100Mbps Home Internet Service Next Year in Finland
Listen Up writes "According to an article on CNN, broadband Internet access via cable modems in Finland will be able to hit 100 Mbps as early as 2006. That would be 50 times faster than the average broadband speeds now offered to cable TV homes in Finland. Do you think this technology has the possibility of reaching U.S. shores? Or do you think the already deeply entrenched U.S. politics are going to keep this technology from ever reaching us? There are already thousands and thousands of miles of 'dark fiber' underground around the U.S."
What's the upload speed?
So I assume that these speeds would be possible if Moto partners with a cable company in the states.
I wish I lived there..And if the fibre doesn't have Caps, That would sweeten the deal.
100Mbps fiber to door was available in Japan since like two years ago; about a year ago in metropolitan areas they even rolled out 1Gbps service. Finland makes the news because...?
I already get 4Mbps downstream from Time Warner of San Diego and it is plenty!
I don't think any cat5e can reach that long.
Dark Fiber as nothing to do with home broadband. if it were between your house and the ISP, you might have something, but its not. The trick is getting high speed connections where Fiber doesn't exist.
My other car is a Popemobile
I think its unfair to compare these kind of rollouts to the US on a general scale. The US is practically the size of europe, and due to the state demarkations has almost the scaling problems that deploying across europe would incur (although the same core infrastructure providers would help somewhat). This isn't to say some providers aren't trying, there's definitely been a push towards fiber services as the next generation by some US providers. As for me, I'm just hoping that the UK gets its act together and starts rolling 8mb+ services out around the country, instead of the current spotty availablity in metro areas.
Business Voyeur
"Based on our research, 30 megabits per second is the absolute minimum in future homes" I wonder what kind of tests they used to determine that figure.
Take the Dragon Survey
There are already thousands and thousands of miles of 'dark fiber' underground around the U.S.
So that's where all the dark matter is.
The coolest voice ever.
Finland, Finland, Finland
The country where I want to be
Having 100Mbps would be great, but it's not as if you're going to be able to pull files off of some Web server at the full speed. Many busy servers only have 100Mbps connectivity in total themselves.
You might suggest that 100Mbps would be great for BitTorrent and the like, but the flaw is that ISP's backbones and peering arrangements are measured in gigabits, not terabits. Even an OC-48 can only take 24 customers maxing out their bandwidth on this system. A big European ISP like Demon only has 2Gbps going into the LINX.. enough for, wow, 20 customers to max out their bandwidth.
The ratio of guaranteed bandwidth to advertised bandwidth on this offering is crazy. Backbones just aren't there yet.
Anyone know what Finland has actually has for pipes into the country? 100Mbps is nice, but if you want international content, it might not be such a big deal
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
I have this FTH service in japan since last month and is very nice ... my only complain is that is very hard to get high transmition rates with the service... only if you are using things in japan . The cost is about 80 dollars a month and television services can be used on demand ( for a fee of course ). A link in english
to my provider .
"We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." -- Linus
There are already thousands and thousands of miles of 'dark fiber' underground around the U.S.
So what? The problem is not bandwidth in total, it is making the connection to the home to the nearest big fiber point. DSL and cable are popular with ISPs because the cables already go to the customer. Running broadband over a phone line or cable costs next to nothing. The big cost was digging up the street to put in the wire. After that, the operating costs are minimal.
If you go to a big US colocation facility, you will find that a lot of bandwidth is really cheap, because the fiber is already there. If you want a fiber connection to your home, you will have to pay an arm and a leg to put the fiber in the ground.
Wireless ISPs have a big potential advantage since they can avoid the last mile problem.
100 MBit Internet access (both ways) is offered to apartment owners in a number of Swedish towns. This costs about 76 USD a month.
As I said before, I'm too cheap to pay for that, so I'm paying for a throttled version (10 MBit/s) of the same service putting me back about 40 USD a month.
The service has been offered for quite a few years by a company called Bredbandsbolaget. (The site is in a strange foreign language though. Be warned.)
1. Article says 100 Mbps is 50 times faster than what they have now. Thus, they have 2 Mbps cable.
2. I have 6 Mbps cable. I know people within 20-30 miles of me with 8 or 10 Mbps cable. SBC delivers 3 Mbps dsl, and delivered 6 Mbps to a select few quick enough to jump on the deal.
Does anyone else find it hard to believe that they will leapfrog technologies like that? Or, that even once those companies start selling the equipment (the article, after all, quotes an equipment manufacturer, *not* an ISP) that deployment will be instant?
VDSL, VDSL2, and a whole bunch of alphabet soup DSL types exist *right* now, but we don't see them all over the U.S.
Similarly, many American cable companies have switched much of their equipment to DOCSIS 2.0 stuff, but haven't ramped up the speeds yet (not enough backhaul).
Avaliability of equipment != deployment. Rather than idolizing some vaporware Finish deployment, we should be looking at places like S. Korea and Japan, where they've managed 2 and 3 digit broadband speeds (in Mbps) *now*, not some-time-in-the-oh-so-near-future.
I can pull up 100s of articles from SBC's Project Lightspeed, or Verizon's FIOS. Some of them talk about deploying this stuff nationwide in 2003-2004.
But do I have 100 Mbps internet yet? No.
This is a non-article. A fluff piece by an equipment manufacturer. I want to hear more about actual deployments (and they do exist), not about some companies wishful thinking.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Here in Sweden one of the biggest ISP's (called Bredbandsbolaget or "The Broadband Company" in English) have been offering 100mbits Internet for the better part of a year now.
Admittedly it's only to their fiber/LAN-customers (which I am a part of) and with a traffic cap at 300GB/month as well as a rather hefty pricetag of approx US$113/month.
But it's available to the crazies who want it.
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
A couple dozen infected machines in Finland can now DOS attack multiple internet back bones simultaneously. GREAT.
Just to clarify to anyone reading this, you are incorrect on terminology (not exactly the right word?). The lowercase 'k' is the SI prefix for kilo. The capital 'K' is for degrees kelvin. I tend to note bits with a little 'b' and bytes with a big 'B', as in:
:)
:P
300kbps ~= 38kBps
Usually, I replace the 'p' with a '/' when dealing with bytes, too (i.e., "38kB/s"). By no means a standard notation, but it works for me. Though it isn't widely used, I've also recently taken to using the IEC's units. For example:
300kbps ~= 38KiBps
(300 kilobits per second ~= 38 kibibytes per second)
Why? Because in a technical context, it's certainly much clearer. If I say I am transferring 1 kilobyte of data, does that mean 1,000 bytes or 1,024 bytes? It's ambiguous, and in design issues, it can be a critical difference.
Also, the baud rate is the signal transition rate, not the bit rate. Maybe in modems the baud rate and bit rate were usually the same, but it isn't necessarily the case. It is possible (and common) to transmit more than one bit per transition.
Anyway... that's all.
Not to further nit-pick, but 300 baud is 300 "symbols" per second. Using constellation diagrams 1 symbol can correspond to a variable number of bits.
In a dialup modem, 8000 baud is used at 7 databits per symbol to arrive at 56Kbps.
Presentation about this thing at http://www.goodmood.net/teleste_vg_preview/pres2/T eleste_2.html
Aren't all connections shared, at some point? Isn't that more or less the definition of the Internet?
Those DSL lines all go somewhere, you know, and I'm betting each one doesn't get its own T3...
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt