthrax


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3699820.stm

Nice job at you just owning yourself.

High-rise advantage


Locally-developed content, building on the skills of a computer-literate population, is seen as vital to growth.

Installing the DSL infrastructure and equipment required has proved to be economic in China because of the size of its population, as well as the geography of the state and how housing is organised.


Broadband net access is seen as a vital building block
In many areas, phone lines are being installed from scratch, so it is easier to make them DSL enabled from the start, said Mr Greggains.

"People tend to live in large blocks of flats, so it is relatively easy to put DSL provision in basements.

"Where you have very dense populations in blocks, it is relatively cheap to provide," he explained.

Industry analyst David Greggains said it was "amazing growth," but was still only 6% of China's total phone lines.

Although China has more DSL lines than any other country it is still only reached 1% of its massive population.

But because metropolitan areas in China tend to be densely populated, even faster technology can provide broadband 40 times faster.

Thanks for proving my point!

That article is over 3 years old. In technology terms, thats forever. There's no guarantee that any figures given in the article are even remotely true any more.

 

[esun]

Still, a correlation coefficient of .31 is pretty high for those two items.

You can't add correlation like that. And 0.27 is not "pretty high" or even close to high (which would be 0.7+). It's definitely low, and 0.07 is essentially non-existent correlation.

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
It's really sad in the US our internet speeds are quite awful even to 2nd and third world counteries. My wife is in china right now and she is paying equvalent to 7 bucks a month for about 25 down wireless and that's low end. The UK have plans for like 50 to 60 down.

Aren't those areas a lot more densely populated though? I suppose it's easier to deploy the equipment for high-speed internet when you don't have to run the wires nearly as far.

Winnar. Unfortunately, even in the densely populated in the US where fiber is deployed, we still lag behind other countries speed wise.

its funny...because in MA, all the less populated communities get FIOS. Why on earth would Chelmsford have it, but not Boston?

 

[frostedflakes]

Uh, I'm pretty sure Boston has FiOS, or at least parts of it do.

 

[mugs]

When a customer wants to watch a show that's not stored in the regional server, the computer will dial into the national server to access the content and bring it to the home, Roberts said.

Dial in... hah.

Originally posted by: Gibson486
its funny...because in MA, all the less populated communities get FIOS. Why on earth would Chelmsford have it, but not Boston?

There could be other factors that affect the cost of laying fiber in a city. We're getting fiber all over NJ, but not in my town. Damn you Embarq. 🙁



You know, 160 Mbps is great and all as long as Comcast doesn't bitch and moan when you actually try to use it. :Q

As it is I get about 15 MBps sustained from Comcast with bursts of 20 Mbps, and I'm quite happy with it. My cable company was Patriot Media up until a few months ago though, so I don't know how long it'll take me to really get the Comcast experience.

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: maxster

Originally posted by: esun
http://www.oecd.org/document/5...690102_1_1_1_1,00.html

In particular,

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/60/39574903.xls

Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, and Canada all have greater broadband penetration despite having lower population densities than the US.

In fact, those spreadsheets are even nice enough to give correlation coefficients for the data. For broadband penetration vs. population density, the correlation is 0.24, and for broadband penetration vs. total landmass, the correlation is 0.07. That means that arguing that either of those factors is a significant reason why the US is behind in broadband technology is extremely naive.

WINNER :thumbsup:

Dismissing population density would also be extremely naive. It's just one aspect of it. Another part of it that I have read is that the US was amongst the first to lay their groundworks for broadband internet. As the technology evolved, other countries started laying their infrastructure with much more advanced equipment and therefore don't have to put in nearly as much work to get people up to higher speeds.

You also have x-factors. Like didn't the Canadian government mandate that broadband be available to the entire population, regardless of location?

Such a program was the only way it'd be possible to bring broadband to a large amount of the population. 🙂

You guys talk about the US having low population density, we've got you beat 😉

 

[torpid]

4 minutes means the film is 4.8 gig, assuming maximum bandwidth at all times. No way... that film is probably closer to 15 gig.

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Uh, I'm pretty sure Boston has FiOS, or at least parts of it do.

nope...none do. If you go 20 minutes west to Natick, yeah, they are advertising like crazy.

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

That's great! Except they couldn't even keep anywhere near a reasonable stable/high uptime connection. Not to mention being abysmal in customer service and everything else.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: mugs

When a customer wants to watch a show that's not stored in the regional server, the computer will dial into the national server to access the content and bring it to the home, Roberts said.

Dial in... hah.

Originally posted by: Gibson486
its funny...because in MA, all the less populated communities get FIOS. Why on earth would Chelmsford have it, but not Boston?

There could be other factors that affect the cost of laying fiber in a city. We're getting fiber all over NJ, but not in my town. Damn you Embarq. 🙁



You know, 160 Mbps is great and all as long as Comcast doesn't bitch and moan when you actually try to use it. :Q

As it is I get about 15 MBps sustained from Comcast with bursts of 20 Mbps, and I'm quite happy with it. My cable company was Patriot Media up until a few months ago though, so I don't know how long it'll take me to really get the Comcast experience.

wow you get 15-20 Mbps from Comcast? Im only 20 mins south of you (Plainsboro) and I'd be lucky to get 3 Mbps. Although comcast did increase my upload speed recently. Before, I could only upload at 45kbps max. Now I max out at 116, averaging around 90 kbps

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: esun

Still, a correlation coefficient of .31 is pretty high for those two items.

You can't add correlation like that. And 0.27 is not "pretty high" or even close to high (which would be 0.7+). It's definitely low, and 0.07 is essentially non-existent correlation.

Sorry, forgot about that.

While a .27 may be considered "weak", it's not uncorrelated. The .07 maybe "essentially" non existent, but it is not 0.

It's also relative to other variables considered. Are there other variables that are stronger in their correlation with deployment, or is there no other variables that correlate at all?

There are a lot of variables to consider and single outliers can change the coefficient dramatically.

However, other factors do exist. For example, the massive subsidization of the deployment. since most deployment in the US is left to private companies, who have shareholders (verizon's aren't happy with the massive capital costs of FIOS), that's a huge factor. Considering that China's companies are largely state controlled, the state subsidizes the deployment, or pays for it outright. Other countries make it law that you ahve to have access to the internet.

Verticle population density, along with the age of the buildings make a huge difference. My building, which is a 1-year old highrise, will get FIOS within the next few months, they are already stringing the conduits. However, since most buildings are older brick and didn't lay out out the dead spaces for these deployments, it's much more difficult. If most of the buildings in China, in more dense areas that are wealthy, are new highrises, there will be a huge difference.

People sit around blaming US companies and such, but in reality, it's a big problem in general and not one that can be pinned on one individual factor, or even a handful of factors.