There is a "funkoid router interface" involved. A router or an optical switch brings fiber into the building. The router interface is, typically, a Fast Ethernet interface. Customers have a sub-interface (at least in a Cisco router) going to fiber to a Fast Ethernet switch port, then to an RJ45 wall jack. Each customer has a seperate sub-interface.
There is a post further down (with a reply by someone who works for one of these providers) which briefly discusses the business side of this.
Several companies are doing the same thing (Yipes, Universal Access, Davnet, Quartet Services, etc.) for the same price. The solution, typically called "in-building Ethernet," is aimed at multi-tenant buildings. Routers or optical switches connect buildings in a metropolitan-area network. Buildings are wired with fiber up and down building risers, with switches at various points; copper runs from the switches to a jack in each office. Once a client is signed up, the switch port is activated. Very simple stuff. Customers not signing up for 100Mbps are rate-limited in the router to DS-1, DS-3, 10Mbps, or whatever they signed up for.
Typically a provider has a DS-3 (T-3) or an OC-3 (STM-1) for peering. Providers with lots of customers on a large MAN are using OC-12 (STM-4) for peering.
Is the customer thus getting true 100Mbps Internet access? No. Is the customer getting more bandwidth at a better price than is possible otherwise? Yes.
I disagree; I think the RIAA is concerned about both. The RIAA is built on greed, power, and paranoia. It will fight to the bitter end to maintain its distribution power and maintain glowing sales figures. It will question the results of these surveys just as Slashdotters have, it will come to a similar conclusion, and it will then use that conclusion to justify its own war against Napster and Napster's offspring.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that RIAA people read Slashdot in their efforts to come up with ideas to use in its fight. It makes sense: Slashdotters, as a whole, are more insightful than RIAA people. Slashdotters have a clue; the same can't be said of the RIAA, which continues to wear blinders and refuses to come up better ideas for the future.
Unfortunately, the same can be said of many other industries today. Take the telecom industry, for example....
Slashdot Mirror
What will Linux NOT run on these days?
There is a post further down (with a reply by someone who works for one of these providers) which briefly discusses the business side of this.
Several companies are doing the same thing (Yipes, Universal Access, Davnet, Quartet Services, etc.) for the same price. The solution, typically called "in-building Ethernet," is aimed at multi-tenant buildings. Routers or optical switches connect buildings in a metropolitan-area network. Buildings are wired with fiber up and down building risers, with switches at various points; copper runs from the switches to a jack in each office. Once a client is signed up, the switch port is activated. Very simple stuff. Customers not signing up for 100Mbps are rate-limited in the router to DS-1, DS-3, 10Mbps, or whatever they signed up for. Typically a provider has a DS-3 (T-3) or an OC-3 (STM-1) for peering. Providers with lots of customers on a large MAN are using OC-12 (STM-4) for peering. Is the customer thus getting true 100Mbps Internet access? No. Is the customer getting more bandwidth at a better price than is possible otherwise? Yes.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that RIAA people read Slashdot in their efforts to come up with ideas to use in its fight. It makes sense: Slashdotters, as a whole, are more insightful than RIAA people. Slashdotters have a clue; the same can't be said of the RIAA, which continues to wear blinders and refuses to come up better ideas for the future.
Unfortunately, the same can be said of many other industries today. Take the telecom industry, for example....