Why We Don't Need Gigabit Networks (Yet)
AmyVernon writes "Most computers today can't support gigabit connections and current Wi-Fi networks can't offer those speeds either. The first trial of Sonic.Net's gigabit network was a speed test on a generic laptop that showed off 420 Mbps down; the laptop couldn't handle a full gig. Plus, few applications need those speeds. It's hard to justify such a huge investment in a network that will have few subscribers and few applications that need it. Of course, that can change, and then these networks will be vital. This story has a good analysis of where things stand and what has to change."
When you wake up to the obvious facts of 1999, let me know, and I'll give you an invite to the 21st century. Cuz I'm k3vvL and rollz like dat.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The guy being quoted (Jasper) has a pretty weak argument. It's based on there only being a single computer accessing the network. Add in multiple channels of streaming HD video, multiple computers/users in a household, etc., and you can easily fill that pipe that his cheap laptop could only use half of.
The article is poorly written. It mentions "Jasper's ISP," but Jasper is CEO of an ISP. So is this a competitor offering the gigabit for $70/month? If you dig just a bit, you'll find he sells 10 Mb Ethernet connections for $600/month, so perhaps that's the real reason he doesn't think $70/month for gigabit service makes sense.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
My organization is on the verge of needing to move our equipment to 10gig soon, because the 1gig network is starting to become a serious bottleneck...