[muglo] Re: ISPs
- From: Larry Kryski <lskryski@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:39:54 -0400
> From: "Eric D." <hideme666@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:43:12 -0400
> To: <muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [muglo] Re: ISPs
>=20
>=20
> on 27/8/02 11:44, Larry Kryski at lskryski@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>=20
>> Eric,
>>=20
>> I have the feeling that these vast speed inferences are coming from the
>> confusion between KB/sec and Kb/sec.. Note that 1 KB of data equals 10 K=
b of
>> data in this scenario (overhead being taken into consideration). If you
>> apply these numbers to the numbers below, then all the figures fall with=
in
>> your theoretical limits for cable and all is well.
>>=20
>> The best speeds that I have seen on my system, using Rogers, was 3.2 Mb/=
sec
>> (3200 Kb/sec or 320 KB/sec.) This was downloading MP3s under Napster, fr=
om
>> T3 sources. MP3s were taking typically 10 to 11 sec. to download. Their
>> sizes were typically in the 3 to 3.5 MB size.
>=20
> I was wondering about that but 1200 Kbit/sec (150 KB/sec) seemed a little
> low as a max on cable modem... computers use base-2 as their numbering
> system so kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte are all multiples of 1024 rather t=
han
> 1000; though, to make things confusing, companies often use base-10 for t=
he
> various denominations of bit and at other times base-2 (which is why your=
40
> "gig" HD doesn't actually format to a true 40 gigaBYTES)) (PS I didn't
> realise you were in K/W Eurogarth)
>=20
> 1200 Kb/sec ~ 150 K/sec (aka KB... Kb is only used by marketing firms try=
ing
> to make their 1 megabit modems seem faster than they really are). My litt=
le
> bro's had cable modem for the past 6 months in K/W and he was disappointe=
d
> with the speeds he'd get compared to what I got in London (typically he g=
ets
> 20-80 K/sec IIRC)... although he was doing better than our friend with Ma
> Bells Symcrapico Low-Speed-Edition (her nickname for the company) who was
> jealous of his access... jealousy seems to stop with our father... he's
> happy on 56K & I don't think I could even handle a downgrade cable modem
> anymore (too slow ;-P ;-P ;-P)).
>=20
> PS How fast are the modems used with cable? 4 megabit? (I assume since I'=
ve
> seen ~400 K/sec which would jive with the overhead required over a 4 mega=
bit
> connection)
Well Eric, to be technically correct, a modem never downloads a byte of
data, only a bit. The byte is assembled by your computer (as if you didn=B9t
already know that :-) Thus the terms Kb and Mb are the only two correct
terms. Throughput might be discussed in terms of KB or MB, but they can be
all over the place depending on line conditions, equipment, software... etc=
.
The transmission rate is constant, regardless of the throughput. Throughput
is the more valuable commodity though, wouldn=B9t you agree?
Marketeers (like privateers :-) use whatever they think will sell, so they
like to split hairs.
*************************************
In a discussion with some Rogers techies, I was told that the modem that I
possess (LanCity) was a 10Mbit/sec unit, but the speed was internally
capped. To support this, I came across a hackers=B9 mag, which told how to
hack into the LanCity units and up the speed. They wanted to change out thi=
s
modem recently, when I moved to a new location, but I wouldn=B9t allow them.
The newer modems are capped in manufacture at 3-4 Mb/sec., I believe.
For those that are wondering, I=B9ve had Rogers service for five or more
years... (I forget exactly how long.) Outside of trying to find someone in
their technical support office that understands the real technical stuff,
I=B9ve had relatively few problems. (Mind you they are the champions when it
comes to voice-mail-hell!) Their system slows down Friday evenings, when
everyone starts their weekend, but the rest of the week is usually pretty
good. There are some outages from time to time, but that is the nature of a
living/developing technology.
People seem to think that this is a mature technology and that it should
operate like a toaster... push down the button and wait for the toast to po=
p
up. But it=B9s not that simple. While the technology is pretty good, it=B9s whe=
n
you put it into a dynamically changing/growing system that creates the
problems. Mind you the whining/complaining is good, because it keeps the
companies on their toes! Maybe it has to be more organized whining and
complaining.
As to the monopoly arguments, Bell does have a monopoly on the phone lines
and Rogers on the cable systems. But neither has a monopoly on the
transmission of data... they are in competition there. And they are
companies of comparable size, so it is a fair competition (poor choice of
words, perhaps??) We, as user/bystanders will have to wait another technica=
l
generation (perhaps 5-10 years) before their data delivery is completely
comparable=8BRogers has the speed advantage right now.
But once optical fibre becomes wide-spread, the whole market will change. A
big part of the cost is the installation of a lot of equipment and expensiv=
e
equipment at that. Plus the service side must be heavy as well. Once the
development stabilizes (read matures) then, I would expect the real benefit=
s
of competition will kick in. Right now, the competition in hi-speed is to
get customers from a large pool that is unserviced (in the hi-speed sense).
Once that pool dries up, then they will compete on price and service, tryin=
g
to steal customers, like we currently see in the phone market. So if you
want lower hi-speed pricing sooner, work to dry up that pool. Get everyone
you know to get a hi-speed service and then we can get on with the price
wars.
************************************
Perhaps we should all step back from these arguments for a moment to reflec=
t
on where we stand compared to 10 or 15 years ago. I know that 10 or 15 year=
s
ago if we could have looked ahead and seen the capabilities that we have
right now, we would be flabbergasted if we heard ourselves complaining. I
think that it would have made us sound like a rather ungrateful lot, don=B9t
you think?
Larry
Users can subscribe to the List by sending an email to
<muglo-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 'subscribe' in the Subject field
Users can unsubscribe from the List by sending an email to
<muglo-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
Users must send messages or replies to <muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
All messages are archived so that you can view them at any time by
going to <//www.freelists.org/archives/muglo>
Problems concerning use of the FreeList should be sent to
<paulthomas@xxxxxxx>
Don't forget to periodically check our web site at:
http://muglo.on.ca/
Other related posts:
