Printable View
Because you said that in Japan/Korea that it never leaves the "LAN/WAN"
I'm not quite sure where you're going either. You seem to assume that because the company you work for uses overground fiber that everyone else does, when in fact you are in the of minority carriers.
I'm also not sure what the point of that image was other than to show the network using a large amount of fiber. And VOIP which I'm pleased to see as it was a hot topic at this years netevents.
good god :eek:
thats insane redefined and as some people have pointed out, usless in most cases.
512k here, its saturated 99.9% of the time both ways :D
its hella cheap though, £7.50 a month uncapped.
This would allow me to rule the world... Muahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa
Must move to france to acheive final objective of world domination....
Man thats alot of :banana::banana::banana::banana: oops I meant Majestic 12 points...
I think you mis-read or didn't quite read the entire post. You are also mis-interperting what I am saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobalt
I said it never leaves the Local LAN/WAN, i.e. the 80/20 rule. (Technically the 80/20 rule is for a "Local LAN" however, it does apply in this situation. "80 percent of the traffic on a given network segment should be local (destined for a target in the same workgroup), and not more than 20 percent of the network traffic should need to move across a backbone (the spine that connects various segments or "subnetworks") )Quote:
Originally Posted by WesM63
I also said, 95% of OUR fiber is above ground. Just so you don't miss it:
I never once said ALL fiber is above ground. I mearly thought it was funny how when someone hears the word "fiber" they instantly think it is buried underground. Like I was pointing out, thats not always the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by WesM63
The image was to prove I know what i'm talking about and have been doing this for quite some time. The diagram I linked was a network I designed for a company, however they went with a diffrent design.
Please read my posts thoroughly before coming to a conclusion that you assume I have no clue what I am talking about.
You guys with DSL/Cable are lucky !!!! I cant even get either !!!!
The best I can get is an 800 Kb/s WISP. My average ping in games is 300-700ms. Therefore I dont even bother to play anymore :(
I would sh** if I could have 2.5 Gb/s, or much less, even cable :rolleyes:
In Japan I thought alot of their cities had terabit fiber laid to like every building. That pwns Paris :rolleyes:
5 years ago I worked for a Window Cleaning company, that did the final cleaning on newly built homes and worked as a contractor for homes that were already built by the same company.
One of the customers was a guy that invested in Fiber Optics back in the 80's, early 90's, seriously the 2 hours it took me to clean his office windows in his house which was HUGE, the man had at least two phones one on each ear, a video conference on his laptop, and another phone that was ringing off the hook.
From what I heard, he makes money everytime someone sends a bit of data over seas. The man had like 8-10 kids, and the house to hold them and then some.
Wireless is the future, not fiber.
Thats a good possibility but not that i'm aware of. The fastest switch I see you can buy is 10Gb/s.Quote:
Originally Posted by wa77ss
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanfox
Wireless = Latency
Latency = not good for games :(
Trust me, I know :(
come on guys.. we got hard drives.. 4 raptors can do dat, no sweat.. wat we don got is Gb/s.. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi
Fiber has way more bandwidth than wireless ever will.Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanfox
Damn, A year ago I thought my 5mbps down 384kbps up was good. Now, it's average. I just stayed a few nights at the RIT hotel, which shares internet with the RIT college. 25mbps down 10mbps up was effing AWESOME. Come home, suckage. I seriously hope USA gets better internet soon, or road runner for that matter. Comcast I think it was is offering 7mbps now.
EDIT: I talked to Road Runner on Live Chat today, and they said to contact my local office. Everyone using RR, contact their local offices, see if we can get any info! I'm calling mine tomorrow. Let's hope for a possible future speed inrease! :woot:
I dunno about terabit speeds too, but an OC-768 would yield about 38Gb/s, of course one of those would be exceedingly rare, or else multiple OC-192's would do the same. Of course any of those connections would be strictly network backbone and chances are it would break it down into smaller links which would be further divided.Quote:
Originally Posted by WesM63
I wonder what the next ethernet standard will be, I remember hearing a jump to 100gigE would be too large, so something like 40gigE would be likely. Seeing copper at any speeds above 10gigE would be interesting as well, being 10gigE over copper is restricted to 65m I think for Cat 6, Cat 7 would be needed for the full 100m.
I just wish some company would come and lay fiber all through out the USA so all homes could have high speed cable broadband. Im tired of the wireless ISP non sense as well as dial up.
I didn't bother reading through ALL 5 PAGES, but SURELY someone has considered the logical reason as to why the USA DOES NOT have such awesome internet connection available nationwide! Look at how HUGE we are, and how established our lines have been, it would cost a MASSIVE FORTUNE to upgrade all the ground wires NATIONWIDE! This is how the US gets left behind on technology, lol..smaller countries in Europe and Asia(already developed), and even developing countries in the world who have not established a well networked data infrastructure, can easily do this for their whole country over night...well at least more easily than the US could do it.
one of the reason why the EU and some parts of Asia are more advanced in this area is cause back in the day when the cable companies were goverment owned some of them goverments put fibre into the ground instead of copper. Wich was possible back then cause they had kind of a no profit thing going.Quote:
Originally Posted by turbox997
So they basicly got a few years headstart. Nowdays them companys cant throw aroudn cash like that cuase they wanna make profit.
i think a reason wich makes it hard todo for both (US and EU) is that the big heavy populated citys dont like it if companys break open a heavy used street for a few days just to put a cable into the ground.
tbh if a nowadays a company is gonna put cable into the ground for internet etc i think they should al just straight go ot fibre just to be ready for the future.
verizon is offering "FIOS" in some areas, is fiber optics...
damn that's crazy
I'd just be happy with unlimited downloads on my cable connection instead of crappy 60gb(20gb peak, 40gb off peak) for about us$50
I don't think it will be australia, I live in melbourne (second largest city is australia) and it is quite easy to get 24/1mb connections. I pay au$80/month for adsl2+ and am getting 15/1mb due to distance (shaped after 20GB :( ).Quote:
Originally Posted by Starscream
Mind you the regional areas are still living in the dark ages; my parents town has only just been approved for upgrades to ADSL (not ADSL+/ADSL2/ADSL2+). Due to the quality of the line the dial-up speeds they have been getting is around 42kb/s (meant to be 56k). Further out in the sticks, many people are still only getting <22k.
I can't remeber exactly how long ago it happened, but I would say it was less than 10 years ago that the telcos were still government owned.
I have a 10 Mbps Fiber line in Sacramento, CA. They also offer a 20 Mbps option.
It is great, but the thing is, especially for file sharing, my bandwidth is very rarely capped on my end. There is almost always a weaker link in the chain. The most common times I max at my end is when downloading from a more reputable website which has the infrastructure to accommodate the bandwidth.
As far as gaming, this also becomes pretty much capped as I often get single digit pings, so not much room for improvement there.
Where I really see the future of such high bandwidth services is integrated into TV service for a true, full library of "On Demand" content.
Right now though, there seems to be a few too many "weak links" though to utilize such bandwidth.
If you have broadband, ping doens't really change with speed. It all depends on things like distance between you and server, network traffic, etc etc.
2.5 Gbits/s means the same as 25 Mega Download or downstream.Quote:
"Presence-pc at reports that France Telecom just announced they are offering 2.5 Gb/s Internet connections to select cities in the Paris region. For ... $85(70 Euros) a month you also get free phone and TV. From the article (in French): 'The historical operator opted for a GPON (Gigabit Passive Optical Network) FTTH architecture (Fiber To The Home). This technology allows up to 2.5 Gbits/s download and 1.2 Gigabits/s upload.'"
1.2 Gigabits/s means the same as 1.2 Mega.
We have in britain a plan that gets up to 24 or 2.4 Gbits/s or Mega download and upload stream 1.3 for mere 24£.
They tell is giga but is far away too big. Is impossible increase the speed in 100X, with everything together as TV broadband and others services. It must be less than the company below.
The news is just untrue about somethings. It is not Gigabits is megabits.
So that does not impress me.
Link Here
2.5 Gb is approximately 300 MB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
in theory 312.5Mb/s
I wonder what Europes realestate looks like. I could easily buy a 500,000 dollar house. Not sure if that is big there or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobalt
~Mike
http://www.viviun.com/AD-59471/ <--- Nice and cheap!