Paul said:
Sorry for late reply, work!
Hm, I thought that was pretty quick, but OK...
I'm only replying coz I have insomnia and can't sleep.
Why? That just sounds like hype to me.
There is no hype about it, all the major tele companies know that it is the future.
It's "the future" sure, but that doesn't realistically mean the IMMEDIATE future.
Verizon is beginning to mass deploy FTTP in the United States.
Okay, you gimme a holler when they're all done with that in, ooh, say another hundred years or so...
Dude, nobody's going to connect up every house with a fiber cable anytime soon, there's like tens of millions of houses in the US alone.
There are alot of lines in the US that are already over fiber instead of copper
But the large extent of that is main distribution lines, not the stumps that connects up to the actual customers.
Why spend all that money to upgrade CO hardware for VDSL when it's just a stop gap for fiber mediums?
Probably because like everybody's discovered it's much cheaper than laying down a fiber, and it gives all the performance a customer's reasonably going to need?
Besides, you guys really need to follow the rest of the known universe and switch to metric. Jesus christ, you're still measuring distance in FEET in the 21st century...
Servers do not have the bandwidth capabilities today because your average connection is around 1.5mbs.
And servers aren't going to change much if the average connection to the customer increases to 150mbs either. It's obvious you can't realistically satisfy millions of people all equipped with that kind of a connection, aggregate bandwidth demands simply explode beyond all proportions. It's tough enough as it is with SPs putting in caps either on total download amounts or download speed. Fortunately we don't have much of that BS in Sweden, but in the US it seems pretty commonplace.
Because it's all moot, your spending money on inferior hardware that won't scale without putting more money into it
And you're saying fiber scales without sinking money into it?
What planet are you from, man?
Especially as the biggest cost is laying down the fiber network to begin with, whereas copper is already in place and paid for long ago.
There is no known limit to the data carrying limit of fiber.
But there's a well-known limit to the data NEEDS of the customer. Like I said, I have 8mbps downstream, but that is more than I either NEED, nor can even USE. Most servers I download from give no more than 150kb/s, if even that much. Many hover around 30-50, which means I notice no difference now from when I had my 512mbs ADSL connection.
Bandwidth isn't cheap, and it certainly isn't free, something the people running this site probably can attest to.
Awesome, though I'm not only talking about downloading porn and MP3's off the internet(though it's nice).
To be frank I don't think you know WHAT you're talking about dude... You're just spouting hype in a freakish manner... What can you do with fiber bandwidth that you can't do with VDSL right now? "Security", what's that? Video on demand, since WHEN was anyone but greedy content providers interested in that, huh? Streaming video and conferencing? Shit, you can fit SEVERAL streams into 30mbit/s no problem, and VDSL is even bidirectional, so you won't exactly be starving for bandwidth either! It's all just hype and blaha blaha!
All xDSL flavours will not be avaliable to the end user at a certain distance.
And at the distances we're talking about, NEITHER WILL FIBER. Period. If nobody is even willing to invest in broadband for the existing copper network in a location like that, they're certainly not going to run a super-capacity fiber line out into the bush for a minimal return on the hugely enormous investment.
You can't be serious. Zoning ordinances in most of Europe would never tolerate that and neither would the people living there, here almost all lines above ground in densely populated areas went the way of the dodo like half a century ago and with good reason. Hell, all it takes is one car crash and you have a city block or more without access for hours and probably much longer.
Copper infrastructure is already there man!
And it's 100 years old and will be replaced.
I don't think there's a single wire still being used that's 100 years old, so what's your point? Old tech isn't neccessarily the same as bad, and if you need to obsolete old tech, you work on obsoleting the internal combustion engine and the light bulb instead, they're far more inefficient and wasteful with resources...
There is not one telcom company in the world that will not say that fiber is the ultimate future for the next 100 years until we find another medium that can transmit data better(fiber is the best on earth).
I'm not arguing against that PER SE, just this weird standpoint that we're all supposed to need fiber everywhere right NOW, that's neither reasonable nor realistic.
