What limits ISP's from offering higher internet speeds?

[gigahertz20]

So I'm living in the Black Forest part of Colorado Springs and the highest internet speed I get is 1.5Mbps Download / 896Kbps Upload from my Qwest DSL service. My neighbor who lives just back behind me has a T1 connection that he pays hundreds of dollars a month for but he has a small business so it's needed.

My question is, what prevents an ISP like Qwest from offering higher internet speeds? I live in more of a rural place, but if it's a signal issue, why don't they just setup signal boosters on the line or something. Is there not some kind of technology that prevents the signal from degrading over the distance it has to travel?

It's clearly possible for them to do it I would think, since my neighbor has a T1 connection.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Money.

 

[jlazzaro]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Money.

bingo...its feasible (although a bit more difficult with DSL) but companies simply don't see the return on investment. if there is enough demand, they can install remote terminals to provide further service.

DSL also uses POTS (analog, same as your telephone) while T1's use a digital signal...apples to oranges.

 

[spidey07]

That's pretty much it. Also twisted copper wiring (what your dsl and the T1 are) can only go so far, so fast. I could provide you with a 40 Gigabit/sec connection no problem.

Just give me the 3 million dollars for the gear and to bury the fiber.

 

[gigahertz20]

Thanks all for replies, I figured it probably came down to money. I talked to a Qwest guy today, I was asking about future higher internet speeds out where I live, but he had no idea what they were planning. He also mentioned that the signal boosters are around $100,000...can't believe something like that can cost so much.


Too bad satellite technology is not advanced enough to offer cheap, fast high speed internet. Then there would be no need for bury cables all over the place.

 

[jlazzaro]

search for WISP availability in your area...sounds like your best bet. http://www.wispdirectory.com/i...ts&cat_id=37&Itemid=53

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: gigahertz20
Thanks all for replies, I figured it probably came down to money. I talked to a Qwest guy today, I was asking about future higher internet speeds out where I live, but he had no idea what they were planning. He also mentioned that the signal boosters are around $100,000...can't believe something like that can cost so much.


Too bad satellite technology is not advanced enough to offer cheap, fast high speed internet. Then there would be no need for bury cables all over the place.

Some technologies don't lend themselves to "signal boosters." Consumer DSL is one of them.

T1 is a four-wire technology (although HDSL is more common and is a two-wire system) and by its nature is easily repeatable every 3000/6000 feet ... ADSl, SDSL, VDSL all pretty much need to get a DSLAM to within 18000 wire feet or closer to the consumer, and once the signal hits the copper, its not repeatable. The farther from the DSLAM, the less capacity is available.

AT&T U-Verse is TV, Internet, and VoIP over VDSL, and to get the required minimum bandwidth/capacity, typical max is 3000 feet (on 26ga, typical telco wire).

Fiber (Passive Optical Networking - PON) systems like U-Verse Fiber to the Home (FTTH) or FIOS can go much longer distances, but the cost of the infrastructure buildout versus the likely return on investment is less than attractive in less-dense populated areas.

Fortunately for the rural types, the Gubmint is going to tax the city-dwellers more so they country folk can get better/faster Internet access. Watch for all urban Internet access fees to go up.

The other restriction is the back-end bandwidth. It doesn't do any good to give everyone a firehose Internet connection if the back-end is a garden hose capacity backbone. Bandwidth is not free, the active infrastructure is not free, the software is not free, the union techs are not free, the bribes to the local politicians get steeper every year ...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: gigahertz20
Thanks all for replies, I figured it probably came down to money. I talked to a Qwest guy today, I was asking about future higher internet speeds out where I live, but he had no idea what they were planning. He also mentioned that the signal boosters are around $100,000...can't believe something like that can cost so much.


Too bad satellite technology is not advanced enough to offer cheap, fast high speed internet. Then there would be no need for bury cables all over the place.

Some technologies don't lend themselves to "signal boosters." Consumer DSL is one of them.

T1 is a four-wire technology (although HDSL is more common and is a two-wire system) and by its nature is easily repeatable every 3000/6000 feet ... ADSl, SDSL, VDSL all pretty much need to get a DSLAM to within 18000 wire feet or closer to the consumer, and once the signal hits the copper, its not repeatable. The farther from the DSLAM, the less capacity is available.

AT&T U-Verse is TV, Internet, and VoIP over VDSL, and to get the required minimum bandwidth/capacity, typical max is 3000 feet (on 26ga, typical telco wire).

Fiber (Passive Optical Networking - PON) systems like U-Verse Fiber to the Home (FTTH) or FIOS can go much longer distances, but the cost of the infrastructure buildout versus the likely return on investment is less than attractive in less-dense populated areas.

Fortunately for the rural types, the Gubmint is going to tax the city-dwellers more so they country folk can get better/faster Internet access. Watch for all urban Internet access fees to go up.

The other restriction is the back-end bandwidth. It doesn't do any good to give everyone a firehose Internet connection if the back-end is a garden hose capacity backbone. Bandwidth is not free, the active infrastructure is not free, the software is not free, the union techs are not free, the bribes to the local politicians get steeper every year ...

Stop talking facts. It upsets the intarwebs.

 

[azev]

most giant ISP generaly have lots of public peering that they can use to reduce their premium bandwidth. When an ISP have lots and lots of users such as comcast, they even charge money for other provider to peer with them.
Money is definitely the biggest factor here, If they have no competition, they have no reason to install better infrastructure and provide better bandwidth.

 

[Cooky]

That's why all consumers hate ISP's...on the flip side, ISP's hate their customers too.

Does anyone here work for ATT? I have a few questions for ya

 

[azev]

Originally posted by: Cooky
That's why all consumers hate ISP's...on the flip side, ISP's hate their customers too.

Does anyone here work for ATT? I have a few questions for ya

hehehe this is so true 🙂

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: azev
most giant ISP generaly have lots of public peering that they can use to reduce their premium bandwidth. When an ISP have lots and lots of users such as comcast, they even charge money for other provider to peer with them.
Money is definitely the biggest factor here, If they have no competition, they have no reason to install better infrastructure and provide better bandwidth.

Sounds like you are the person to create the "non-profit ISP" (and no, Earthlink doesn't count).

Of course money is the motivation! What are you amazingly stupid, or merely unbelievably naive? If money wasn't the motivation, everyone would still be dialing up CICNET and UUNET to check the status of their ARCHIE searches.

Good friggin' grief ... why else if not for money?

Anyone that attaches to anyone else's pipes pays ... ISPs to other ISPs, consumers to ISPs ... all that changes is the SLA and contact numbers.

There is always competition: Either from a price, quality, available bandwidth, diversity, locations served, or other options ...