One big problem is many telephone and cable companies are just ripping people off. A government network couldnt do much worse.
I demonstrated it at actually better than 56K using real world conditions but not on the real world network, I had my own Lucent 5ESS switch and cable runs. The reason it was restricted to 53K was an old power level by the FCC for when switching equipment was relay based (Crosstalk, impedance issues etc).
I ran the even based protocol (not 3Coms odd based one) so was the 48K for home testing. Later the two were integrated.
Existing Technology can be used for channel bonding, no need for white papers. In fact there was some usage of 2 56K channels for a while but the Telcos quickly let it go in favor of massive profits from DSL.
Can still make money with the older Technology but not the massive amounts like from the new.
Again all Political and Greed, nothing to do with Technology.
The 2 channel 56k you are descirbing, was that 'shotgunning modems' that appeared about 6 years ago? I'm guessing this is the tech of which you speak. For it to work it required 2 dedicated phone lines, and assumed that you get reach the max thruput on each line. It requred the customer to use(pay for) two phone lines.
number time:
2 * 56k = 112k
How much does a 2nd phoneline cost? it varies, but i'm going to peg it at 20 bucks.
20(for phoneline + 20(standard dial up) = 40
40 bucks a month for 112k internet, and that is assuming that you get the maxium amount out of a 56k modem.
how much does DSL cost? I don't have DSL avilable to me, i'm guess on pricing - 50 bucks a month(is that resonable?) How much bandwidth do you get for that? i''ll be conservative and use 384k up and down.
50 bucks for 384k
plus you don't tie up your phone line.
So yeah companies could make money off the old tech, but any customer could see where the better deal is. I was one of the people you had a modem that could do dual channel, but signed up for DSL as soon as it was available (i have since moved). Why maintain a service that is inferior in both quality and cost compared to other offerings?
You need to take into acocunt that a lot of rural places do not have updated phone equipment to handle HS internet, let alone providing 53k capiable lines. Where is the cost of upgrading going to come from? the customers.
And you still fail to address the contradiction that has been repeatedly asked.
I am pleased there is a sign of "intelligent" discussion on the issue.
I'm not sure what Contradiction you are refering to.
Nice Ad Hominem of trying to slam the older Technology in favor of the DSL.
Fact of the matter:
Telco's now charging $30 month for a incredibly crippled and should be CRIMINAL 256K DSL connection.
256K when the Modem can do 8 meg down.
I'm sorry, the Telcos got away with holding the Modems back to 1.5 meg for years and now to go backwards even further for the almighty buck you cannot justify it, just not possible.
On your EXCUSE of Telcos still running Old Old Old equipment that cannot even run 56K, how do you justify that??? With all of the Profits they have been making on this OLD POS equipment???
This is the reason I have been saying America gets what it deserves, it has fallen down into the 20's as far as HS Internet deployment and falling more everyday, we suck and we love to suck. How quaint.
It has everything to do with it. We aren't a small country. Laying fiber, for instance, isn't exactly cheap.
Ok, so you say the government should subsidize cable/phone companies. Now, go look in the Constitution, and tell me where it says the Federal Government has the authority to do that. Go on, look, I have all the time in the world to wait while you search.
Yes, I know they subsidize other industries, but did I say it was right?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
How much "profit" do you think there would be coming from a sparsely populated area? Exactly - very little IF any.
Line maintenance isn't FREE. Lets say a person lives 5 miles from their nearest neighbor. That means for sure that this one person has at least 5 miles of copper running out to them. One person paying for the initial investment costs, maintenance, and overhead doesn't amount to a whole lot of "profit" now does it.
Sheesh
CsG
What lame excuse, I expect no less from the FLL's.
There is no difference in Maintenance cost of a 56K enabled line Vs a non one, in fact the cost is LESS!
Unbelievable.
Listen to yourselves. Why limit the copper line to voice only in this day and age???
Interestingly I bet if the Government did not mandate that Telephone is an "Essential" resource such as Water and electric there would be no Telephone for these folks either.
Would you be OK with these people not having a Telephone too in 2004 in the U.S.???
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What lame excuse, I expect no less from the FLL's.
There is no difference in Maintenance cost of a 56K enabled line Vs a non one, in fact the cost is LESS!
Unbelievable.
Listen to yourselves. Why limit the copper line to voice only in this day and age???
Interestingly I bet if the Government did not mandate that Telephone is an "Essential" resource such as Water and electric there would be no Telephone for these folks either.
Would you be OK with these people not having a Telephone too in 2004 in the U.S.???
So who should pay for the 5 miles of copper? Who should pay for the equipment to be placed close enough? Who is going to pay for these change-overs and upgrades? You think it is free? Hell no it isn't free. The existing system would have to be upgraded to allow for dsl service. That is not profitable for these companies - otherwise it would have been done already.
Sheesh - get a grip dave. We all know you hate the telcos - and guess what - I do too, but I'll defend them against people like you who think they should have to do things that don't make them profit. They are a business - and as such - exist to make money.
CsG
All not true including I don't "Hate" the Telcos.
That's my point, the existing "system" as you called does not have to be "upgraded" for DSL service or even for client side 56K channelization. If fact it actually gets downgraded by taking unneccessary crap out of the sysem no longer needed from the days of Relay based switching.
I have a "Grip", it the FLL Brainwashee's enamored by Greed that don't.
OKay i'll lay it out again.
You started a thread ranting about telco's not providing rural access, when thte starband sat went down. This thread has slowly slipped away. In that thread a challenge was made to you on how to provide rural internet access here is your answer:
fast forward to this thread:
so are you slamming CADsortaGUY's home town for providing cheap internet access? Maybe a little more explanation of what you mean by "Hypocracy."
this doesn't make sense - look down a little further in your post you talk about using "old technologies" as a cheaper alternative. I was talking about a an older technology that fit your description. If you noticed i asked for clarification if it wasn't the same thing.
Bandwidth is a commodity, not an endless resource. Why are you surprised that there are limits on how much customer gets? If i saw a breakdown on how mcuh PhoneX Broadband Division brings in compared to its cost of operation i could comment on the 'greed' factor.
Usually maitaining what they got, and upgrading, and paying shareholders. And last time I checked phone lines where orginally desigend for voice - and legally speaking telcos only need to maintain quality of the lines so modems can connect no lower then 9600. ( to accomdate faxes).
a lot of times it isn't cost-effective to upgrade equipment. That is understandable especially in rural areas were it is considerably more expensive per customer for upgrades. It would neglgent if the telco's would not keep up equipment, but what you're talking about is providing new services. Services that would not pay for themselves and be a money losing venture.
Falling even more?
are there more people with broadband today, then there was last year, or the year before, five years ago?
You can say that other countries have reached a higher density of HS internet access pentration per captia (i would like to see some numbers thought). U.S. has taken a back seat cellphone, roll out and development compared to a lot of countires - the same reason as HS internet: low population density, large land mass.
How do you define greed? Is it making money? saving money? Getting a better deal? I wish i could pay 30 bucks for 256k, any bandwidth caps on that? Currently i pay 69 a month for 128 up 512 down and 8 gig a month for total transfers. I understand that the company had to invest a lot of capital to provide the service, for a realitve small amount of customers. And over the last year service has expanded and had more value.
Quite frankly - if you don't like your service - go some where else. Cable modems are an option in a lot of places. Sat broad band is available too as a bonus you get to aviod the entire telco system then. Or skip dsl, and get ISDN -an older tech still works- or even spring for a TI.
and why do you keep interjecting "FLL" into argumens? What does it stand for "Far Left Liberal"?
Interesting post to say the least. Amazing what people will settle for in the U.S. now.
FLL is Fearless Liar Lemmings, I use it istead of the now Politically off limits "N" word (Neocons).
Plus it is even more appropriate.
What service is that you have? DSL or cable and with a Cap like that???
Very odd how you promote going to find a better service and mention Cable instead of DSL. Thank you for another point, we should have choice but thanks to the Govt in bed with the Greedy Monolithic Monopolies of both Telco & Cable that they have managed to fend off competition except for the most dense Markets so each will conveniently be happy with a large share of the perverbial pie. Sick.
There may be more people on Broadband in the U.S. but no where near the amounts (per capita) compared to the other Countries above us in deployment. I've had the links up many times on here, I'll dig them up when I can.
PS - I am on Cable service now. Could also get DSL here as well.
In addition to calling NeoCon's 'sheep', Dave likes to say "FLL" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Nearly every single one of his posts has "FLL".
FLL means, "Fearless Liar's Lemmings" or some bullshit. Go on Dave, keep bleating random bullshit catchphrases like the 'sheep' you despise oh so much.
BAAAAAAAAAAaaaAaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh
Edit: So let me get this straight... people with dissenting opinion from your own are automatically either 'sheep' or 'morons'?
Amazing - i take the time to address your post, and all you can do is mutter the same stuff- at least you took the time to address one point, I now know what a "FLL." To bad name calling isn't relevent to the issue at hand.
And once again, even after you asked for clarifcation, you wont answer a direct challenge. This behavoir just shows you are less interested in disucssing issues, and more interestted in spouting retoric and name calling.
Watch me do something you seem to completely in capable of doing:
"I'm on cable"
Look and be amazed, its called an "answer" to a "question," its a format used in "discussions."
try it some time.
2-16-2005 Mergers Raise Concerns Over Internet Access
In the Internet world, local or regional networks allow businesses, institutions and consumers to get to the main Internet pipes. These networks often are owned by the local phone companies, which charge for access to the backbone.
The fees charged for those connections are rising and have been the subject of "a running gunfight for years," said Brian R. Moir, president of the E-Commerce & Telecommunications Users Group, which represents large industries and institutions such as universities that send and receive huge volumes of Internet traffic.
At the moment, there is so much backbone capacity that prices are falling. And there are several other backbone providers.
But if the mergers are approved, "Verizon and SBC are well-positioned to dominate and make it more difficult for other backbone providers to offer packages of services," said Gene Kimmelman, head of the Washington office of Consumers Union.
Michael E. Glover, a Verizon attorney, responded that the acquisition of MCI would allow his firm to compete for global business with AT&T for the first time.
He also disputed Moir's assertions that network connection costs are going up.
==================================================
So the fact that Internet cost have been rising is all of our figment of imagination :roll:
i work for a CLEC that serves the small and medium business market. Verizon and SBC are after the Fortune 500 and higher market. They don't want the mom and pop stores as customers.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter