Isn't it incredible how slowly internet bandwidth is increasing?

Scouzer

Lifer
Jun 3, 2001
10,358
5
0
In 1997 I had 56k dialup.

In 1998 I got 1.5mbps Cable. Wow, huge upgrade.

Ten years later, in 2008 I have just recently got 10mbps DSL. Mainstream is still in the 3-5mbps range.

Compared to the rest of computing (short of HDD) the internet is dog slow in increasing speeds..
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
You're smoking crack.

Bandwidth follows moore's law. It doubles roughly every two years. 100 Gigabit ethernet is on the horizon.
 

ChAoTiCpInOy

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2006
6,442
1
81
Well that's what you get with the ISPs monopolizing where they are so they don't need to upgrade and you will still be with them.
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,134
2,450
126
Originally posted by: spidey07
You're smoking crack.

Bandwidth follows moore's law. It doubles roughly every two years. 100 Gigabit ethernet is on the horizon.

For corporate LAN's and large businesses, maybe. Consumer bandwidth options still suck in most areas, though.

I'm not exactly sure who to blame, therefore I'll just blame you, Spidey :)
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
73,442
35,063
136
It sucks because your neighbors are all watching youtube and killing your service whereas just a year ago they were all reading Yahoo News and hardly touching their bandwidth.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: spidey07
You're smoking crack.

Bandwidth follows moore's law. It doubles roughly every two years. 100 Gigabit ethernet is on the horizon.

For corporate LAN's and large businesses, maybe. Consumer bandwidth options still suck in most areas, though.

I'm not exactly sure who to blame, therefore I'll just blame you, Spidey :)

Yeah, that whole distance thing, return on capital expenditures and physics gets in the way.

oh well.

-edit-
But the topic is internet bandwidth, which historically follows moore's law. Both from a usage and capacity standpoint.
 

xeemzor

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2005
2,599
1
71
Originally posted by: spidey07
You're smoking crack.

Bandwidth follows moore's law. It doubles roughly every two years. 100 Gigabit ethernet is on the horizon.

So when will I be able to get a 100/10 megabit connection to my house?
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: xeemzor
Originally posted by: spidey07
You're smoking crack.

Bandwidth follows moore's law. It doubles roughly every two years. 100 Gigabit ethernet is on the horizon.

So when will I be able to get a 100/10 megabit connection to my house?

When you feel like paying for it.
 

xeemzor

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2005
2,599
1
71
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: xeemzor
Originally posted by: spidey07
You're smoking crack.

Bandwidth follows moore's law. It doubles roughly every two years. 100 Gigabit ethernet is on the horizon.

So when will I be able to get a 100/10 megabit connection to my house?

When you feel like paying for it.

:roll: You know exactly what I meant. When will the average consumer be able to get internet speeds comparable to say, Japan where 100mbit is the norm? FIOS is a great step, but it's not being implemented fast enough.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: spidey07
You're smoking crack.

Bandwidth follows moore's law. It doubles roughly every two years. 100 Gigabit ethernet is on the horizon.

Average bandwidth maybe? I haven't been able to get more than 6 mbps in the four years that I lived in my old apartment. At my parents' house we could only get 4.5 mbps, and we had that for 6 years (and there is still no plan that offers no 4.5 in that area, so that's 10 years total - the 6 years that I lived there plus the 4 that I didn't)

Edit: Also, the monthly rate at my parents' has steadily gone up from the very beginning. At least in my apartment I paid a flat $60 for all 4 years
 

Scouzer

Lifer
Jun 3, 2001
10,358
5
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: xeemzor
Originally posted by: spidey07
You're smoking crack.

Bandwidth follows moore's law. It doubles roughly every two years. 100 Gigabit ethernet is on the horizon.

So when will I be able to get a 100/10 megabit connection to my house?

When you feel like paying for it.

That's the impression I'm getting too.

We're just going to end up paying more and more for higher bandwidth options. They just will not do it for the standard $40/mo people are paying.

Shaw Cable charges $93/mo for 25/1 Cable Internet around here
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: xeemzor
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: xeemzor
Originally posted by: spidey07
You're smoking crack.

Bandwidth follows moore's law. It doubles roughly every two years. 100 Gigabit ethernet is on the horizon.

So when will I be able to get a 100/10 megabit connection to my house?

When you feel like paying for it.

:roll: You know exactly what I meant. When will the average consumer be able to get internet speeds comparable to say, Japan where 100mbit is the norm? FIOS is a great step, but it's not being implemented fast enough.

Not this crap again.

When you live in a extremely dense area on a very small island subsidized by government on relatively new infrastructure it's isn't difficult to offer these services for cheap.

Stop the entitlement mentality.
 

xeemzor

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2005
2,599
1
71
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: xeemzor
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: xeemzor
Originally posted by: spidey07
You're smoking crack.

Bandwidth follows moore's law. It doubles roughly every two years. 100 Gigabit ethernet is on the horizon.

So when will I be able to get a 100/10 megabit connection to my house?

When you feel like paying for it.

:roll: You know exactly what I meant. When will the average consumer be able to get internet speeds comparable to say, Japan where 100mbit is the norm? FIOS is a great step, but it's not being implemented fast enough.

Not this crap again.

When you live in a extremely dense area on a very small island subsidized by government on relatively new infrastructure it's isn't difficult to offer these services for cheap.

Stop the entitlement mentality.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Please point out where I said I had a right to uber fast internet. Oh wait, I didn't. The only real question I had was when the US ISPs would able to upgrade their service to at least a somewhat competitive level. It's been 4 years and my upload has increased by only 256kb, not exactly something to be proud of no matter the circumstances.
 

Shawn

Lifer
Apr 20, 2003
32,236
53
91
Yeah, I had over 3mbps since 2001. Then once comcast bought out @home they caped it to 1.5mbps. I now have 6mbps, but it's been slow coming.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: xeemzor

Stop putting words in my mouth. Please point out where I said I had a right to uber fast internet. Oh wait, I didn't. The only real question I had was when the US ISPs would able to upgrade their service to at least a somewhat competitive level. It's been 4 years and my upload has increased by only 256kb, not exactly something to be proud of no matter the circumstances.

All I'm saying is it's about as competitive as it can get.

ISPs will upgrade to meet supply and demand, but they're not going to get rid of gear they are still paying on.

I can provide a compact/dense area with gigabit capabilities to every subscriber, ONLY because of the density and revenue.

Distance = more expensive, it just costs more
Less subscribers per square mile = more epensive, less revenue

If you truly feel your area isn't competitive then contact your local public utilities/service commission.
 

Kaervak

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2001
8,460
2
81
Hey you meanies, quit beating up on those poor telcos. After all it's not like they were given billions in tax breaks to build a high speed network that could handle tons of traffic, but instead took the money and did nothing with it. Oh wait, they did.

BRUCE KUSHNICK: In Korea and Japan, you can get 100 megabit services in both directions for about $40.

RICK KARR: That's 100 times as fast for the same price. The U.S. had a chance to start building Internet connections like that back in the early 1990s.

BRUCE KUSHNICK: It was, actually Al Gore may not have invented the Internet, but he really was a proselytizer for new fiber optic networks. That was 1992-93 time frame. And essentially all the phone companies then basically said, "We'll step up to the plate and we'll do this wiring plan." None of that ever happened.

RICK KARR: Kushnick and his colleague, Tom Allibone, are telecommunications muckrakers who call themselves "Teletruth." They're in the process of filing lawsuits against several regional phone companies. They allege that the baby bells promised fiber-optic connections nationwide but didn't deliver.

BRUCE KUSHNICK: By the year 2006, our research shows that 86 million households should have been wired with fiber, i.e. the majority of the United States. Had they just kept the, the eye on the ball and done this work, America would not be in the situation we are in today which is inferior services for high costs.

RICK KARR: Why didn't the network get built? I mean, they made all these promises, it sounded like it really was the information superhighway that we heard about in the 90s, why didn't it get built?

BRUCE KUSHNICK: The reason why it didn't get built is because none of the regulators stepped up to the plate and held the phone companies accountable.

RICK KARR: Phone companies are regulated in part by the states. Kushnick and Allibone say that back in the nineties the phone companies offered to invest billions to build fiber optic networks if the states let them take large tax deductions and raise the price of basic services.

BRUCE KUSHNICK: Call waiting, call forwarding, caller ID cost about a penny to offer. They charge $5.30. All of that is profit to them. Under the old regime they would have to return all the extra money. They wouldn't be allowed to keep these profits.

RICK KARR: Under the old regulations, the phone companies were required to pour those profits back into their networks - in other words, to keep improving their infrastructure.

TOM ALLIBONE: Phone companies historically were regulated as a public utility. And the format or the type of accounting system that was utilized in the public utility industry was something called rate of return. One of the reasons or ways to promote competition was to do away with rate of return regulations and give the phone companies the ability to make unlimited profits, that's really what it was all about.

BRUCE KUSHNICK: You ask people, "Did I ever pay for a fiber optic network?" They go, "Well I don't know." And the answer is this: well you paid for it, you don't even remember it. And the regulators, even though it's on the books, a lot of the regulators, oh, I hate to say this, but basically they were too close and cozy with the phone companies.

RICK KARR: The regulators he's talking about are state utility commissioners. They were supposed to make sure the phone companies kept their promise to connect millions of Americans to the information superhighway at 45 megabits per second. In New Jersey, for example, the phone company promised 5 million of those connections by last year.

RICK KARR: Right now, today, how many houses, right now today, how many homes in New Jersey actually can get this kind of 45 megabit service?

TOM ALLIBONE: Well actually, zero. I mean, no one can get 45 megabit, it doesn't exist. The only thing that comes close is in a commercial type of environment you know, for very specialized types of applications. But, there's no such thing in a residential consumer marketplace.

RICK KARR: According to Teletruth, phone companies took $25 billion in tax write offs while revenues soared 128%. But they didn't build the fiber network they promised.

BRUCE KUSHNICK: So, with all this cash cow, what do you do with the money? They should have said, "Why don't we build the best network we can and therefore it'll basically, the infrastructure, and basically make our infrastructure the best in the world." And they didn't do that. They basically took the money and ran.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moye..._transcript_print.html

http://www.teletruth.org/
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Blogs are not a credible source, especially if you can read their political agenda just by scanning your link.
 

nismotigerwvu

Golden Member
May 13, 2004
1,568
33
91
I hope sometime soon wimax or wimax-like technologies will be able to put the squeeze on cable/dsl providers to actually stop just sitting on the cash they are raking in right now. One has to be simple minded to believe that there is no way to expand on a service that has been static for half a decade. Once the average Joe gets a sales pitch that he can get wireless internet, essentially anywhere (I'm well aware that this is not how wimax works, key word, sales pitch) for a price competitive with their current provider at comparable speeds, they will jump all over it (and note, current cellular options are not comparable in speed or price to cable/dsl so Joe is staying far far away for the most part). The only option for cable/dsl providers will be to ramp up the sppeds and starts a Slowskies campaign, and man do I ever love turtles :). One last point, Spidey, you seem to know quite a bit about what you are talking about, but if you just continue to thrash the other posters' character they won't pay any attention. If you cared even 1/100th of what it seems (posting enough to make it seem like a lot) you'd understand that a lighter touch might actually help someone learn a thing or two from you. Or you could just be a troll, but I'm not one to make assumptions.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Nitemare
It's called broadband monopolies...

FACT:

The majority of people with broadband have a choice. There is no monopoly. Stop spreading tinfoil hat crap.
 

adairusmc

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2006
7,095
78
91
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Nitemare
It's called broadband monopolies...

FACT:

The majority of people with broadband have a choice. There is no monopoly. Stop spreading tinfoil hat crap.

:thumbsup:
 

Kaervak

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2001
8,460
2
81
Originally posted by: spidey07
Blogs are not a credible source, especially if you can read their political agenda just by scanning your link.

PBS.org is a blog how exactly?


Here, just incase pbs isn't good enough:

http://www.webpronews.com/topn...-lay-billion-goose-egg

http://www.oreillynet.com/etel...ality_and_the_fal.html

http://www.cookreport.com/14.11.shtml

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pu...t_20070810_002683.html

http://money.cnn.com/magazines...12/10/314729/index.htm

http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html
 

13Gigatons

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
7,461
500
126
Rich Telcom industry screwing Americans even after they were giving $200,000,000,000 to build the information super highway. What a surprise.

Until AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are broken apart and every American has a choice between 5 or 6 ISP's to get REAL broadband then the monopolies will own you.