[89682] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T: 15 Mbps Internet connections "irrelevant"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bruce Pinsky)
Sat Apr 1 01:51:07 2006
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 22:50:39 -0800
From: Bruce Pinsky <bep@whack.org>
Reply-To: bep@whack.org
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0604010820410.26621@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060331-6498.html
>
> "In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is
> irrelevant because the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds," he
> told the conference attendees. Stephenson said that AT&T's field tests
> have shown "no discernable difference" between AT&T's 1.5 Mbps service
> and Comcast's 6 Mbps because the problem is not in the last mile but in
> the backbone."
>
>
>
> Is this something held generally true in the US, or is it just pointed
> hair-talk? Sounds like "nobody should need more than 640kb of memory"
> all over again.
>
> I can definately see a difference between 2 meg, 8 meg and even faster,
> even when web browsing, especially transferring large pictures when
> running gallery or alike. When I load www.cnn.com with 130ms latency I
> get over 1 megabit/s and that's transatlantic with a lot of small
> objects to fetch. Most major newspapers here in Sweden will load at 5-10
> megabit/s for me, and downloading streaming content (www.youtube.com)
> will easily download at 10-20 megabit/s if bw is available. flickr.com
> around a couple of megabits/s. (all measured with task-manager in XP,
> very scientific :P)
>
> I can relate to there being a sweetspot around 1.5-3 megs/s when larger
> speed doesn't really give you a whole lot of more experience with
> webbrowsing, but the more people will start to use services like
> youtube.com, the more bw they will need at their local pipe and of
> course backbone should be non-blocking or close to it...
>
Sounds like FUD to me...
Perhaps trying to downplay the push to FIOS?????
- --
=========
bep
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFELiK/E1XcgMgrtyYRAuxsAKDbn3HfYeEw7aSESqnniC1B23KENACdHkXc
Bcxm4o1CnWKXkpMvoM7qsno=
=Xg6U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
