Slashdot Mirror
SBC Planning 15-25Mbps DSL Networks
Tuxedo Jack writes "The Register reports that SBC has begun planning a massive network upgrade which will push fiber connections deeper into subdivisions and neighborhoods than before, resulting in incredibly fast DSL speeds for home users. Their current estimate for down/up speeds are 15-25mb/s down and 1-3mb/s up (mega_bits_, not bytes). SBC's press release goes into depth about this."
From the SBC press release:
The recent decision by the Bush Administration to allow unlawful telephone wholesale rules to lapse and let stand the FCC's decision not to unbundle broadband is a positive step
As much as I disagree with the administration on many issues, last year's decision by the FCC to deregulate fiber networks was a positive step in the right direction. Loosening broadband rules will restore some competition in the industry; and we may see lowering prices for telephone and internet services.
However, although I look forward to fiber-to-the-curb, it'll be awhile, at least in my subdivision.
Sigs cause cancer.
I sincerely hope that SBC includes managed firewall appliances with the service. Pricing should be high enough to include a minimally managed CPE for those who want one.
-PM
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
I currently run on a 3MB/256k cable connection for home usage and it works well, so I can only imagine what a service like this would be like... and COST. It seems to me that it would be out of the price range of most home users for quite some time. I definitely don't see myself running out to buy one anytime soon, even though the added bandwidth would be nice. I run a VoIP connection for our phone service (which utilized 90k up/down total) so it would be nice to beef up the upstream. This is lacking on most providers from my experience. Everything works great for me unless I happen to be talking on the phone and uploading large files to the Internet at the same time... then it makes for hard conversation as the upload chokes the phone.
Linux with kernel panic...
MadPenguin.org
I've RTFA, but couldn't find any information to answer this:
As an SBC user currently considering switching to cable, I'm wondering if, when they upgrade the lines, I will be upgraded for free, or if they'll charge me for it. I can probably assume it's the latter, but I can only be hopeful until then.
Then again, if I can get 25 Mbps for a few extra Franklins a year, who really cares?
If anyone knows any information about the upgrades regarding pricing for users (SBC has always been really dodgy about discussing pricing) I'd be happy to know.
Help a college student
Being an SBC DSL customer, this would be welcome news, but the question I have is, Where will this happen, when? Living in a neighborhood that is not quite on top of the charts, I wonder if it may take years before I see any activity in this area.
Are there any SBC folks who would know of any pending time schedules?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
Actually, some engineers at SBC are working this very moment to implement an opt-out outbound port 25 blocker. With proper advance notice, all customers will have 25 blocked on the router (except to our SMTP servers), and a simple web page will allow customers to enable this if they choose. This works on the assumption that if someone needs to hit an alternative SMTP server, they are probably competent enough to keep their systems clean. Even if optted-out customers do get zombified, they will be a very fraction of a small minority.
(Posted anonymously because I work for SBC Operations, and don't want to pass this by legal)
Does that mean I can expect a commensurate increase in the frequency of network outtages? I consult for an SBC (PacBell) customer. Most of the employees there also use PacBell DSL at home. Every one of them, including the business account, frequently drop off the 'Net for periods ranging from 5 to 45 minutes at least once per week. SBC-Yahoo-PacBell doesn't seem to see this as a problem.
It was also an exercise in frustration to get the business account (one of PacBell's first business DSL customers) switched from an all-copper-to-the-CO connection to a short copper run to the fiber BBox in the parking lot. The original line had been moved so far down the chain that the signal had degraded to the point that the SiNR was well below minimum service level. It had been this way for quite a while (before I started servicing this small office). It took me a year to diagnose (by working with the local technicians responding to my trouble tickets) and get PacBell to do anything about it. At the suggestion of one of the field techs I worked with, I actually had to drop the original account and sign up for "new" service (which would automatically be assigned a circuit routed through the fiber drop less than 100 meters from the customer).
PS: I've advised the customer to switch carriers, or at least get a dedicated line (so as to combine voice/data, solving a whole host of other issues) but the owner is a cheap-ass (who I know doesn't read Slashdot...) and doesn't want to "change email addresses".
<Sigh>...
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Why can't the zombie program just connect to the website and enable port 25? Many people probably have their browsers remembering their passwords.
As an American, I would kill for BBC. I'd give up cable (TV) if I could get BBC over the internet. That is, if any of the US ISPs would sell me DSL/cable without cable TV or phone service.
No, this is a marketing ploy. They say they increase the speed, then give you the run around when you subscribe so you never actually get the service, and SBC essentially becomes a bank. They keep your money for a while, take the interest, and then eventually give it back when they can't deliver or stall anymore. Not a bad deal if you ask me. They are guarunteed not go out of business for doing this, and they can probably turn millions on the interest payments alone. Nice racket if you can swing it.
That said, my list of complaints with SBC and the laundry list of issues I've had with them have nothing to do with this post. The couple of months that I had DSL service (well, sorta, I think it worked on alternate thursdays between 9am and 2pm) was the best SBC service I've ever had. And yeah, I still use them for my phone (My roomate's fault). Nothing beats customer service reps giving an audible "Wow" every time they pull up my records.
Bah
99% of home users cannot use that much bandwidth regularly. But I think some of this will be licensed by Covad and other national DSL providers to provide business class service over.
If you look at Covad's web site, they have restructured the business offerings to offer DSL and Fractional T1 as EQUAL alternatives. And the large reason, I feel, is that DSL has issues with troubleshooting and reliability. It's hard to offer an SLA on DSL, when it was designed to adapt for noise. I've seen people get 8k of throughput on a 512k DSL line, just because the line has so much interference or has been bridged tapped too many times, that it is almost not useable. Almost. it costs money to train help deks to go into CPE and look at the db levels. With T1, it's a bit more cut and dried. You may need to adjust the CSU for power, but once it is going - well, that's what it is. ESF is going to give you the number of channels x 64k (56k if you need bit robbing).
But T1s get expensive as you start to bundle them. Multiple CSUs start adding up. Covad has them equal for now, because the fastest business class DSL they have is also 1.5Mb/s. Probably because they backhaul it over DS1.
With offerings of 25Mb/s, I know alot of companies that would like to get that for ROBOs. Very attractive. An office of 50 people can use that much bandwidth, I've seen it happen.
Comcast already harrasses the 5% of their users that rack up the highest transfer totals. This is generally acknowledged to be about 90 gigs/mo. If SBC suddenly starts giving out 25 mb/s down, you could easily go over this limit in less than a day. What will SBC do when users start topping 1 terrabtyte of transfer each month? It's all well and good for them to say they are going to give me a gb/s 'net connection, but are they going to cancel my service for violating their purposefully vague terms of service when my transfer rates break their ROI calculations?
This news most definately has online gamers cheering. Now it won't be just the dedicated servers that have low-latency. My only concern is...cost. Speed like that doesn't come cheap, making this new network pretty expensive on the grounds of a monthly fee. I would be willing to pay it if the speeds are guaranteed and the bandwith is acceptable.
I can't wait for FTTP, if only so it lowers the buy-in cost of upgrading the phone system as a whole.
I mean, come on. It's 2004. Why is it that we have private individuals developing spacecraft, yet it still takes me an entire sentence to describe to someone on the other end of the phone whether I said "S" or "F"?!? It makes no sense.
Increasing the quality of the telephone should be a major priority, for a great deal of reasons. Reduction of errors in transmission or understanding, safety reasons (911 calls or voice matching a criminal), far superior modem capabilities... the benefits would be endless.
And before you say "no one would spend the money on a better quality phone line", think about all of the people who make money off of phone calls. Broadcasters who have reporters do lives from a phone line to save costs on microwave trucks, radio call-in shows, news services who rely on phone-in reporting... a lot of people would help invest in a better telephone network - mainly because they would all benefit greatly from it.
If we finally get FTTP, and the majority of the phone network becomes packetized (VoIP or not) so that you're only transporting data and not voltage, the buy-in and initial investment in getting "Hi-Def Phones" to work will be minimal, and maybe it'll push things along much quicker.
That would explain the questions I was asked before I could get help for my sbc telephone account this week. I called the help desk regarding long distance usage and they started asking me all kinds of question about whether I use cable or satellite for my television. No. No. How much would you be willing to pay? Etc, etc. It bugged me at the time, but if they're willing to give me that kind of bandwidth it'd be worth the price.
The Microsoft TV IPTV platform would make it possible to deliver standard-and high-definition TV programming to multiple TV sets in the home over an FTTN network while leaving ample bandwidth available for super high-speed broadband and Voice over IP (VoIP) services.
A motion JPEG stream of a NTSC signal takes about 8Mb/s. With Divx and Xvid and other newer MPEG compressions that may have come down.
Cable's value is that it can package analog or digital offerings on the same coax that brings you data digitally. DSL was just about data. But with Video Over IP and de-regulation, we reset the table. Now Telcos have an advantage again. Converged services over IP, esp. voice and video. This puts Vonage and their ilk and Comcast in a position to ward these off. Why use Vonage over the Internet with no service levels, when you can use IP telephony over the DSL provider network with service guarantees? The only reason would be cost.
Comcast may fight back with partnerships to offer voice in a bundle. Vonage's offering already goes a long way to destroying the E.164 convention. I live in one state and have 4 phone numbers on my line, the last 3 being in different states so people can call me without toll to them. International prefixes and U.S. area codes will simply vanish.
Let them pump broadband wherever they want. It just means they connect to my mail server a little faster before I refuse to accept their mail and hang up on 'em. SBC has been one of the largest sources of spam in the last year.
They'd be wise to spend some of their resources to stop the huge flow of spam across their network first and foremost. Or their broadband customers will be further alienated from the Internet proper and all that bandwidth won't make a difference.
"Here in Sweden we have had 24mbps dsl network for quite some time now... both vdsl and adsl2+"
I have 3 megabits now, and at my previous job we had a 7-megabit line. I've only run into a couple of sites that could saturate either one. (Microsoft has kick ass hosting, btw.) Have you found a lot of benefit for having that much speed? (I imagine that in Sweden, you look at different sites than I do?) Just curious if you'd notice the difference between the two. I saw a huge difference going from 768k to 3 megabits, but not 3 megabits to 7 megabits here in the USA.
"Derp de derp."
SBC should be able to do better than that. Surewest Broadband here in Sacramento is fibre to the house. They hit 100Mbps.
Further proof that the dinosaur Bell telecos need to be taken out to the dustbin of American history once and for all.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*