Comcast to deliver 160mgbits per second?

[Jhill]

Here.

It will allow him to download a high-definition copy of "Batman Begins" in four minutes.

 

[Engraver]

Originally posted by: Jhill
Here.

It will allow him to download a high-definition copy of "Batman Begins" in four minutes.

But your BT connection will be throttled to 30kb/s, so make 4 minutes 4 days.

 

[Pabster]

Comcast to deliver 160Mbit ... to a white room test lab :laugh:

DOCSIS 3.0 is promising but a long way out.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: Jhill
Here.

It will allow him to download a high-definition copy of "Batman Begins" in four minutes.

guess you missed this part ...

Moreover, Roberts said the cable system is a "secure, licensed world" that should reassure movie studios that their content won't be easily pilfered.

(in response to your MPAA comment)

 

[AmpedSilence]

now, if they could only fix there terrible CS

 

[Maleficus]

what's a mgbit?

 

[TheTony]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: Jhill
Here.

It will allow him to download a high-definition copy of "Batman Begins" in four minutes.

guess you missed this part ...

Moreover, Roberts said the cable system is a "secure, licensed world" that should reassure movie studios that their content won't be easily pilfered.

(in response to your MPAA comment)

But Roberts' "secure, licensed world" comment was in reference to the "superservers" they plan on implementing to increase their capacity for on-demand programming.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Maleficus
what's a mgbit?

http://www.mgbit.net/

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Fingolfin269]

If they can find a way to do this consistently, efficiently, and affordably, then hopefully this opens up another option for HD content delivery. Sure you can look at it from a piracy perspective intstead of the positive usage but couldn't you do that with anything?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Comcast to deliver 160Mbit ... to a white room test lab :laugh:

DOCSIS 3.0 is promising but a long way out.

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.

 

[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.

 

[thomsbrain]

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.

I live in Silicon Valley, in the city where the very first broadband cable internet service was beta tested in the United States over a decade ago. Here we are in 2008, and the highest speed I can get is... Comcast's normal cable package. Because Comcast throttles their connections both up and down, whereas the original cable companies did not, that actually represents a DECREASE in speed availability over a DECADE of time in the nation's technology capital.

Our area newspapers have run articles wondering if Silicon Valley's economy will eventually be destroyed by the lack of real broadband availability. What is for now an annoyance may soon become an economic crisis as technology companies are forced to move even more operations overseas simply because our country lacks the infrastructure to support them.

 

[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.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

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.

I live in Silicon Valley, in the city where the very first broadband cable internet service was beta tested in the United States over a decade ago. Here we are in 2008, and the highest speed I can get is... Comcast's normal cable package. Because Comcast throttles their connections both up and down, whereas the original cable companies did not, that actually represents a DECREASE in speed availability over a DECADE of time in the nation's technology capital.

Our area newspapers have run articles wondering if Silicon Valley's economy will eventually be destroyed by the lack of real broadband availability. What is for now an annoyance may soon become an economic crisis as technology companies are forced to move even more operations overseas simply because our country lacks the infrastructure to support them.

You're full of crap as well. There are plenty of baseband fiber services that can provide you 10 or 40 Gig+.

 

[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.

 

[Xavier434]

Regardless of how fast Comcast gets, their quality assurance and CS needs some major improvements. Unfortunately I must remain with them until FIOS spreads it's wings in south Florida.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

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.

You're still not getting it. Higher pop density = less active network gear per subscriber = less capital and operational equipment costs = dramatically lower costs per subscriber.

Not to mention the gubment gladly pays for everything.

 

[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.

 

[Modelworks]

They will do what cable companies always do.
Give you 160Mbit to the home.

Only problem is they will feed the entire street with a 10Mbit line

 

[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