Le 2012-08-03 04:09, Invisible a écrit :
>> A few years ago, the carriers only installe dit when some cities would
>> require "fibre to the home" for any new development, but now customers
>> are asking for it, so they have no choice, or irsk losing those
>> customers to the competition.
>
> Maybe in your country. Over here, most people don't even realise that
> it's /possible/ to have fiber to your house. (Or that this would be
> beneficial somehow.) Like I said, BT is currently heavily pushing it's
> "Infinity" product, which is basically fiber to the kerb, giving a 10x
> speed boost. Not 200x, just 10x. And it's not cheap. And it's not
> available in 80% of the country. And it won't be available for years...
>
>>> They're talking about 200x more speed. That's epic, right there.
>>
>> Yeah, moving from cat 3 copper wies to fibre optics will do that!
>
> Well, you say that... My employer has a dedicated fiber connection, and
> it has a maximum speed of 10 mbit/sec. (We actually pay for 5mbit/sec.
> Costs about £30,000/year, IIRC. Then again, that's because we get
> business-grade reliability guarantees...)

That's because of the protocol overhead, and type of fibre, and also 
probably the fact that you share a fiber strand with other customers 
further down the road.  Fibre optics can go up to 10 Gbps for each 20nm 
of wavelength.  So, with the proper hardware, which is far from cheap, 
you can have multiple 10 Gbps pipes going down one fibre strand.  We've 
been through that before.

>
>>> Internet access is a little different. All Hotmail had to do was
>>> /literally/ press a button and everybody got a 500x storage limit
>>> increase. You can't do that with bandwidth.
>>
>> Sure they can. They've been offering HDTV signals over wire for the past
>> 5 years, this means the infrastructure is there to support that bandwith.
>
> I don't know about you, but we receive out HDTV signals over the
> airwaves, not over copper.
>

Here, we can have either.  I have religious objections to giving money 
to the traditional* phone company (which also operates the satellite tv 
offering), so my phone, tv and internet package is from the traditional* 
cable supplier via a standard coax cable.

>> The same thing happened 20 years ago when cable providers decided to
>> become internet providers since they already had enough bandwidth to
>> send 60 to 80 tv channels to every home... using one for data signals
>> was not a problem at all.
>>
>> This forced the phone companies to massively upgrade their networks to
>> support faster and faster aDSL services.
>
> I don't even know what "cable" is.

Yes you do.  When you said you didn't know what cable was a few months 
ago, I showed you the link to Wikipedia, and you even admitted your 
parents used to have cable tv, before ditching it for a satellite dish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_tv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_Internet


Footnotes:
*We used to a have a telco monopoly and a cable tv monopoly, but with 
the switch to digital signals, both carriers now offer both services, 
plus video on demand, etc...
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message