Quote:
Originally Posted by pr0
Ok the difference is, this is LIGHT....not water.
And contrary to what you think you know.....there is a tremendous amount of bandwidth available on a simple cable line buried out back. Enough to take us into the next century bandwidth wise. This is just another case of capitalism gone wild....so go right ahead & cheer them on...its our funeral.
How you think you're going to sell HD PORN to your customer a year from now in 1080p if they have to first pay the subscription fee & then an extra bill on their cable line for there wife to bitch about?
You just aren't thinking ahead. This is chess & you need to think 5 moves ahead bro.
|
You're arguing with the wrong person.
I worked for that small local cable company. We were one of the first in the nation to set up internet service through cable. We were second only to Boulder CO. I had a cable modem in my house before most people had ever heard of a cable modem.
You most likely don't have fiber running to your house. You have a little coax drop that connects to a tap which allows subscribers to connect to the little half-inch, aluminum shielded coax cable called a feeder. That signal has to travel to and from your cable modem down the drop and feeder until it reaches a fiber node. Then it travels back to the cable system's head end where it hits a massive fiber pipe that most of us only fantasize about and begins its trek on the internet.
It is 100% possible to burn more bandwidth than is available on that coax feeder and even on the fiber going to the cable system. Newer cable systems shouldn't have that problem for a while but aging cable systems have quality of service issues every night about the time people get home from work and jump online to play games, surf porn or do whatever it is they do online. Lots of people complain about slow service during peak hours. The problem isn't with the internet backbone. That's just fine for the time being.