Wed May 9, 2007 10:15PM EDT
See Comments (4)
There has been a lot of hubbub over Comcast's recent demonstration of a modem that can download at a rate of a whopping 150Mbps. To put that in perspective: That's three times faster than 802.11g wireless at its theoretical maximum speed, and 15 times faster than its usual speed. It's 50 times faster than the typical cable modem. It's 100 times faster than a T1 connection. It is, in fact, almost the same speed as an OC-3 connection (155.52Mbps), which is used (along with even bigger connections) to comprise the very backbone of the Internet.
And there's your problem. Getting a 150Mbps connection to anything means you need 150Mbps of available bandwidth from start to finish. From your house to the cable company is a relative pittance in Internet terms: A data packet can make 20 "hops" before it reaches your living room. How many of those will be able to support 150Mbps connections? And how many of those will allocate a full 150Mbps to you?
Heck, I'm willing that even if the bandwidth was there, Comcast wouldn't let you have it. The article above mentions cable's battle with FiOS, a fiber-optic technology available from Verizon which is technically available at a rate of up to 50Mbps. However, most customers actually get a 10Mbps service or, if they pay more, a 20Mbps or 30Mbps service. And most people report actual speeds of 1/3 to 1/2 of the "maximum" speed.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm a Comcast cable modem user and I'd love a 150Mbps connection to the Internet. But is it likely to happen? A more realistic scenario would have Comcast offering 10Mbps and 20Mbps service options, both at exceptionally high prices. Since you'll need new hardware, they'll bill you for that too.
Comcast says the technology will be ready in a couple of years. Meanwhile, it will keep on disconnecting service for users who use too much bandwidth on their old, slow equipment.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
Cable ratings are largely unrelated to how fast routers can push data. Think about it this way: You could have an enormous water pipe (like a sewer pipe) that could handle hundreds of gallons a minute, but you only have your kitchen sink to fill it with. Turn it on full blast and you'll still just get a trickle through the giant pipe. This is called a "bottleneck," and there are dozens along the way from your house to any internet site...
"This is called a 'bottleneck,' and there are dozens along the way from your house to any internet site..." which sucks very much.
I dont see the point. I use to have the Comcast 10mbps service. My lab top was top notch and could handle the incoming speeds. But I haven't found a web site that can send files as fast as I can receive them.
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 Posted by pocketdoom on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:15PM EDT Report Abuse
Cat 5 cable is rated at 100 mbps. Fiber optic I thought was rated at 1000 mbps. How come we can't even get that? I can link my two computers with CAT 5 cable and get 100 mbps transfer speed. Why can't I link my computer to a server with CAT 5 cable if I can't have fiber? The Central library in Seattle (www.spl.org) uses a fiber optic network for the computers. The slowdown there is that the servers are located in a different building in Seattle. And that server is always crashing. Why are cities so backwards that the infrastructure that has the cables 30 years old?