Originally posted by: Greenman
This being the USA, you're welcome to go out and get several billion dollars in venture capital, and start your very own cable company. Offer 500mbps for $9.95 a month and get rich, or not.
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: senseamp
I live in Silicon Valley, the supposed tech hub of the world, I am about a mile from Apple's campus, and the fastest DSL I can get is 768 kbps, and even that with CRC errors. Otherwise it would be 384 kbps.
It's quite pathetic that AT&T is still using the old too far from central office line, as if they cannot put a repeater station somewhere closer. It's like they don't care if they compete or not. Don't be surprised if other countries lead us on broadband centric technologies, simply because we have too many entrenched monopolies controlling the pipes.
The reason DSL can only go 18,000 feet from the CO isn't because of signal strength, it's because of load coils on the lines.
Originally posted by: Nitemare
it's not going to be fixed because most high speed providers have a monopoly and have no desire to offer more
Originally posted by: PimpJuice
I wonder how many of you people whining about not having enough speed are just wanting it to pirate illegal software. I'd say the majority.
Originally posted by: Fritzo
In the US, there is an "artificial" broadband limit. I work in the broadband provisioning field, and can tell you networks like ATT and Verizon make a ton of money off of high speed connections because they cost nearly the same this as lower speed connections. For instance, a 1.5 DSL connection costs ATT around $8 or so/month to maintain, while a 6.0 connetion costs them maybe $8.50 or so. On the other hand, they're charging $20 for 1.5 and $35 for 6.0. However, since DSL is distance based, 6.0 is only available to people 8000ft or less from a telco central office.
ADSL2+ is undergoing trials in some areas, and will give up to a 20.0 connection, but the catch is you have to be under 6000ft from a telco central office.
Cable has to balance their content bandwith with their internet bandwith. They're being strained by HD content as it is, so they'd just love to make your speeds lower instead of higher.
It's a screwed up situation for sure.
Originally posted by: Fritzo
In the US, there is an "artificial" broadband limit. I work in the broadband provisioning field, and can tell you networks like ATT and Verizon make a ton of money off of high speed connections because they cost nearly the same this as lower speed connections. For instance, a 1.5 DSL connection costs ATT around $8 or so/month to maintain, while a 6.0 connetion costs them maybe $8.50 or so. On the other hand, they're charging $20 for 1.5 and $35 for 6.0. However, since DSL is distance based, 6.0 is only available to people 8000ft or less from a telco central office.
ADSL2+ is undergoing trials in some areas, and will give up to a 20.0 connection, but the catch is you have to be under 6000ft from a telco central office.
Cable has to balance their content bandwith with their internet bandwith. They're being strained by HD content as it is, so they'd just love to make your speeds lower instead of higher.
It's a screwed up situation for sure.
Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Everything in America basically sucks because CORPORATIONS are greedy and the government is CORRUPT.
Anytime monopolies exist they should be broken up because they hurt the overall progress.
Originally posted by: rezinn
Originally posted by: Fritzo
In the US, there is an "artificial" broadband limit. I work in the broadband provisioning field, and can tell you networks like ATT and Verizon make a ton of money off of high speed connections because they cost nearly the same this as lower speed connections. For instance, a 1.5 DSL connection costs ATT around $8 or so/month to maintain, while a 6.0 connetion costs them maybe $8.50 or so. On the other hand, they're charging $20 for 1.5 and $35 for 6.0. However, since DSL is distance based, 6.0 is only available to people 8000ft or less from a telco central office.
ADSL2+ is undergoing trials in some areas, and will give up to a 20.0 connection, but the catch is you have to be under 6000ft from a telco central office.
Cable has to balance their content bandwith with their internet bandwith. They're being strained by HD content as it is, so they'd just love to make your speeds lower instead of higher.
It's a screwed up situation for sure.
Is this any different then cell phone service? I've been saying cell phone providers are screwing people for years. How does it cost them any more to provide you with 2000 minutes versus 200?
Originally posted by: senseamp
I live in Silicon Valley, the supposed tech hub of the world, I am about a mile from Apple's campus, and the fastest DSL I can get is 768 kbps, and even that with CRC errors. Otherwise it would be 384 kbps.
It's quite pathetic that AT&T is still using the old too far from central office line, as if they cannot put a repeater station somewhere closer. It's like they don't care if they compete or not. Don't be surprised if other countries lead us on broadband centric technologies, simply because we have too many entrenched monopolies controlling the pipes.
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Everything in America basically sucks because CORPORATIONS are greedy and the government is CORRUPT.
Anytime monopolies exist they should be broken up because they hurt the overall progress.
The majority of people with broadband have a choice. There is no monopoly only competition.
It is this competition that is improving access and speeds. Which is the way it is supposed to be instead of big gubment paying for it all.
America INVENTED telecommunications and The Internet. Our infrastructure is just older.
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Everything in America basically sucks because CORPORATIONS are greedy and the government is CORRUPT.
Anytime monopolies exist they should be broken up because they hurt the overall progress.
The majority of people with broadband have a choice. There is no monopoly only competition.
It is this competition that is improving access and speeds. Which is the way it is supposed to be instead of big gubment paying for it all.
America INVENTED telecommunications and The Internet. Our infrastructure is just older.
Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Everything in America basically sucks because CORPORATIONS are greedy and the government is CORRUPT.
Anytime monopolies exist they should be broken up because they hurt the overall progress.
The majority of people with broadband have a choice. There is no monopoly only competition.
It is this competition that is improving access and speeds. Which is the way it is supposed to be instead of big gubment paying for it all.
America INVENTED telecommunications and The Internet. Our infrastructure is just older.
Yeah right and if someone offered REAL competition to AT&T they would run to the government and have them shutdown. The politicians are bought and sold and do the Corporations bidding!
Your really naive if you think we have REAL competition in Telcom.
Originally posted by: MichaelD
Originally posted by: senseamp
I live in Silicon Valley, the supposed tech hub of the world, I am about a mile from Apple's campus, and the fastest DSL I can get is 768 kbps, and even that with CRC errors. Otherwise it would be 384 kbps.
It's quite pathetic that AT&T is still using the old too far from central office line, as if they cannot put a repeater station somewhere closer. It's like they don't care if they compete or not. Don't be surprised if other countries lead us on broadband centric technologies, simply because we have too many entrenched monopolies controlling the pipes.
Best post in this thread so far. 100% TRUE. "Making things better", i.e. customer service has pretty much been dead in America for a long time now.
Another note: I don't know the exact price, but I highly doubt it costs Verizon $1K to run a piece of fiber to a house. When you buy fiber by the 1000ft roll, the price goes down drastically. Now, to make the intial run into a neighborhood probably isn't cheap. But to run some fiber from a switch/patch panel a few blocks away? That's more time than money.
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: MichaelD
Originally posted by: senseamp
I live in Silicon Valley, the supposed tech hub of the world, I am about a mile from Apple's campus, and the fastest DSL I can get is 768 kbps, and even that with CRC errors. Otherwise it would be 384 kbps.
It's quite pathetic that AT&T is still using the old too far from central office line, as if they cannot put a repeater station somewhere closer. It's like they don't care if they compete or not. Don't be surprised if other countries lead us on broadband centric technologies, simply because we have too many entrenched monopolies controlling the pipes.
Best post in this thread so far. 100% TRUE. "Making things better", i.e. customer service has pretty much been dead in America for a long time now.
Another note: I don't know the exact price, but I highly doubt it costs Verizon $1K to run a piece of fiber to a house. When you buy fiber by the 1000ft roll, the price goes down drastically. Now, to make the intial run into a neighborhood probably isn't cheap. But to run some fiber from a switch/patch panel a few blocks away? That's more time than money.
and how many feet are in ONE mile? 5280. and lets say you have to cover the state of PA.. about 300x150miles, IIRC.. that's a lot of fvckin fiber.
it's all well and good until you look at how much you *actually* have to lay down. 1000 feet might not be much, but 1,000,000 feet is a LOT more expensive, regardless of discounts.