On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 16:28 -0400, Chad Bailey wrote: > I wasn't aware of the latency issues with U-Verse. I will say that the > upload speed is the sole reason I have pretty much no interest in the > service though.
I didn't either, but without would have paid a $29 service fee, and I got the Internet for the first month for like $26 :) > IMHO once you get to around 10mbit speeds download, more is > unnecessary (though that figure will grow as we find more ways to > consume more data) and a bigger upload is far more important. That is true in many cases, since most will not serve up data beyond 3-5Mbps. Even if you have say Comcast's top plan of 105Mbps down/10Mbps up. If you and I both have that same connection, max we can exchange things at is 10Mbps. Now in my case, when I go to backup stuff from my servers at Peak10. Then it is entirely a different story and I can use the full download. But most time as you stated, upload is considerably more important. Which I can also max out upload when communicate with my servers at Peak10. :) > Also, latency is important, but so long as I'm getting less than 100ms > response time I'm generally not too upset. It can be a factor at times for some things, VOIP, gamers, and also for like remote terminals, the responsiveness. I kinda equate latency to a carburetor vs fuel injection. Both can produce the same horse power, one will just do it a bit faster. With Comcast my latency from Jax to say Palo Alto is under 100ms :) It can be even less if A & B are both on Comcasts network, all Fiber from the node. Which its copper/coax from the customer premises to node, then fiber from there. Thats exactly how U-Verse is provided as well, to overcome the distance issues of DSL technology. Which plagues VDSL just as ADSL, SDSL, etc. At&t is putting their nodes within say 5k of customers, and running Fiber from the central office to the node. > I'm not sure if it's related to routing, and further not sure if > U-Verse is affected, but I've noticed speedtest.net doesn't give very > good results when I run it. Of the ones I've tried, > speakeasy.net/speedtest (atlanta server) tends to be the most reliable > one. I would suspect this is somehow related to the old bellsouth > having been headquartered in atlanta, but that's purely speculation. I can't blame speedtest.net. Their test held up to others like my old time favorite, toast.net. Toast.net is very patriotic in their speed tests :) > At any rate, really really really want FIOS here :( Not going to happen, likely ever. Pretty sure per press and other release Verizon has ceased FIOS expansion some time ago. Which stinks big time! http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2010-03-26-verizon-fios_N.htm I think beyond say like Comcast, we are seeing the most we will see speed wise for wired service in any form. Pretty sure most all carriers are making a major push to Wireless and moving forward will likely put less cable in the ground. In lieu of more Wireless and faster speeds there. Even Comcast has a 4G wireless service now, Internet 2Go. Even the U-Verse techs were informing me that down the road they will put a wireless unit outside the house that communicates via wireless with all devices inside the house. After seeing the speeds via T-Mobile and I am on 2+ year old hardware. I can only imagine where Wireless speeds will be in a few years. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Obsidian-Studios, Inc. http://www.obsidian-studios.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive http://marc.info/?l=jaxlug-list&r=1&w=2 RSS Feed http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml Unsubscribe [email protected]
