AT&T: 15 Mbps Internet connections "irrelevant"

From: Mikael Abrahamsson (no email)
Date: Sat Apr 01 2006 - 01:34:36 EST

  • Next message: Bruce Pinsky: "Re: AT&T: 15 Mbps Internet connections "irrelevant""

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060331-6498.html

    "In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is
    irrelevant because the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds," he
    told the conference attendees. Stephenson said that AT&T's field tests
    have shown "no discernable difference" between AT&T's 1.5 Mbps service and
    Comcast's 6 Mbps because the problem is not in the last mile but in the
    backbone."

    Is this something held generally true in the US, or is it just pointed
    hair-talk? Sounds like "nobody should need more than 640kb of memory" all
    over again.

    I can definately see a difference between 2 meg, 8 meg and even faster,
    even when web browsing, especially transferring large pictures when
    running gallery or alike. When I load www.cnn.com with 130ms latency I get
    over 1 megabit/s and that's transatlantic with a lot of small objects to
    fetch. Most major newspapers here in Sweden will load at 5-10 megabit/s
    for me, and downloading streaming content (www.youtube.com) will easily
    download at 10-20 megabit/s if bw is available. flickr.com around a couple
    of megabits/s. (all measured with task-manager in XP, very scientific :P)

    I can relate to there being a sweetspot around 1.5-3 megs/s when larger
    speed doesn't really give you a whole lot of more experience with
    webbrowsing, but the more people will start to use services like
    youtube.com, the more bw they will need at their local pipe and of course
    backbone should be non-blocking or close to it...

    -- 
    Mikael Abrahamsson    email: 
    

  • Next message: Bruce Pinsky: "Re: AT&T: 15 Mbps Internet connections "irrelevant""





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD