OT: was Facial Hair... now New Speeds available

[GCC Consulting]

> Only John Esak would say something like:
> > 
> > My God a savings of about $1k per month.  I'll *take* the 
> possibility 
> > of a fe tiny outages.... Hell, I have a fail over dial-up line, and 
> > the new Sonic Walls provide fail over DSL as well.
> > 
> > Incidetnally, the business optical service is 30Mb down and 10Mb up.
> > 
> > Also, the cable people here Optimum Online are also offering 30Mb 
> > service residentially at least... maybe even businesses 
> haven't checked yet though.
> 
> I'm confused...is the cable company the one offering what 
> you're moving to, or is that someone else and the cable 
> company is also offering competitive service?

Mark,

Verizon is offering the optical service with 3 phone line.

Cablevision (Optimum) is also offering similar speed serve.

As for Optimum's speed, I can tell you, and John will attest to it, they
offer some of the fastest cable service around.

When I was in NY, we tested my download speed.  I logged into John's system
and downloaded a 25MB file with the download being timed.  I was pulling
data out as fast as John's T1 could move it.  At the time I was running
between 5 & 6 Mbs most of the time.  On occasion, the service did drop to 3
Mbs , but rarely.

Cablevision has been using fiber, in most areas for the last 4 years and has
converted their system to all digital in most areas.

Verizon wants to get into the broadcast business and compete against
Comcast/Cablevision/Direct TV.  This is why they are pushing their optical
service.  Keep the phone service,; get the high-speed internet; and then get
the TV business.

Richard



> 
> Those numbers sound good.  I dunno though...I mean, I 
> personally haven't had cable in like (*checks watch*) 9 
> years.  But when I did, they'd just converted to fibre here, 
> and it -still- went out at least twice a week for a few hours 
> each.  This was fibre to the break-out point.  It was still 
> coax from the demarc point, at least back then.  I suppose 
> I'd have to have more recent experiences with cable to make a 
> completely valid judgement, but there'd be a good 6 month 
> period of eval of just cable before I even considered turning 
> over my net connectivity to it.  I didn't even trust my cable 
> company to deliver cable, much less anything else.
> 
> Actually, those numbers worry me on two counts.  There are 
> two possibilites here, and both are actually capable of being 
> partially or completely true:
> 
> 1) They're overselling their available bandwidth, and 
> congestion will eventually cause bottlenecks that make those 
> numbers false advertising.
> Hell, some places can't even actually guarantee their 1.5/256 
> because they oversell, and it ends up acting like a digital 
> 56kbit after a certain point.  Certainly -far- below what 
> they're advertising, and not many people will notice because 
> the far end of the distribution channels are not putting out 
> data at those rates, so who'll be the wiser until places are?
> 
> 2) Those numbers are real, but eventually the main routes 
> will become oversaturated when endpoint providers dole out 
> more connections at these rates than the main carrier routes 
> are providing.  Don't immediately scoff; in the news about a 
> month ago I was reading a news article commenting on the 
> drain that digital distribution of large software (we're talking like
> 5+ 640MB ISO images here for one game to several thousand people at 
> 5+ once)
> and -especially- all the realtime video (CNN, YourTube, all 
> the sites that are really popular with realtime video) are 
> putting on the net.  The consensus among telecom experts was 
> that the current infrastructure isn't really ready for such a 
> shift to realtime video, and after a point it will really 
> start having an effect.  And upgrading the main routes is 
> going to cost.
> 
> Now in case #2, which is likely to come after case #1 because people
> -always- oversell their bandwidth if they want to make any 
> money at all, those prices you're getting sound good now, but 
> will eventually likely be hiked when the main carriers have 
> to pass down the cost of upgrading the major infrastructure.  
> I would agree that this is probably at least a few years off, 
> but eventually I think it's going to happen.  There's way too 
> much cheap broadband out there, and eventually the market is 
> going to go through a readjustment period to sort it all out 
> again.  It's one thing to have those speeds when people use 
> it in bursts because the average was still under the main 
> feed, so you -could- oversell reasonably -to a point-.
> But now people are starting to use streaming video like 
> 6-8hrs a day, solid.  If it gets much more widespread, there 
> are going to be issues that affect everyone's pocketbooks.
> 
> $1440 for a T1?  Who's your provider, because you're getting reamed.
> IgLou would give me a full, real T1 for $350/mo if I could 
> afford it, not including the local loop.  I'm doubting the 
> local loop would be more than $350 itself based on past 
> experiences when rates were far higher than today.  So even 
> at $700 (probably overshooting on local loop, but let's 
> assume worst case), that's still half the price you're paying.
> $500 installation, but that's standard anywhere.  Actually, 
> that's cheap compared to what I'm used to from the old days.  
> We used to pay 2.5 times that for a single PRI installation 
> in Myrtle Beach.
> 
> Yeah, I'd wanna dump whoever's currently bilking you as 
> well--especially for the delivery of more bandwidth.  They're 
> out of line with the rest of the industry's offerings.
> 
> I just hope the transition works out for you, really.  And smoothly!
> 
> Am I jealous over the numbers?  A little, but not really.  
> The reality is that my DSL 1.5mbit is damned fast compared to 
> modem that I was used to, and a year plus later I'm still not 
> wholly used to it coming in that fast, and a lot of sites 
> that I get large files from are throttled for QoS anyway, so 
> it doesn't even fill my pipe unless I "abuse" them and use a 
> multi-segment download program (which I can...I have GetRight).
> Wouldn't mind a symmetric line for the uplink, but that costs 
> more than I can afford or justify even if I could.  I don't 
> do anything intensive enough to actually use much more than I 
> have very often.  Work doesn't usually use more than 56kbit 
> worth, and even with -both- of us gaming, I can allocate 80% 
> of the bandwidth to background downloads and we see no ill 
> effect both gaming and loading web pages simultaneously.  I just don't
> -need- more.  But would I love it if it was there just for 
> the hell of it to be used whenever?  Sure!  But in reality, 
> I'm going to be waiting on the other end, who likely doesn't 
> have that large a pipe and who throttles anyway, so I'm still 
> not going to see the full benefit of it in many cases.
> 
> Truth is, bandwidth is actually growing faster and bigger 
> than the industry it's supporting.  It's like the car 
> industry in ways.  They dumped bigger and bigger performance 
> engines into vehicles for a LONG time.  The reality was that 
> with speed limits, you're paying for something you can't 
> really fully use.  For now that's a close analogy.  I forget 
> whose axiom it is about data expanding to fill all available 
> space, but the difference with bandwidth is that we -will- 
> eventually use it all and have to raise the speed limits on 
> the main throughfares.  It's not like when they scaled back 
> engines in cars.  In that respect, it differs.  But for now, 
> anything higher than about 3mbit is practically 
> redundant--even 1.5mbit is overkill depending on the remote 
> site.  I literally have -recently- had to be impatient at 
> something coming in at 80-100KB/sec, when I can take 150.  
> And it was from a dedicated file redistribution site.  I'm 
> not making this up out of nowhere.
> 
> > We, at least, are moving on up... to the east side...
> > tad-dah-deeh-dah-dee-... dah-dee-dah! :-)
> 
> Now THAT brings back memories!
> 
> mark->
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>