24 Mb Consumer Broadband Launched

twilight30 writes to tell us The Guardian is reporting that broadband provider "Be" is providing customers with the option of a 24 megabits per second download speed connection. These speeds are roughly three times the closest local competitor and also allow 1.3 megabits per second upstream, roughly five times quicker than any other service provider. The service is being offered at £24 (US $42.84) per month. Hopefully this will become a trend of radically increasing consumer internet speeds.

Comments

24 Mb not 24 MB

[Frankie70]

Slashdot editors - please correct the title.

Re:24 Mb not 24 MB

[moro_666]

#1 56 mbits would be heaven ? nah, i dont really think so :) at first, if 3 users with 56Mbit lines would start to download from a server that sits in a rack behind a 100Mbit ethernet ... they would want to pull 56*3=168 Mbits out from the 100Mbit ethernet ... so they will just not be able to really use their bandwidth and the server will be jammed .... and for most of users, even 8Mbit is a huge overkill, cause people that dont download movies/cd-images/adult-movies/music each day, mostly have latency issues (they click and the browser doesnt react within a second, waaah) and the larger the bandwidth distributed over several users, the larger the latency (routers & co have their limits). ofcourse a big maximal downloadspeed is great but i dont think that the rest of the network isnt quite ready for it, it might not be such a good idea (most of our country's server hosting providers have 100Mbit ethernet/internet lines for the servers, so 4 british haxors can now jamm my server)

#2 i wonder how they can afford it ... the last time i checked the broadband companys themselves have to pay for each mbit they transit, so if they have a nice schoolful of haxxors who download stuff 24/7 then their downloaded/uploaded mbits will cost more than the 24 pounds that are charged ... ofcourse some users use less than that ... but still, it's still curious

#3 while they're at it, i'd even be lucky to get a 8mbit connection for 24 pounds over here

Re:24 Mb not 24 MB

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to meet this lot back when they were calling themselves Avatar Broadband. The management staff have come over from Sweden where they were running B2 Bredband AB (Bredbandsbolaget), the second largest broadband service provider. They routinely offered 24MB based on ADSL2+ there, and are now giving it a go in the UK where all the current ISPs have to squeeze their existing ADSL kit. Be have no such legacy problem. Their business plan is predicated on hitting BT exchanges where there is a very high subscriber-density, thereby maximising their ROI per exchange.

Their network is based on a series of BT BES/WES 1000 circuits running from their connected exchanges back to a fibre ring between some of the major London PoPs. As they are connected into the major carrier hotels they can access some very, very low IP transit pricing from Tier 1 providers (Level3, TeliaSonera, etc.). Hence they can offer unlimited download as it doesn't really cost them that much per subscriber. Most people get nowhere near maxing their connection/download huge amounts of data anyway.

So, they have experience, a decent new network, and a compelling offering. What's not to like? (unless you live outside of London...)

correction....

[BarronVonGoerig]

Note from the administrators...BYTE THIS

Australia first

[davisk]

Internode have offered this in Australia for some time. Wish it was available where I am, but i'm stuck on 12000/1000 with iinet (no, i don't work for either of them, but i've been a happy customer of both)

Re:Australia first

[Luketh]

So have Adam Internet, which I'm running through (Rather be through internode though, I didn't get the call, however).

Weird that we should get the hook-up before any of the US providers.

Another odd thing is that Telstra isn't actually choosing to provide DSL2+ as part of its service. Their own BigPond service will stay at 10Mbps cable or whatever. They will allow other companies like Adam and Internode to install their own equipment in the telephone exchanges to allow for DSL2+ though.

I went from 64kbps (throttled from 1500k) to 24Mbps in a day... the human mind just can't comprehend on a scope like that. It's like Paris Hilton inventing a cure for cancer, and moreso, one that doesn't involve simply killing them with STDs instead.

Re:Australia first

[Elyscape]

There's one, big, fundamental difference in the services provided. Internode caps the amount of data you're allowed to download (15-60 gigs, depending on how much you pay). Meanwhile, Be has no download cap whatsoever. This, I think, makes Be's service significantly better.

Re:Australia first

[JuzzFunky]

I'm with Internode's 24Mb plan.
If you exceed your download limit your connection will be 'shaped'. You are never charged more than your usual monthly fee. As I understand it (and I am open to correction) Shaping involves slwoing your connection down if and only if their servers are under heavy load (ie. it is affecting other users). They do this to keep things fair for all of their users. I've been over my limit a number of times and have not noticed any slow down at all.
What I like about it is that they are very explicit about the limits of their service.

From the Be site: https://www.bethere.co.uk/beonline/acceptableUse.d o/
"If it's felt that any member's Internet activities are so excessive that other members are detrimentally affected, Be may give the member generating the excessive web traffic a written warning (by email or otherwise). In extreme circumstances, should the levels of activity not immediately decrease after the warning, Be may terminate that member's services."

The reality of it all is that you will not find many people out there serving up content at 24Mb. Except for direct conections with Internode's mirrors and Gaming Servers (which make the whole thing worth while!) you'll be spending your time waiting for the Internet to catch up with you.

Re:Australia first

[ColaMan]

Meanwhile, Be has no download cap whatsoever. This, I think, makes Be's service significantly better.

You're comparing apples to oranges a little here. Internode (in Australia) is crippled somewhat by the limited capacity and high cost of overseas links.

Be had better be prepared for the incredible amount of leeeeching. 24Mbps is no good if you'll only get that to the next system upstream at the Be office, with 5k/s to The Rest Of The World. As pretty much all relevant ISPs (that is, the ones that are still in business) have discovered, truly unlimited high-speed internet is not a good, sustainable business plan at the moment.

This is why Internode, for example, have plans that get shaped to 64kbps after your limit. They also have flatrate plans that (after a set amount) dynamically prioritise your packets depending on how much you've downloaded compared to everyone else online at the moment. These are more expensive (AUD100-200/month). Then you have the true, unlimited 'leased-line' style plans, which cost in the order of AUD500-1000 a month.

So I wonder how much backbone capacity Be has, and I also wonder how long it will be before they completely oversubscribe it to the point of end-users leaving. I give it 6 months, tops. Bookmark this post :-)

In case anybody wants to read it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5294551-103 676,00.html

AC to avoid the whoring.

I love bandwidth

[ReformedExCon]

But I also love service and stability and a broadband connection that is always available. My experience with English broadband is that it is run over deteriorating copper wires that were apparently laid when Alex Bell was experimenting with his telegraph machine, and which are frequently sliced into little segments by construction crews mangling the roads.

Sure they offer high speed access, but can they also offer guaranteed access?

If it does work out, my only wish was that I was able to get on that network. Limping along at 512kbps is not quite the exhilarating ride that it once was when I first switched from 56.6 dialup.

Unlimited Use

[LordMyren]

Wasnt it not all that long ago the UK was charging per-minute? It seemed unlimited use dialup was always very rare. Something in the back of my mind buzzes about phone use & taxes or something, but I dunno.

Congradz though, that sounds truly excellent. I'm glad to see someone going above 768k upstream. Thats the barrier I thought would never be crossed.

-Myren

Re:Unlimited Use

[saitoh]

might be, one of the strings attached is:

"To subscribe customers must have a BT phone line"

although I'm not sure what plans BT has to offer, I know that culturally it seems to have been the norm in the market place to have per-min charges on the phone instead of a flat rate per month.

Re:Unlimited Use

[brain159]

UK local telephone calls were not free/unmetered. (there may be some service arrangements which change this now, I've not kept up with that). This meant that going modem-to-modem cost money. Because of some flexibility/complication in the UK phone system, there's a bunch of dialling codes which are non-geographic - 0845 numbers were originally "local rate" (but now the effective cost of a real local call has dropped, whereas the rate to call these has not), 0800s are free to the caller, etc.

(This means that customer services sort of numbers are either 0845, or 0870 "national rate" lines - they cost more to call, aren't typically included in cellphone package minutes, and creates a token revenue stream for the company you're calling while you're on hold!)

In the super-early-days, you paid your ISP and then paid to dial in to their 0845 local-rate POP line.

Then Freeserve (now Wanadoo) and co turned up - they realised that if you worked with a telecoms company, you could receive a slice of the per-minute fee that users paid for calling in to your 0845 number. Thus did Pay-As-You-Go dialup arrive in the UK; you paid your phone bill, the ISP took their cut from that - no monthly fee. (note: unlike netzero and similar in the US, there was no adbar or weirdy crap - straight PPP dialup.)

Some technical change happened which made it possible for ISPs to offer flat-rate access, without them having to pay the high costs of letting heavy users dial in to real 0800 lines for ages on end. I'm not entirely sure what this change is, but it was reliant wholly on you having a BT landline (it was some hack with trick numbers in the local exchanges, turning the call into data earlier or somesuch.). Now, you could go back to paying a monthly fee, but not pay for your calls (as the access number was now free to call).

Aaah yes, must clarify the whole "having a BT phoneline" thing. It's *not* a given in the UK that the RJblah phone jack in someone's house is necessarily hooked up to the local BT phone exchange (or wiring cabinet, or whatever). In the UK, the cable TV companies also provide telephone service over their own kit - right down to running new copper in to your house and adding a new socket. When they launched this, they offered cheaper call prices than BT (and you could port your number the way the developed world can with cellphone numbers), and eventually got round to offering PAYG and Unmetered dialup roughly when BT customers got it (but you have to use the Cable company as your ISP to have Unmetered Dialup). Nowadays the UK broadband services say "must have a BT line" because the cable companies won't/can't/don't DSLify their POTS loops (they don't need to, they offer cable modem broadband). If you really want DSL, you can have a BT landline alongside a Cable-company one, or in place of it.

(this is all from memory, at time of posting it's about 6am in the UK and I need some sleep. I've not put in a specific timescale since I'd be guessing entirely - Unmetered dialup has been around here a good few years now, easily.)

But are servers even fast enough for that?

[TheCarlMau]

Are servers even fast enough for that? For an impractical example, having 1mb/s line and trying to connect to a 28kb/s server makes having that 1mb/s pretty much useless. The same could be, I guess, true in this case.

(Although I'm not sure if I know what I'm talking about!)

I have had 26 Mbps for 3 years

[G3ckoG33k]

This IS old news... I have had this service for three years, but in Sweden.

The cool thing, apart from the bandwidth is that it comes directly through the telephone jacket. No need for new cables.

Re:I have had 26 Mbps for 3 years

[MetalBlade]

I agree with G3ckoG33k. This is very old news.

I've had 10/10 Mbit _fiber_ for more years than I can remember, and I have lots of friends with both 24/1 and 100/100 Mbit.
Right now I pay 30 per month for 10Mbit, I think the price for 100Mbit is 60 per month.

The cool thing about my connection is that the fiber goes all the way to your basement, then TP cables from there up to your switch, then to your computer. The only network knowledge you need to have is how to use DHCP since you get 5 dynamic public IP addresses.

I really hate when a site such as /. comes up with news that is this old. Sure there are lots of people who had no idea of this, but I think that the people who post the news should be more up-to-date.

Re:I have had 26 Mbps for 3 years

[Caine]

Is there a bandwidth cap? What country is this? Do they accept foreigners?

No. Sweden. Yes, quite a lot of them.

You can get this in Utah too...

[Acius]

Parts of Utah now have a 15 Mbit SYMMETRIC connection available, which is enough to make any torrenting geek happy (one ISP doing this is here). That's $44/mo, and they're doing 30 Mbit symmetric for $109/mo (although technically that's a "business" package). Mostly, I'm happy to see a non-stupid upstream finally available in a home package (and looks like they don't bother blocking port 80, either).

Re:OMG PORN

[Jambon]

Remember: It is not the size of your pipeline that matters. It is how well you handle it.

More info: (and where's the catch?)

[saitoh]

(shamefully yanked from their Tell Me More page, read below for my thoughts on their definition of unlimited usage and how they define it and their process)

Features

* Up to 24 meg download speed
* Up to 1.3 meg upload speed
* Unlimited Internet access
* No download caps
* Free high specification wireless Be Box modem

Options

* Be static IP
* Be home email and webspace, coming soon (click here for more info)
* More coming soon

Be Box modem

* ADSL 2+ enabled
* 4 port 10/100 megs Ethernet switch (1 port reserved for future use)
* 54 megs 802.11 b/g wireless interface
* 2 voice over broadband ports (future use)
* 1 analog back-up (future use)
* OS Independent (Ethernet)

Requirements

* A rampant thirst for speed
* BT phone line
* A device capable of communicating via TCP/IP (like a Windows PC, Mac, Xbox with Live...)
* An Ethernet port for a wire connection to the Be Box
* A 802.11b or 802.11g compatible network adapter for wireless connection to the Be Box
* Windows 98SE / Mac OS 8.6 or higher

Getting Be

* Place your order online
* If your order is accepted, your BT phone line will physically be connecting to our network in your local exchange (this usually takes about 2 - 4 weeks)
* You will be sent our welcome pack, including our Be Box modem and your line will be activated
* Follow our DIY instant broadband instructions in your welcome pack and you will be ready to go

-------------

Now, this looks rather straight forward, and I keep wondering "wheres the catch?" My only guess would be that either they are using fiber to make this economical for them on the business end, or they are going to throttle/mercilessly prosecute illegal activities which take place on their network, thus reducing load... I wouldnt expect any company to state the later, but the former might have been touted as a feature. So I went digging and came across their TOS policy (conviently linked under the "is this really unlimited" section of the FAQ (note #11):

So what can Be's services not be used for?

1. Unlawful, fraudulent, criminal or otherwise illegal activities
2. Sending, receiving, publishing, posting, distributing, disseminating, encouraging the receipt of, uploading, downloading or using any material which is offensive, abusive, defamatory, indecent, obscene, unlawful, harassing or menacing or a breach of the copyright, trademark, intellectual property, confidence, privacy or any other rights of any person
3. Commercial purposes (unless you are a home member who is working from home as a sole trader in business on your own account or an office member in which case see below for limits on certain types of commercial use)
4. Sending or uploading unsolicited emails, advertising or promotional materials, offering to sell any goods or services, or conducting or forwarding surveys, contests or chain letters except that home members working from home as a sole trader in business on their own account or office members are permitted to send marketing communications in accordance with the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 if sent in batches of no more than fifty (50) emails at any time, each indiv

they forgot the "Up to" 24M(b)

[riprjak]

This is ADSL2+, so the speeds are UP TO 24Mb. I notice the koolaid^H^H^H^H^H^H^H article doesnt make mention of the "Up to" part, and am amused that a slashdot editor drank said koolaid in the first place.

So, unless you were wise enough to purchase the house next to the exchange (and the cables run directly), you arent going to get even near this speed. In fact, the falloff in speed is quite rapid.

I have ADSL2+ at home (here in Adelaide, Australia) and said home is 3.2 km from the exchange as the crow flies (plus or minus GPS error), probably longer by cable; and Im getting 7.5Mb down and 1.0 Mbit up (1.0 is the upstream limit locally). In my particular situation, the difference between ADSL 2 and ADSL 2+ would be pretty negligible.

On a separate note, I wonder if they realise that their "Be Boxes" (from TFA which wasnt even liked in the beginning) might be mistaken for old school computers :)

Just my $0.02 AUD.
err!
jak.

And probably not even that

[mister_tim]

I've already moderated in this thread, but what they hey...

This is based on ADSL2+, same as the service offered by Internode, iiNet or Adam in Australia. Internode really led the way and were the first to roll out DSLAMs that would offer up to 24 Mbps download speeds and about 1 Mbps upload. iiNet, although they offer ADSL2+, limit it to 12 Mbps download.

Now, I suspect the reason for this is that while 24Mbps is the theoretical maximum download speed over ADSL2+, you're only going to get that speed if you have a perfect line and live really close to the exchange. If you're even 2km away, then you're speed is going to drop a fair bit: granted, you'll still get about 15Mbps, but not the 24Mbps advertised. My guess is that iiNet just finds it easier to guarantee 12Mbps rather than trying to explain that, "well, you might get 24Mpbs, but there's all these other factors and we can't guarantee it, and no, we don't know exactly what speed you'll end up with."

There was a really good graph on this here, which shows deteriorating performance as you move further from the exchange.

The other thing about this that really interests me is that Australia was derided and we complained for so long about how far behind the rest of the world we were when it came to broadband, but it now looks like we're really catching up - maybe in large part as we have good companies like Internode who are very tech-minded, still small enough to focus on service rather than just the almighty buck, and who actually want to provide good services to people.

Re:And probably not even that

[AussieVamp2]

Streaming media? That would do it pretty fast, I would think, if you use that a lot.

Re:And probably not even that

[Proc6]

I hate comments like that.

That is the worst reasoning in the world to use against broadband. So what if there's no application for it now? The idea would be to get 24Mb to be commonplace then see how the internet changes. We all might be surprised to find out what's possible when that is the norm. Let's not sit at 512k and assume it's as good as it will ever need to be.

Re:And probably not even that

[Dwonis]

I can't think of a legitimate way to consistently download 30GB a month...

Then you're just not very creative.

The West is so far behind...

[Rocketship Underpant]

Here in Japan, I have 55 megabit fiber DSL. I'm still getting used to it. I can multiple download files at 1 MB/sec (that's megabyte, not megabit), and that's when there's a bottleneck at the other end. :)

Re:The West is so far behind...

[achurch]

Here in Japan, I have 55 megabit fiber DSL.

That's all? I'm sitting here in Yokohama with an ONU in my kitchen, and wget doing things like this:

--15:16:09-- http://www.jp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/lin ux-2.6.13.tar.bz2
[snip]
15:16:13 (8.67 MB/s) - `linux-2.6.13.tar.bz2' saved [38372729/38372729]

Yum. Somebody slashdot me so I can finally find out how much upstream bandwidth I have--so far all I've been able to do is max out everyone else's downstream . . .

Tokyo 100Mb

[tokyopimpdaddy]

I'm so lucky to be living in a modest but modern apartment here in Tokyo and get to enjoy 100Mb 'Fibre' (Hikari fibre by TEPCO), which I have running consistantly at over 40Mb down, 10Mb up, thus Bittorrent loves me. That 100Mb of course being best effort, and we all know there are many reasons why you'll never really get that.)

This is pretty common in Tokyo. Even the ADSL here is by standard well over 40Mb (though speed obviously comes in a lot below that in real life. Hell, my mobile phone has a 2.4Mb download.

OK, so bragging over, all I can say is that it can be done, and done cheaply. My Hikari Fibre is included in the rent, and none of the solutions here in Japan are expensive - 20USD a month or so. When I came to Japan originally in 1996 it was a totally different story - dial up was more expensive than the UK and access points were pretty screwed up outside of Tokyo. When I returned in 1999, ISDN flat rate was there, and by 2001, ADSL was ramping up incredibly, even in my then decrepit old place.

Some things in Japan are archaic (government, banks etc. (really, ATMs which close at 7pm...)), but the bandwidth here does prove it's the companies holding this up elsewhere, for whatever reasons. I guess they're hoping to string out their plant (copper cable/switch etc.) life as long as they can, because hey, tomorrow it'll be cheaper to upgrade right? I think here it was a case of national pride - late to 'the internet' party in the mid- to late 90's, and with rival neighbours Korea beating them, I think NTT finally got told to 'sort it out'. You have to love that 'close state relationship'!

Free legacy

[boa13]

Nice to see the Free business model (offer all the bandwidth a phone line can support and a multi-purpose, multi-service "box" for a flat, low monthly fee) taking over the world! When Free started with their idea in late 1999, their were considered fools by the rest of the French industry, and actually had to build their own DSLAM and Freeboxes, since nobody would do it for them. Now the Freebox is in its fourth major version (fifth soon?), Free is the second ISP in France and every ISP here offers some kind of unimaginative rip-off (Livebox, NeufBox, CBox...), trying to match the excellent price/service ratio offered by Free. Not bad for a independant company funded, not by rich industry conglomerates, but by porn money!

By the way, the service offered by Be in the U.K. is still more expansive than what Free offers in France (35 euros vs. 30 euros), and while they do mention services such as phone and TV, they don't say if they're going to be included in the flat monthly fee, like Free does. Somehow I doubt it. Maybe their customer service won't suck, though.

More information on the Freebox (in French, but with pictures): http://www.f-b-x.net/

Universal multicasting

[TeXMaster]

#1 56 mbits would be heaven ? nah, i dont really think so :) at first, if 3 users with 56Mbit lines would start to download from a server that sits in a rack behind a 100Mbit ethernet ... they would want to pull 56*3=168 Mbits out from the 100Mbit ethernet ... so they will just not be able to really use their bandwidth and the server will be jammed .... and for most of users, even 8Mbit is a huge overkill, cause people that dont download movies/cd-images/adult-movies/music each day, mostly have latency issues (they click and the browser doesnt react within a second, waaah) and the larger the bandwidth distributed over several users, the larger the latency (routers & co have their limits). ofcourse a big maximal downloadspeed is great but i dont think that the rest of the network isnt quite ready for it, it might not be such a good idea (most of our country's server hosting providers have 100Mbit ethernet/internet lines for the servers, so 4 british haxors can now jamm my server)

I was having thoughts along the same lines. While the backbones of the internet might still be safely many orders of magnitude wider channels that such theoritecial limits reachable by end-users (and even if it's not 24 but 12 to 20)), and thus be safe from clogging the way you describe for servers, it's sensible to remark that some servers may find themselves at a pretty bad shortage of upload bandwidth.

A possible solution is of course provider-side proxies, but this runs the risk of making the Internet "out-datish", "stale-ish", especially when the proxies are hidden and the user won't even know he's not getting fresh contents. Ok, this could be solved with intelligent proxies, but still it wouldn't solve the problem for very dynamic, yet bandwidth-intensive, applications.

So we need some new form of distributed content providing. While specific forms like BitTorrent are a nice step in that direction, I don't see them as the mean for common use (web pages, moderate multimedia content).

I was directing my thoughts towards something more low-level, maybe even at a TCP/IP level. For example, universal multicasting.

Multicasting is currently implemented in a way that is pretty much a remainder of the way radio and TV broadcasting work: the emitter is somewhat agnostic of who is going to receive, and the receivers can freely attach/detach from the 'channel', without any knowledge of who else is listening.

While that's probably the safest way to implement TCP/IP transmission to multiple destination addresses, it has several shortcomings. Some are provider dependent (it's not widespread, and some providers only have provider-local multicasting), some are structural (the number of multicasting addresses is quite small).

So a cross-provider, generally available multicasting capability (would it be possible to allow any IP to be a multicasting IP, for example?) might be the solution.

This would have enormous benefits for lots of applications, and enormously reduce bandwidth waste from lots of Internet usage. Actually, I was surprised when I found out it wasn't like this.

Re:Fact of Life in Australia

[mcbridematt]

Actually, local data arguably costs more if your're not in anti-compeditive agreements with your buddies (*cough* Telstra Optus AAPT MCI *cought*). In fact, some consumer ISPs are [apparently] bigger than one of that group (AAPT) but they are still forking out lots of money per month because the "Group Of Four" (as its known in the industry) is only interested in locking out the superior competition.

Some smaller ISPs absorb the high per megabyte costs of pushing data down Telstra ADSL ports to unmeter traffic going through peering exchanges such as PIPE Networks or WAIX because it simply costs them less (and gets customers).

In fact, three major ISPs (beside the four) - Internode, Comindico and Primus already have a backbone on the west coast of the U.S and Internode and Primus are already talking about video (and Internode just needs that for a full triple-play service) to the home completely over their backbones. (If International bandwidth was such an issue they probably wouldn't be talking about that).

disclaimer: Happy Internode customer stuck on Telstra Wholesale 512/128k port. Thank you Ziggy and Alston for screwing Australia over. Thank you Sol for stating the bloddy obvious, that being Ziggy and Alston should've spent $3bn in the past few years. See the 56 page admission of guilt and other stupid things

P.S Unlike the U.S Australia is not covered all over in HFC/Cable networks for DOCSIS - two telcos discovered in the mid-1990s that no one watches subscription TV and stopped rolling out new cable.

100Mbps in Japan for 17pounds per month

[Falcon040]

I'm living in a residential zone in Japan in Niigata, pretty near to the edge of the countryside really... Anyhow, I've got a 100Mbps fiber that only costs me 17pounds per month. Account with the company 'Nifty'. Can watch TV channels on it regularly while VoIP and video phoning back to UK.

For my 1Mbps line back in the UK, its more expensive.

Its a pity the UK is so far behind.
Japan and Korea know where the future is, and the goverment has organised a very competitive system, there are so many companies trying to offer the service.

BTW, the fiber comes in through the rough on telegraph-like lines, the same way as the power in Japan. So no expensive costs digging holes!

Re:100Mbps in Japan for 17pounds per month

[Louis Guerin]

I have 100 megabit full-duplex, unmetered, no-ports-barred internet at home, for KRW31,000 - a shade under US$30 - per month. They try to poison my dns to make me proxy through them, but that's trivial to workaround.

I've clocked 7.3 megabytes/sec inbound (from a server located about 20km away), and about 3.8 megabytes/sec outbound, so I suspect it actually IS what it says. I also run 50-100G outbound traffic per day, so I can say with some certainty that it really is unmetered.

Oh ... and I get a static IP too.

It's a beautiful thing.

L

Re:100Mbps in Japan for 17pounds per month

[kklein]

I live in Makuhari, Chiba Prefecture (about 40min from the center of Tokyo, where Tokyo Disneyland, Marine Stadium, and Makuhari Messe are, in addition to just about every multinational under the sun), and I can't get fiber to save my life... Well, I guess I could, but we'd have to pay a LOT more than that (we've checked over and over). The "24Mb ADSL" line we have was running at about 640k when we first moved in and after I complained enough and proved to the idiotic phone staff that I did actually know what was up with their service, we finally got a guy to come out and look at it. He was awesome. He spent all day tracing lines, looking at network maps, talking games with me, etc., and was able to get the connection up to about 12Mb. Still not what we're paying for, but given the pricing not really enough of a slowdown to justify going to the next level down. He said most people just don't even notice or know how to check and that sales will sell anyone any speed they want, regardless of what the network and/or building wiring can support. So although the parent is getting great service here, and it's awesome that he's getting it all the way out in Niigata, the simple fact of the matter is that there is a huge difference between marketing and reality. Just FYI, for all the times on Slashdot you see people blathering on about how fast everything is in Korea and Japan (parent and anyone actually living here excluded, of course).

Re:Wouldn't it be nice

[fodi]

I really hope you're trying to be stupid...