Gigabit so near yet so far. Just 35 dollars a month.

[mnewsham]

I'd say that's probably one of the main reasons to have Gigabit. Even with Netflix's less then perfect HD, I use about 100GB of bandwidth a month with Netflix. If they doubled the quality (which I'm sure 25Mbit down would support), I'd be hitting bandwidth caps with Time Warner.

With .265 being standardised soon it should be possible to do 4k at around 20mb/s at least if I remember my math right.

 

[Engineer]

I'd say that's probably one of the main reasons to have Gigabit. Even with Netflix's less then perfect HD, I use about 100GB of bandwidth a month with Netflix. If they doubled the quality (which I'm sure 25Mbit down would support), I'd be hitting bandwidth caps with Time Warner.

TW has bandwidth caps? Oh shit...they are taking over in my area. I won't make it to the cap limit most likely but I hate caps, damnit! I may switch to Windstream just for that reason.

 

[Leros]

[/B]

TW has bandwidth caps? Oh shit...they are taking over in my area. I won't make it to the cap limit most likely but I hate caps, damnit! I may switch to Windstream just for that reason.

I'm not sure if its official, but you don't want to go over 250GB/mo.

Edit: Looked around and it seems like TWC may be cap-free. Not sure where I got the idea about 250GB from. Maybe I'm thinking of Comcast.

 

[Engineer]

I'm not sure if its official, but you don't want to go over 250GB/mo.

Edit: Looked around and it seems like TWC may be cap-free. Not sure where I got the idea about 250GB from. Maybe I'm thinking of Comcast.

I know there was talk about it (from searches) but it never happened. Also, looks like the CEO that was thinking about it is now gone (or going). Don't know what's next or what to expect. Hate changing all of my e-mail addresses though. Will go with Gmail or yahoo or Outlook.com addresses from here on out (unless someone has a good free e-mail that's been around and gets POP access).

 

[indy2878]

NM....

 

[Anonemous]

Fiber and DSL services are only available in select areas.
All access accounts come with a 500GB monthly maximum allotted transfer. Additional usage billed in increments of 1GB.

500GB cap, I guess that's better than nothing...

 

[randomrogue]

1000Mbps? Wouldn't that be the world's fastest?

 

[zanejohnson]

i would use the clowd alot more if i had better than 10/2

 

[mnewsham]

1000Mbps? Wouldn't that be the world's fastest?

No, 10Gb/s fibre cards can be bought for servers, but most networks are limited to gigabit speeds because that's what most routers and switches can handle without getting into the fancy shit. But you can get faster if you care to pay the price.

 

[Zargon]

I'm not sure if its official, but you don't want to go over 250GB/mo.

Edit: Looked around and it seems like TWC may be cap-free. Not sure where I got the idea about 250GB from. Maybe I'm thinking of Comcast.

comcast is 300 as of fall of 2012, they didnt bother to tell anyone they raised caps though

1000Mbps? Wouldn't that be the world's fastest?

LOL

No, 10Gb/s fibre cards can be bought for servers, but most networks are limited to gigabit speeds because that's what most routers and switches can handle without getting into the fancy shit. But you can get faster if you care to pay the price.

LOL


I have servers with banks of 40gb cards

and where I work has a few 40gb waves, and a 100gb wave offsite

 

[bunnyfubbles]

What would you need that for? Serious question. Most websites seem limited between 1Mbps and 2Mbps. Cheap 25Mbps seems like overkill already.

gigabit fiber vs 30-50Mbps cable (max currently available to me) is no more overkill than when we had 1.5Mbps cable vs. 56K dialup

at any rate, gigabit is mostly just a marketing term, the real strength of the product is fiber to the home network to replace the archaic copper and cable the phone and cable companies are clinging to and holding us back with

 

[Red Squirrel]

cLOL


I have servers with banks of 40gb cards

and where I work has a few 40gb waves, and a 100gb wave offsite

And that would fall under the "fancy shit." category. Most people at home have gigabit and not 10g or higher. 10g is not exactly what I'd call affordable even for enthusiasts like me that have servers at home. Eventually the prices will come down though. I'm sure gigabit was crazy expensive too when it first came out.

 

[Zargon]

yup!

I work at a major research university. I was just pointing out that gigabit isnt even close to 'fastest'

Im stuck on 30/4 at home, because my wife thinks 80 is too much to pay so I cant jump to 50/10

 

[mnewsham]

LOL


I have servers with banks of 40gb cards

and where I work has a few 40gb waves, and a 100gb wave offsite

Your point? I was just saying 10Gb cards are not THAT high end and they are easily out there, I even said you can get faster if you get better shit but no one but large servers are doing that. As I said...

 

[Zargon]

Your point? I was just saying 10Gb cards are not THAT high end and they are easily out there, I even said you can get faster if you get better shit but no one but large servers are doing that. As I said...

sorry.....pre-coffee, sorta ignored the end of the post

 

[Sahakiel]

I realize they are streaming. As are the on-demand features of FiOS. If Netflix streaming looked as good as my FiOS subscription I would consider it.

That was the point. You are being guided to use Verizon's services and you don't even see it.

Netflix and similar services are all forced to drop their quality and bandwidth requirements because of ISP's. You're choosing FiOS and not Netflix because Verizon specifically restricts streaming traffic on their network. They either cut you off if you watch more than ~10 hours/month worth of video, make sure you can't watch said video in realtime, or offer the option but make you pay in the hundred dollar range. If you didn't have streaming limits, you would not be able to see a difference between your Netflix stream and your FiOS stream.

If the US landscape had no ISP with any video offerings, we'd have more bandwidth at cheaper prices than we do now. The main reason the FCC's duopoly policy failed is because the FCC ignored the technical limitations of DSL. It was invented as an interim solution, not long term, to use until modern infrastructure could replace it. As such, there is no way it would scale for very long.

When DSL was still competitive with ISDN, T1 and early DOCSIS 1.0, there was a lot of options and relatively low prices across the board. Recall how that competition disappeared when the technology couldn't scale to compete with higher bandwidth cable and how cable stopped scaling after all those little DSL companies disappeared.

 

[indy2878]

1000Mbps? Wouldn't that be the world's fastest?

2000Mbps actually in Tokyo not surprisingly...
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Fibre-Internet-Nuro-Fiber,22118.html

 

[CraigRT]

Zero need. I am totally happy with my 18 meg cable.
I guess part of the reason is that nothing is throttled, not any type of download, nor any time of day. That type of thing makes people want to upgrade for sure.

 

[AMDZen]

brb, moving to Vermont!

Me too, wanna be roommates? ;P

 

[BoberFett]

So, they've moved the bottleneck from the last mile to their network. It will be funny to see the complaints from customers about how they're only getting 10Mbps on their 1Gbps connection.

 

[BoberFett]

When people in a technology forum argue that we don't need gigabit I wonder what has become of us. Imagine saying in 1998 that we didn't need faster processors. Or better video cards. We wouldn't have HD capable computers. Or saying that 10Mb network cards were fast enough because you could fill up a 2 Gb drive in no time. We would not have terabyte hard drives with movies, television, pictures and music.

It's just sad. Clearly there must be forces at work that could get technologically savvy people to argue for no technological advancement. Pardon me while I weep for my country.

Or maybe it's a misallocation of resources when there are better things that this country could be investing in. I'm all for high speed, but there is a point of diminishing returns.

 

[BoberFett]

Your point? I was just saying 10Gb cards are not THAT high end and they are easily out there, I even said you can get faster if you get better shit but no one but large servers are doing that. As I said...

I just built out a new datacenter for my company last fall, and I couldn't justify 10Gb. It's all cabled with CAT6a, but there was basically zero ROI on the switching infrastructure. Other than backups, network traffic just isn't a bottleneck.

 

[Engineer]

1000Mbps? Wouldn't that be the world's fastest?

Japan has 2GB residential service for $51 per month.

Edit: Already beaten to the punch.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Ugh.

I hate 1.5Mbps ADSL.

 

[zCypher]

Bell? There's Fibre and there's "Fibre". I have the latter. All they've done is replace the copper trunk lines with fibre optics. The local loop lines to the houses are still copper and use the ADSL standard. Only new builds are getting true fibre access in the GTA. At least for now. I doubt Timmins will be getting special treatment.

I don't see big telecom installing true gigabit anytime soon, or at least charging anything reasonable for it. Certainly not while net neutrality remains a reality (as it should). They don't want to make their conventional telephone and television services obsolete.

Bell offers Fibe (copper) up to 25/10 I believe, and they also offer a true fiber to the home at 50mbps. It is not given away though, and not available for the vast majority of their client base. It is exactly the same for TELUS out west.

I wish Google would open up shop in Canuckistan with fiber. Would put some pressure on the telcos here.