Internet Speed

[billbenson]

For those who want a faster internet:
cisco says new router to "forever change the internet" the question is 'when': Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/cisco-says-new-router-to-%22forever-change-the-internet%22-the-question-is-%27when%27-438818.html?tickers=CSCO,T,VZ,S,QQQQ,GOOG,^IXIC)

[vangogh]

Very cool. I couldn't tell from the article, but are these routers that we'll buy or are they more for ISPs and others to use to connect things? I take it both. One other question that comes to mind is will this also help speed up wireless connections or is this only about wired connections.

Still cool no matter what the answers to my questions are. I want my internet and I want it now, no I want it sooner than now.

[dynocat]

With Google TISP (http://www.google.com/tisp/), you won't need that cisco router, guys!

[billbenson]

No, this is 100% network routers. They are saying with the trend toward streaming video and other capacity intensive services, the Internet itself will need to be much faster. There is plenty of speed to provide to local customers. Also when fiber optic cable is installed in the ground, they put in excess and empty pipes to blow in more fiber later.

Typically, for long haul fiber, they put 4 in (might be 6 in, I forget) pvc in the ground. Then the put 4 "subducts" in that pvc which are seamless. Intially, they blow (put a plug on the end of pvc and compressed air behind it) one group of cables in one subduct. They have the other three available for future expansion. I don't think there is any anticipated capacity problems with the long haul fiber.

The weak link is in the network equipment. At least it appears that way from the article. The ISP's probably install a lower capacity fiber (fiber cables come in different speeds and numbers of individual fibers). The only real capacity issues they have is with their routers. They don't need to have the speed or capacity of the long haul routers such as the Cisco ones in the article, but they may need to upgrade as well.

From what I've read, if you have a 5G pipe to your ISP, you have all the capacity you will need in the near future. The thing is, if 40% (or whatever percentage) of an ISP's customers are all using 1M at the same time for things like streaming video, will they be able to support it. I doubt it without network equipment upgrades between the customers and the ISP's POP.

[vangogh]

With Google TISP, you won't need that cisco router, guys!

If only it were true. You're a few weeks early posting a link to this :)

Thanks for the explanation Bill. That's more how I was originally thinking when I read the article, but somewhere near the end it mentioned customers, which made me think we'd need to upgrade routers too.

[dynocat]

If only it were true. You're a few weeks early posting a link to this :)

:confused: Early?

I thought it might be something huggy could get a jump on! :)

[Harold Mansfield]

This past week I had tech guys from Cox come to my house 4 different times to get my new 50 mbps line working correctly. It's getting there, but I'm still not getting 50, at this point I think it's a matter of me needing that new unit with more processing power than anything.

Anyway, we were talking about speed capabilities and they were telling me that in one of their launch markets, Virginia, home users are getting speeds upwards of 100-150 mbps..so we may not be as far away as we think on this.

[vangogh]

Early?

You do realize what that post was all about, don't you? I'm thinking 3 weeks from today would have been the right day to post it.


so we may not be as far away as we think on this

Anything that speeds up the internet works for me.

[billbenson]

It's just a weak link thing. Right now, the fiber is in place in a lot of areas and already in place for the long haul chunks like NY to San Francisco etc.

There is nothing out there that requires more than 1M download to the consumer at the present time but that is likely to change.

ISP's with older equipment are going to need to upgrade, but not to the kind of equipment in the Cisco article I posted. That is for major pipes across country etc.

You can think of the whole network like an airline hub system. There are some directs NY to LA, but most flights require a connection. It's all these connections that require the stuff like the Cisco Router. It's worth noting that Cisco makes all grades of routers. The consumer stuff is sold under the LinkSys name.

[vangogh]

What I was concerned with is that we consumers were the weak link or will be when these routers are in place. Same concern for the wireless. It's all well and good for the speed to come in through a wired connection, but if my wireless still slows things down it does me little good.

[billbenson]

WiFi definitely has a limited bandwidth, so you don't really want to use that for streaming video. I just looked it up and its theoretical maximum is 54 Mbs. The thing is, that assumes perfect reception. Even if you are in the same room as a wireless router, you will have reflections and other issues that will slow it down. There is also encryption and other overhead stuff to slow it down. In the next room you are going through walls etc. It will keep slowing itself down until it gets good data transmission. Even then, if the checksums don't match, its going to be resending packets.

Wired ethernet is good for 100 Mbs. I don't know if it can deliver that, but it wouldn't be a weak link. Routers and modems may need to be improved to get reliable speed in the house, I'm not sure.

Also, there are test neighborhoods already that have fiber to the home (not curb). Eventually coax will start disappearing.

So, you are fine for the near future IMO. I doubt you will need or be able to use more than 5M in the next several years. But you won't get that sitting on your wireless laptop, and I don't see any dramatic change in that.

[dynocat]

You do realize what that post was all about, don't you? I'm thinking 3 weeks from today would have been the right day to post it.

I do, but thought I'd inject some humor. Never occurred to me I should wait for April Fools. Sorry for the topic derail. You guys take this tech stuff too seriously. J/K :)

[billbenson]

Not taking it to seriously, particularly since its 3am here. What's important is that people are aware of where we are today, where we probably will be tomorrow, and where we may be in 5 years.

There is a lot of marketing hyp out there. What do you really need today and what should you plan for down the road.

Spider - you listing? :)

[Spider]

Not at 3 o'clock in the morning!

[Harold Mansfield]

WiFi definitely has a limited bandwidth, so you don't really want to use that for streaming video. I just looked it up and its theoretical maximum is 54 Mbs. The thing is, that assumes perfect reception. Even if you are in the same room as a wireless router, you will have reflections and other issues that will slow it down. There is also encryption and other overhead stuff to slow it down. In the next room you are going through walls etc. It will keep slowing itself down until it gets good data transmission. Even then, if the checksums don't match, its going to be resending packets.

Wired ethernet is good for 100 Mbs. I don't know if it can deliver that, but it wouldn't be a weak link. Routers and modems may need to be improved to get reliable speed in the house, I'm not sure.

Also, there are test neighborhoods already that have fiber to the home (not curb). Eventually coax will start disappearing.

So, you are fine for the near future IMO. I doubt you will need or be able to use more than 5M in the next several years. But you won't get that sitting on your wireless laptop, and I don't see any dramatic change in that.
Actually, the last set of techs that I had come out (I actually had 3 guys last time) said that with this particular service that they have with the Cisco modem, that you would have to get a compatible router to get speeds close to that wirelessly around the house.

They said you may not get the 50mbps, but you could get 30-35 and up.

As you said an weak link in the chain, Modem, Driver, Your Computer, ISP and it won't matter what you signed up for, you still won't get the speed.

[vangogh]

thought I'd inject some humor

I'm glad you did. My initial response was just meant to let you I got the joke. I was trying to let you know without spoiling it for others.


WiFi definitely has a limited bandwidth...

That's all kind of what I figured. I always work wireless. I'm not good at sitting in a chair in front of a desk. Until I owned a laptop I never did much with computers because they required me to sit in a specific place.

I know the wireless connection to the network is the weak link, but the pros outweigh the cons for me.

Still when it comes to all this extra speed, if I'm not willing to give up the weak link in the connection I won't really see the benefits of the increase in speed. Then again if I'm good for another 5 years or so by then I would think wireless will be faster as well.

[Spider]

And you'll be older and maybe you'll sit still longer!

[billbenson]

Still when it comes to all this extra speed, if I'm not willing to give up the weak link in the connection I won't really see the benefits of the increase in speed. Then again if I'm good for another 5 years or so by then I would think wireless will be faster as well.

Home wireless will still be limited because its a physics thing. Higher frequency's can send more data but are shorter in range and more affected by surroundings. You may not have seen it yet as we have moved up from 900 M, but that is probably because of better compression techniques.

Most of the applications I see will probably be used by a media center ie movies, music etc. If you are sitting on your couch and want to watch a youtube video, you can set things up to watch it on your TV. I'm in fact planning on putting a TV as a monitor connection to my pc. Pretty much just for videos.

You probably won't be doing that much on your laptop to have a problem.



They said you may not get the 50mbps, but you could get 30-35 and up.

Eborg, let us know what kind of speed you get on your laptop, both next to the router and through a few walls. It'll be interesting.

[Harold Mansfield]

Home wireless will still be limited because its a physics thing. Higher frequency's can send more data but are shorter in range and more affected by surroundings. You may not have seen it yet as we have moved up from 900 M, but that is probably because of better compression techniques.

Most of the applications I see will probably be used by a media center ie movies, music etc. If you are sitting on your couch and want to watch a youtube video, you can set things up to watch it on your TV. I'm in fact planning on putting a TV as a monitor connection to my pc. Pretty much just for videos.

You probably won't be doing that much on your laptop to have a problem.



Eborg, let us know what kind of speed you get on your laptop, both next to the router and through a few walls. It'll be interesting.

Believe it or not, I don't even have a wireless router connected. I rarely use my laptop at home and if I do take it out to the pool or something I just plug in my Sprint Broadband card.

I don't care what the techs say, I was just sharing...I like the cable jacked right into my computer (or modem) with a direct connection.

I'm not building a client site on WiFi...been down that road before (where files come up blank) and I ain't trusting it.

May be cool for connecting the XBOX or Tivo, but not when I need to do stuff.

Besides, I now need a compatible router with the DOCSIS modem, so even if I pulled one out of a box and blew the dust off, it won't work anymore...I just obsoleted my stuff.:) (man, I just thought about that...my routers, if I need them, are not compatible).

[billbenson]

One other thing on the wireless home routers: You can put directional antennas on them to improve signal strength. The stick type of antenna (omni directional) radiates in a pie sort of shape. That is 360 degrees horizontally but not much up and down.

You can get some directional antennas that radiate directionally. Some are more directional than others. If you generally work on one side of the antenna, it would be a good solution. One type is a patch antenna which looks like a smoke detector more or less. They cost around $60.