North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: AT&T: 15 Mbps Internet connections "irrelevant"
The majority of U.S.-based IP TV deployments are not using MPEG-4, in fact, you would be hard-pressed to find an MPEG-4 capable STB working with middleware. SD MPEG-2 runs around ~4 Mbps today and HD MPEG-2 is ~19 Mbps. With ADSL2+ you can get up to 24 Mbps per home on very short loops, but if you look at the loop length/rate graphs, you'll see that even with VDSL2 only the very short loops will have sufficient capacity for multiple HD streams. FTTP/H is inevitable. Frank -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Edward B. DREGER Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 1:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: AT&T: 15 Mbps Internet connections "irrelevant" MA> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 08:34:36 +0200 (CEST) MA> From: Mikael Abrahamsson MA> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060331-6498.html MA> MA> "In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is [ snip ] MA> Is this something held generally true in the US, or is it just MA> pointed hair-talk? Sounds like "nobody should need more than 640kb MA> of memory" all over again. I think the Comcast and "cheaper cable plant" references answer your question. With "new AT&T" adverts, political lobbying, selling retail DSL below loop/backhaul-only, and consolidation costs, how much money is left over for last-mile upgrades? Call me cynical. I just seem to recall AT&T ads in US news magazines bragging about backbone size _and_ the large portion of Internet traffic they [supposedly] carry. (I say "supposedly" because claims might be technically true, but misleading, when traffic passes over AT&T _lines_ via other providers' IP networks. Shades of UUNet and Sprint[link] from years gone by, anyone?) So... uh... assuming all three claims -- "backbone is bottleneck", "we have big backbone capacity", and "we carry big chunks of Internet traffic" -- are true... I'm puzzling over what appears a bit paradoxical. The IPTV reference is also amusing. Let's assume a channel can be encoded at 1.0 Mbps -- roughly a 1.5 hr show on a CD-ROM. I don't see two simultaneous programs, Internet traffic, and telephone fitting on a DSL connection. Perhaps the real question is which regulatory agency, or shareholders, needed to hear what the article said. ;-) Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: [email protected] -*- [email protected] -*- [email protected] Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.