Re: Broadband

[Jordan Bettis <jordanb@m-net.arbornet.org>]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Benjamin Story wrote:

> 
> I've been following this thread all day and decided that I should
> throw my two cents into the ring.
> 
> I experimented with FGI's cable internet when it first rolled out in
> Sherman.  It was awesome for a while, but as more users hooked onto
> the system, the bandwidth dropped to near dial-up levels.  That was
> not however why I chose not to pay for the service after the free
> beta.  The reason I went back to dial-up was that the system was
> inherently anti-linux and unsecure.  FGI uses MSProxy to give Internet
> across the cable private LAN which prohibits anyone other than Windows
> users to use the system.  Security was also lacking as they required

I don't know too much about Windows 8-) but couldn't you run masq on a NT
box for your Linux boxes on an ethernet? That dosen't solve the security
problem though. 
 
> Recently we have been receiving an influx of ex FGI cable users at bullets.net
> because there is no longer a decent speed to price ratio.  In my

That might happen to AT&T too. If this Davesworld guy isn't bullshit, they
sound well prepared to handle their service becoming very popular.

> opinion, cable companies haven't really thought out their internet
> services. Maybe someday GTE will get bought out and Sherman will get
> DSL service, but until then we'll just be envious of Springfield. 

Well, GTE has DSL, but it's, um, from GTE. That's in Bloomington, and it
dosen't look too impressive.

As far as cable is concerned, I think it is a case of them trying to get
their network to do just a *little* more that that which it was designed
to do. It's like in the mid nineties when the backbones were straining
under the weight of the internet. They were still *laying* lines that only
had a few gigabits of bandwith because they hadn't envisioned the internet
yet when the lines were being planned.

The same is for the cable services, I bet even the brand new lines they're
putting in today are installed as the ones in Sherman were, basically
dasy-chaining the houses together. They haven't figured out how to set the
networt up for two way data. Even though coax can carry a shitload more
data than Cat3 UTC, the phone system was built to handle it better. I
mean, even with voice there is bandwith issues (in that one can have 
only so many analog signals in Cat3 UTC). They had to have much more 
centralized topography so as to be able to handle voice from each house
(unless the customers would go for a party line). Data over coax is
really neat, but unless (until?) the cable companies trench new lines so
as to make their network topography more condusive to two way data, I
think data over Cat3 UTC phone network is the only thing that will be able
to delever broadband internet (assuming the ISPs don't screw it up, that
is) on any type of large scale.

Of course, if they start making it standard to run optics to every
house...

Yey, Personal OC-3s! 8-)

Jordan Bettis.
 "Damn it! Somebody spiked my coffee with water"  --Larry Wall


--
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@luci.org with
"unsubscribe luci-discuss" in the body.