backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 59 comment(s) - last by CrimsonFrost.. on May 28 at 8:18 PM
Cable giant Comcast unveils its FiOS-killer

Cable Internet technology is getting a boost in speed thanks to some new technology demonstrated this week by Comcast. According to Comcast's chief executive Brian Roberts, the company will introduce cable access speeds upwards of 150 megabits per second (Mbps) in the near future. Comcast demonstrated the technology this week, touting that its new cable technology will even best Verizon's Fiber Optics Service (FiOS) speed.

Comcast says its new cable system is based on a technology called DOCSIS 3.0, developed by Cable Television Laboratories. At a recent conference at The Cable Show, Roberts demonstrated the new technology to an audience that consisted of press as well as executives from companies such as Time Warner Inc., News Corp. and Viacom Inc.

The new technology works by "bounding" channels together. Traditional cable modems transmit data over a single TV channel, but DOCSIS 3.0 transfers data over 4 channels. The technology is reminiscent of dial-up technology that bonded two telephone lines together into a single modem, giving users roughly twice the speed.

During the presentation, the new cable modem downloaded 300MB of data "within a few short seconds."

Comcast says that while the new modems are well developed, it will still take a few years before mainstream adoption. The problem now is to upgrade all current cable Internet infrastructures to support DOCSIS 3.0. Roberts told reporters that the new DOCSIS 3.0 modems will cost roughly the same as current modems cost today.

While Comcast receives cheers on its new cable technology, the company also launched 16Mbps cable services in certain areas where FiOS is available to compete. Verizon's FiOS service currently tops out at 50Mbps.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Cable in Australia
By ali 09 on 5/10/2007 6:33:38 AM , Rating: 3
I heard somewhere that internet in the U.S is much faster than in Australia, but my searches didn't reveal much. I at the moment (in Brisbane) have 12Mbit Cable through Optus and there is 24Mbit ADSL2+ but speed never reaches 24Mbits whereas it reaches above 12 with cable. My question is: what is the average internet speed of the US (major cities)? It is interesting to compare.




RE: Cable in Australia
By Kuroyama on 5/10/2007 6:56:22 AM , Rating: 2
In most big cities the fastest ADSL is 3Mbit, and cable varies but is supposedly around 6Mbit. In a few places Verizon, one of the big phone companies, has introduced fiber-optic based internet + TV under the name FiOS, and that goes up to 30Mbit if you're willing to pay US$180 a month ($40 for 15Mbit is the next grade down).


RE: Cable in Australia
By andrinoaa on 5/10/2007 7:13:32 AM , Rating: 2
What are you complaining about? I have ADSL2 and my speed is only 412k down, 64k up! And I live in a very affluent part of Melbourne!!! Get used to living in the "dark ages" because it ain't going to change much in this country for as while.


RE: Cable in Australia
By Viditor on 5/10/2007 7:50:40 AM , Rating: 2
Broadband in Oz is certainly much better than in the US, but it pales in comparison to countries like Korea (where 100Mbps is widespread and is due to be the national minimum speed by 2010).
I myself have adsl2+ in Sydney (actual speed is 20Mbps for me), and while the DL speed is awesome, the pings are not as good as they were with standard ADSL (important for things like gaming).


RE: Cable in Australia
By SquidianLoveGod on 5/10/2007 8:34:33 AM , Rating: 2
Thats where you live, Sydney is a rather large town.
I live in Port Lincoln, South Australia, only 2 hours via the ocean from Adelaide, 8 hours from Adelaide via car.
Now ADSL is available, ADSL 2+ isnt, Cable is non-existent, Satalite is uber expensive considering download limits, Wireless... Allot of drop outs.
ADSL I used to max out at 1.5Mb And I can achieve about 170k on that. Telstra flicked the switch to 8Mb ADSL 1.
The thing that seperates Aussie and US ISP's is the Download limits! Do some comparing! Only last year Telstra being our largest tele-communications provider offered 10GB download limits, Where if you went over your limit you got dropped down to 64k. Or you choose the 20GB plan, where if you went over the download limit you would end up paying something like $150 bucks a GB, Not to mention ADSL 1.5Mb costed 120 bucks last year, or the year before, while the rest of the world enjoyed much faster speeds at lower prices, with larger download limits.
And Netspace being my favorite provider thanks to GameArena has finally moved to ADSL 2+, Now if only Something better than ADSL 1, would come along.
And I don't see why you worry about pings before, You either haven't Port Forwarded, Or you have a router/modem thats of very poor quality.

I'm an active member of whirlpool - the uber aussie Broadband website, And allot of people complain about pings etc. only to realize they haven't configured they're routers/modems properly.

Trust me, Before Optus laid that big phat pipe to the United states years ago, Pings were allot higher.


RE: Cable in Australia
By StevoLincolnite on 5/10/2007 8:40:51 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, I remember having 2 phone lines and 2 dial-up 33.6k modems back in the day so I would have decent speeds viewing webpages, 2 I.P addresses and I configured Internet Explorer and Netscape to use an I.P each.
And back then lag wasn't much of an issue I could play StarCraft on my 33.6k modem happily with no lag, try doing that today and people will scream at you!
Not to mention back then we had free internet thanks to Global Freeway, pity they went bust.


RE: Cable in Australia
By Charlemain on 5/10/2007 8:43:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The thing that seperates Aussie and US ISP's is the Download limits! Do some comparing!

That is true (and it's easy for me to compare since I moved here from LA and still have a house there as well...).
But you're comparing apples and oranges...if you look at the midwest of the US (which is a fair comparison to Port Lincoln), you'll find that there's a great deal of people and households that don't even have ADSL or cable available.
I agree that the DL limits are quite high here in Oz, but they are infinitely better than just 2 years ago, and if Labour does come in and performs the upgrades they promised, we might (in another 5 years) even come close to where Korea is today! :)

I myself pay AUD$70 for 60 GB/month here at 20Mbps...I would happily pay that in the US as well (if I could get it!).


RE: Cable in Australia
By overzealot on 5/10/2007 1:32:52 PM , Rating: 2
Where about's in Port Lincoln are ya? It's on the Internode DSLAM list:
quote:
PORT LINCOLN PTLN SA Active

Link is right here:
http://cgi.internode.on.net/cgi-bin/dsl-coverage-t...


RE: Cable in Australia
By SquidianLoveGod on 5/10/2007 10:31:04 PM , Rating: 1
Port Lincoln doesn't have any suburbs, so I'm guessing... Port Lincoln? lol
And I am aware that Internode has an ADSL 2+ exchange, But I'm waiting on Netspace, or Optus to get one going, Or even Dodo - As they have some great plans on offer.
http://www.netspace.com.au/broadband/adsl2/coverag...
Port Lincoln isn't even on the list.

I'm actually rather lucky at the moment, My next door neighbor has a 1.5Mb ADSL connection, connected to her wireless router, In return of me using that connection, I repair all of her machines, and help her out when she needs it, perform upgrades etc.

So on 1 machine I can download a movie etc and get about 150-170k a second, and on my laptop I can be downloading a game at the same rate.

And I don't like Internode, TPG or iPrmus so don't go there :P To many hassles with those company's.
Even Dodo, who uses the commandico infrastructure, despite a good service, have very poor customer support, which thankfully I haven't had to deal with yet.


RE: Cable in Australia
By darkpaw on 5/10/2007 8:52:38 AM , Rating: 2
Always kinda annoys me when people compare our Internet speeds to someplace like Korea. Korea is pretty tiny so of course its easy to deploy the latest network technology. It takes much longer in the US (and I'm sure Australia too) just due to the size difference. Its mostly about the geography.

I'm sure that some of the stupid regulations in the US don't help either, competition between phone and cable companies is so restricted that there is little choice. The primary barrier is definately size though.


RE: Cable in Australia
By Rugar on 5/10/2007 12:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is the key. In the US, the ISPs are using your relatively high fees to pay for running service to rural areas so that they can add new customers and charge them to wire even more rural areas. I am sure it's much the same for the Aussies.


RE: Cable in Australia
By SquidianLoveGod on 5/10/2007 10:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly!
Here in Port Lincoln we have ADSL 1 (Internode has ADSL 2+)
Yet if you travel for an hour, upto Wharminda, there is no ADSL, ADSL 2+, Cable, Not even the new 3G Telstra Wireless.
Not to mention if you got Satalite, You would have to pay a huge installation fee, Put up with slow Upload Speeds, Very lack-lusture download limits, And is expensive on a per-month basis.


RE: Cable in Australia
By HVAC on 5/10/2007 2:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
Size is not the issue. Population density and legacy systems are the issue.


RE: Cable in Australia
By Viditor on 5/10/2007 2:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Korea is pretty tiny so of course its easy to deploy the latest network technology. It takes much longer in the US (and I'm sure Australia too) just due to the size difference. Its mostly about the geography

That's a fair point, but it's not the whole story...
The difference is mainly that many of the Asian countries (Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, etc...) realised early that internet access and usage is vital to them for economic and educational reasons. In those countries, the government heavily subsidizes the cost of the infrastructure for the internet (Korea has some large rural areas in the mountains outside of Seoul that have full access for example). In both Oz and the US, most all of the internet is funded by the market (while Telstra is majority owned by the government, it's being privatized and operates as a free market entity).
It is more understandable in Oz as we are the same geographical size as the US, but have a total population that is 1/3 less than that of just Southern California...there's far less money to fund the infrastructure in a market based internet here.
But my own opinion is that at some point, these 2 (very wealthy) countries must bite the bullet and sink some serious money into new infrastructure...if for no other reason than we will get left behind before we even realize there was a race! :)


RE: Cable in Australia
By flexy on 5/10/2007 9:06:01 AM , Rating: 2
yes, certainly internet infrastructure in the US is overrated, speedwise the majority of peeople have 3-4MB with available speeds (for most of normal consumers) up to 6MB. The higher speeds are the exception.

In Europe ADSL2 is now standard, that is 16MB/1MB DSL which is mainstream and now replacing the older DSL standard.

I think its good comcast at least getting it on with those speeds...since the lack of competition is what keeps the prices high and the speeds low.

If there are no competitors offering higher speeds then the companies dont see a reason to up caps and lower prices.

Ali: Btw. those are VERY good speeds and certainly WAY over the average wjat is available in the US..even in most of EU. 24M is slowly coming (mostly northern EU)....but then the speeds also depend on DSL line quality etc.


RE: Cable in Australia
By stryfe on 5/10/2007 7:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
I know you asked about the US but I thought you might be interested to hear about Canada as well.

Here in Winnipeg (the situation in other cities is similar) we have an ADSL provider and a Cable provider.

The cable packages go like this:
256kb/256kb $20/mth
5mb/512kb $40/mth
10mb/1mb $50/mth
25mb/1mb $100/mth (this one's only a few months old)

And ADSL:
256kb/256kb $20/mth
3mb/256kb $35/mth
7mb/512kb $45/mth

Happily the market has become saturated here in the last year or two. Now it's easy to play the two companies off one another as they're constantly trying to steal one another's customers. Currently I have the Cable company's 10mb/1mb package for only $30/mth :)


Where's my 37.5Mbps cable now?
By bunnyfubbles on 5/10/2007 7:00:24 AM , Rating: 3
If current cable operates over 1 channel, and this new one over 4, shouldn't we be getting 150/4 from our cable today?

And downstream bandwidth isn't as big of a concern to me as upstream, which is where FIOS really puts cable to shame.




By James Holden on 5/10/2007 7:01:33 AM , Rating: 1
Good point.


RE: Where's my 37.5Mbps cable now?
By theapparition on 5/10/2007 7:28:58 AM , Rating: 5
Another thing to consider is that cable is a shared connection. The trunk line runnning into the neighboorhood has to serve multiple homes. FIOS is not different in this either, but where the two services differ, is that FIOS is supposed to guarrantee 20Mbps to your home (20Mbps-$50/50Mbps-$150 in my area) by the trunk having the capacity to handle that bandwith to every home*. The cable line does not have the capability to handle everyone they serve at full bandwitdh. So, if all your "cable" neighboors are streaming video, you can be sure to see a big reduction in speed.

Your right, 150/4 does not equal today's speeds, but they are using different channels and pushing more data as well, compared to today's single channel.

*The FIOS fiber trunk itself can handle massive amounts of data, its the infrastructure connecting the cable that has limitations. It's much cheaper in the long run to upgrade the infrastructure than to replace cable.


RE: Where's my 37.5Mbps cable now?
By cbo on 5/10/2007 8:09:55 AM , Rating: 2
I worked for a company in the Philadelphia area which specializes construction project for cable companies. At least in the Philly area Comcast has upgraded (in places ) their network to fiber until you get to the "tap" where it splits off to the houses.

Off topic. This is one of the reasons why in the Philadelphia city limits FIOS is not available. Cable companies have lobbied the city legislature to restrict FIOS saying that Verizon is a Cable company now. And is subject some of he crazy zoning regs. But Verizion is fighting it.


RE: Where's my 37.5Mbps cable now?
By FITCamaro on 5/10/2007 8:47:34 AM , Rating: 1
Don't you love how companies are able to legally monopolize areas?


RE: Where's my 37.5Mbps cable now?
By flexy on 5/10/2007 9:10:49 AM , Rating: 2
>>>
Don't you love how companies are able to legally monopolize areas?
>>>

thats what i am saying..even if IN THEORY much higher fiber/cable speeds are possible...why should they up their caps at the same price ?

It would be their bandwidth/loss..and they wont do it if there is no market-competition "forcing" them to.

I had fiber in the Jackson, TN Area...but this fiber was capped at 3MB/256k...normal low cable speeds.


By FITCamaro on 5/11/2007 9:45:54 AM , Rating: 1
Hell I'm even willing to pay more for faster internet as long as its reasonable. I know once I get up to Fort Wayne, I plan to live somewhere where FiOS is available since $40 a month gets me 15mbps down and 2 mbps up. Currently I'm paying $60 a month for 7 mbps down (which I've gotten maybe twice) and 384 kbps up.


By FITCamaro on 5/10/2007 8:50:39 AM , Rating: 1
Except for my current shitty cable company who I hope to get rid of as the result of the FTC and BBB filings I have made, I have always gotten the advertised speed of the cable connections I've had. In Melbourne, FL I had 8 mbps cable and got speeds as such 90% of the time. Same with my 10 mbps cable in Orlando, and 8 mbps cable in Milwaukee, WI.

I can't wait to leave Charleston, SC and move to Fort Wayne, IN where FiOS is offered and even if it isn't, Comcast there is pretty damn good as well. My girlfriends cable connection I topped out at 12 mbps.


By bunnyfubbles on 5/10/2007 3:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
I've always had roadrunner cable supplied by timewarner and the two areas I've lived I have always had access to the quoted up/down bandwidth. I even knew a guy working for them locally who said they were supplying more than enough bandwidth to the neighborhoods to assure there would never be any slowdowns.

Of course I know this isn't the same for everyone, I've just been pretty lucky to have some pretty good service the ~7+ years I've had cable.


By CrimsonFrost on 5/28/2007 8:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
Umm, lemme just assure you, the bandwith that cable companies provide at least in my company is WELL above anything that the 400 people per node could EVER use, I would assume this is a common case throughout the industry. The only reason you experience slower speeds at "primetime" is because whatever servers you are hopping from or downloading from ARE busy. Though sometime people just have junky lines going to their homes... ;)


By Lonearchon on 5/10/2007 8:10:32 AM , Rating: 2
it is there since cable is shared bandwidth for each node each node supports about 38Mbps. With this new tech the node will now support 150Mbps at the node shared. What the limiting factor for current connection is the cable company limited it so the can use the same node for a large customer base


By solidstate2062 on 5/10/2007 8:14:37 AM , Rating: 2
Current Multiplexing and Modulation bottlenecks are limiting the speed as of now. When spreading the data over a fused 4 channel link, throughput is dramatically increased. I'm currently understudy of SiGe under a liquid helium cooled condition, modulation speeds over SPI lines are dramatically increased. If this substrate is somehow implemented mainstream within current data lines, you would see about a 12% increase in switching (fused data line) speeds...

This is basically a new modulation configuration, I would like to see the details myself...


RE: Where's my 37.5Mbps cable now?
By walk2k on 5/10/2007 9:41:30 AM , Rating: 2
The maximum for 1 channel of cable modem is about 30 megabits.

Comcast caps are much lower of course, 6-8M is typical, however with PowerBoost you can get close to 30 Mbits for short periods of time.

4 x 30 = 120 megabits so obviously DOCSIS 3.0 is also a bit more efficient.

FIOS? Sorry can't get that here. AT&T uVerse is launching in a very very few small neighborhoods, but the speed is no better than Comcast (6Mbits, with no PowerBoost) and the TV service stinks on ice (only 1 HD channel at a time for your whole house, and slow channel changing).

None of this is a threat to cable in the least bit.


RE: Where's my 37.5Mbps cable now?
By Souka on 5/10/2007 10:58:09 AM , Rating: 1
I wonder if that's what Comcast's 12Mbps "burst" speed is?

I mean, I've got the basic 6Mbps/384Kbps down/up service... but awhile back I got a notice that when downloading files larger than 100mb I can reach 12Mbps if the source allows it.

Sounds kinda like 2 channels...eh?


FIOS Killer? I don't think so.
By Cobra Commander on 5/10/2007 8:00:42 AM , Rating: 3
DOCSIS 3.0 allows speeds up to 160mbps down and 120mbps up and is largely-discussed as requiring 2-3 years of time before its deployment.

FIOS' initial spec allows speeds up to 100mbps (I don't know the up/down relationship offhand) and I mean, come on - it's freakin' fiber optics... it has an unreached potential without resorting to any channel bonding 'schemes' that DOCSIS 3.0 relies on.

FIOS killer? Not even close. If DailyTech is going to make such bold comments in its titles and headers I think its staff ought to do a better job of defending such comments.




RE: FIOS Killer? I don't think so.
By rushfan2006 on 5/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: FIOS Killer? I don't think so.
By Cobra Commander on 5/10/2007 9:38:51 AM , Rating: 2
You both missed my point entirely .

If you think Comcast or any other provide will roll out DOCSIS 3.0's potential out the gates you are wrong. Look at the DOCSIS 1.1 spec they're hanging on to - they have yet to even utilize half of its potential (38mbps down/9mbps up). So by drooling over DOCSIS 3.0's potential you are playing the part Comcast assumes you would - the ignorant consumer getting wowed by big numbers. Congrats.

Fiber optics are so undeniably superior to coaxial cable that it is utterly ridiculous to believe that simply bonding a few coax channels together is sufficient to "kill" fiber. DOCSIS 3.0 will deploy at a fraction of its potential and VZ will be giggling over the fact that their infrastructure runs at the speed of light fundamentally.

Have some understanding of how these cable companies work and get some foresight before looking at "Duh... 160 vs. 100... FIBER IS DEAD" and accepting it at face value.


RE: FIOS Killer? I don't think so.
By Thoreau on 5/10/2007 11:14:49 AM , Rating: 2
You are entirely right that fiber has more potential, but don't forget just how many channels can run over a single coax line. This 'new' spec uses only four of those channels. Just keep in mind how much other data/video/voice is running over that same puny copper core.

Of course, cable companies aren't gonna start killing off all their capacity just for data. Four channels is already four more than they would like to spend on services other than PPV video and other premium (ie: pricey) product offerings.


By theapparition on 5/10/2007 12:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but don't forget just how many channels can run over a single coax line.

How many "channels" can run over a coax? It can be a million, or one. The answer is completely irrelevant.
The important metric is how much data can be pushed down a connection (fiber or copper) and be readable by the electonics downsteam. It may seem like there are some empty "channels", so why not start pushing cable modem data on them. That's not how it works, though. Each channel carries data, and there is only so much data that can be broadcast. That's also why cable companies compress the hell out of their HD broadcasts as well, they need the room to fit more channels, other services, pay-per-view, on-demand, etc. When more channels go HD, they will really start to run out of bandwidth.
There are various ways to fit more data along a 75O cable, but there is a theoretical max, and the practial max is much lower with today's silicon. Fiber has an incomparible increase in theoretical bandwidth. That's if you only consider a single wavelength, but FIOS uses 3 "channels" for data (down/up/TV). Each of these channels comes from using DWDM, where you broadcast light at different wavelengths along the same cable. For practial sake, current technology allows around 350 channels through the same fiber. So a single wavelength fiber has signifigantly more bandwidth than coax X 350 wavelenghts in that single fiber. Coax doesn't stand a chance.
The biggest issue with fiber is loss of light over distances and more importantly, the electronics that convert electricity into light. Cable Co's are already in the process of upgrading their trunks to fiber.

I believe Cobra Commander's assertion that the cable co's have not provided full bandwidth up-front. I also don't think FIOS will, either. In my area, they are offering 20Mbps for $50, which is more than the cable offering. I expect cable prices to plummet (think 14.99 DSL prices) since they are now outdated. When this new standard comes out in 2years, they'll probably price competitively with whatever FIOS is pumping out then.


By threepac3 on 5/10/2007 2:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think your confused about DOCSIS 1.1/2.0/3.0 so called potential. They have reached there potential... 38mbps of DOCSIS 1.1 is not the potential speed of the connection to each home/node, its to each group of nodes. Meaning that each internet user would have a fraction of that speed not the whole thing.


whats the big deal?
By UnFaZeD on 5/10/2007 7:07:39 AM , Rating: 2
I've BEEN getting 100Mbit down for US$80 using Docsis 3.0 for nearly a year now...US ISP's need to up their game...




RE: whats the big deal?
By rushfan2006 on 5/10/2007 8:41:34 AM , Rating: 3
Where do you live and from which provider do you get this service? Not that I'd pay $80 for even 100 up/down connection (that's just too rich for my blood for home internet)...but just curious.

Also, you saying what's the big deal you've had it for a while...the majority of us don't have it -- that's the point.

Using your "what's the big deal" logic because you are a rare exception in the US - would be akin to Bill Gates saying "What's the big deal with buying a new home...I own 10 and my own island."....


okay..
By Lazarus Dark on 5/10/2007 6:08:19 AM , Rating: 4
That's great and all, but I'd be thrilled to actually get the two mbit per second that I am paying for. I have never been able to get it above 1mbit. And with absolutely no competition and likely none for several years, I feel like I am getting royally screwed when I hear that people in smaller cities than mine get 10 times the speed for half the price I'm paying. The first competition, wired, wimax, whatever, to come to my city, and comcast can kiss my ass.




Time Warner
By moflaherty on 5/10/2007 7:17:32 AM , Rating: 3
I have the "premium" package here in Ohio at a spine-tingling 6Mbps and pay through the nose. I wish we could get some competition here. 150Mbps would be very interesting to see...




FIOS speed misleading in this report
By BPB on 5/10/2007 8:21:21 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Verizon's FiOS service currently tops out at 50Mbps.
My buddy in Texas has been told his FIOS will be getting upgraded to between 80MB and 100MB any day (or week) now. My understanding is that soon all the FIOS folks will be getting the same.




By UNCjigga on 5/10/2007 3:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting, the VP in charge of FiOS (and other data services) has his office next door to my cube. I'll have to ask him about when the speed increases go into effect. I still can't get FiOS where I live--stupid MoCo is taking their time while Howard County gets wired.


Something to keep in mind too...
By jaeq on 5/10/2007 1:32:07 PM , Rating: 3
Currently it appears FiOS is using only 3 light wavelengths. Most likely this is 1 wavelength per service, 1 for telephone, 1 for internet, 1 for tv. Their add mentions them it's like 1310, 1490, 1550. You know, the guy with the 'nice truck'. These are measured in nanometers (nm) btw.

So... if they can deliver 50Mbps now, over a single wavelength, what's going to happen when they bundle 'channels'? Yep, 4 wavelengths = 200Mbps, 100 = 5000Mbps aka 5Gbps. I don't have hard figures on maximum wavelengths or minimum 'air' between used wavelengths, but 100 is _not_ impossible. I expect something like this is how Siemens has accomplished their > 100Gbps speed records.

In an arms race, FiOS has all the advantages except market penetration.




By Doug117 on 5/12/2007 3:21:07 AM , Rating: 2
I got a letter from Comcast a year or so ago pretty much stating that I was using too much bandwidth, and to back off or they'll cut my internet (and i'm on the basic 4Mbit or whatever it is). So now we can have 15Mbit, but you cant use it cause you'll be cut off for using too much. Makes sense. One or two people using 15Mbit in a neighborhood is gonna kill it for everyone else




By GlassHouse69 on 5/13/2007 10:50:55 AM , Rating: 1
wait for fios! it is far superior. you never share bandwidth even for a moment. totally dedicated bandwidth over fibre optic lines for never a drop of anything to stop you.

last ditch attempt by a shitty company who screws its customers like you :(


tough luck
By phaxmohdem on 5/10/2007 6:08:03 AM , Rating: 2
This is all well and good if you live in or around a major city. People in the boonies like myself will be stuck with slow cable and DSL lines for quite some time me things.

I've got the fastest internet money can buy in my area right now @ 3Mbps down and 384Kbps up, and I don't think that will be upgraded anytime soon, as the cable company in town has a monopoly on that sort of thing.




Eh
By Aikouka on 5/10/2007 8:12:35 AM , Rating: 2
I mentioned this on Anandtech when someone posted the article, but I don't see how they downloaded a 300 megabyte file in a few seconds. If the modem connects via 100Base-T, it will have a 100 Megabit limit (effectively, limiting it to 12.5MB/s). Using the 100Base-T limit, the file would take about half a minute to download. If it's connected via Gig-E and assuming the users have Gig-E, it will be limited by the speed of the Internet connection itself (theoretical 150Mb/s, which is 18.75MB/s). Based on the Internet connection maximum, it would take 16 seconds.

So yeah, "a few short seconds"... I don't think so, Tim*.

Also, Comcast will provide this speedy Internet and probably still limit how much you can download ;). Personally, I'd prefer a connection with equivalent upload and download... something like 20Mb U/D.

*Note: I know DailyTech didn't write that portion and this isn't directed at them.




Bundling
By BMFPitt on 5/10/2007 8:27:11 AM , Rating: 2
You still need to have Comcast cable to get this, which adds $15 a month for just the local channels only package. You can get FIOS without a landline. So the only question for me is whether FIOS will be available where I'm moving to in a few months.




ADSL2 in Estonia
By ikeke1 on 5/10/2007 9:19:54 AM , Rating: 2
Im currently using ADSL2 20 mbit down/1 mbit up, unlimited traffic, 10 euros a month :) (its a 60 apartment house shared connection, but it seems im the only one using it)




By nayy on 5/10/2007 10:07:34 AM , Rating: 2
I have heard nothing new from them in a while, but in theory they could achieve 100 mbps over gas pipes with little infrastructure investment
http://www.nethercomm.com/




comcast
By nyarrgh on 5/10/2007 10:35:32 AM , Rating: 2
Too bad comcast was the one demonstrating this. It would only enable comcast customers to reach their cap much faster.




$2400
By Shadowmaster625 on 5/10/2007 11:12:43 AM , Rating: 2
That is how much money my internet service has cost me since I went with Comcast almost exactly 5 years ago. Ugh. It is nice to know that at least 2% of that money has actually gone toward R&D.

And like the previous poster mentioned, this does not include the $15 a month for basic cable which I barely ever use... so really, with that plus taxes and stuff, I've payed right around $3600 for 5 years of internet service.




By Nyu on 5/10/2007 12:36:03 PM , Rating: 2
In Japan they've had 100/100 Mbps (both ways) for 2-3 years now for about 40$/month. I think they have 1 Gbit too in some areas.




Something to consider
By cheesecurd on 5/10/2007 1:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
No, cable is not a fiber killer as far as speed is concerned. Nor is it going to kill fiber outright. But cable does have the upper hand in INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT. Sing the praises of fiber all you want (I fully acknowledge its superiority, and given a choice you'd be an idiot to choose cable OVER fiber), but the fact of the matter is that it is not available to anywhere near as many people as cable (yet, anyhow). Not even close. Yes, cable equipment may need to be upgraded, but my understanding is they don't need to trench/run new wiring. Have you ever paid to trench/run anything? Not exactly cheap or speedy.




deregulate
By jmunjr on 5/10/2007 9:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'd really like to see the whole cable tv setup deregulated. Let them charge what they want and let them compete wherever they want. I suppose the little guy might get hurt but better the little guy than stifle progress for an entire nation.




High Speed in KC USA!!!!
By RjBass on 5/11/2007 1:18:41 AM , Rating: 2
After skimming through the comments I thought I should mention what Kansas City is doing, in particular, North Kansas City, Missouri.

The city of North Kansas City Missouri is a very rich town. So rich in fact that they had Verizon come in and install their Fios lines through out the city.

Sometime in the next year (if they havn't done so already) they plan to offer free high speed internet from the Fios lines up to 5mbps for all residents. Anybody who wants faster speeds will have to pay.

In my part of town I am stuck with DSL and standard cable. Time Warner offers up to 12mbps while AT&T offers up to 7mbps (which is what I have). However since I live in KC proper it is only matter of time before Fios lines are running in my area. KC has already opened the door to the Fios lines and as I write this they are instaling them in the new downtown entertainment district.




I use Comcast, but...
By FredEx on 5/11/2007 1:45:26 AM , Rating: 2
I have Comcast's top tier for my area at 8 down. I wish Comcast well with implementing DOCSIS 3.0. Thing is with FIOS is in the years it could take Comcast to get this kind of speed to their customers such as me, fiber tech is not going to remain stagnant. You are going to see faster speeds coming on existing fiber just by improvements in transmission speeds down existing fiber.




Bunch of crap
By GlassHouse69 on 5/13/07, Rating: 0
We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki