There might be a slight improvement given that routers and switches aling the way have to operate faster to handle gigabit switching but in the UK the there have been complaints that VDSL interleaving ( which can't be turned-off ) actually raised latency above their ADSL levels.
Switching to fiber might help somewhat though, because a higher data rate translates the same number of bytes of packet queue into a shorter actual packet delay. So it slightly mitigates the pain of bufferbloat (at least until people start configuring the buffers to be even larger to "optimize for our faster networks").
Lag compensation [1] does not compensate for lost kills, unfortunately, and I bet people still uniformly complain about bad net code nowadays.
[1] https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Lag_compensation
The average shooter, based on the highly scientific study of Counter Strike Source and Urban Terror (a quake mod), the average bandwidth used was under 128kbps. Latency, especially the variance of latency and packet loss are the biggest issues at hand.
I find it absolutely hilarious whenever ISPs market their larger packages for the "hardcore gamer", when in fact a real hardcore gamer would probably opt for the smallest package.
The NBN is the worst policy idea to hit the Australian tech industry, ever. I doubt there will be one worse. It has already wreaked a trail of destruction and slowed down adoption of high speeds, it will continue to do so for at least the next 5 years, until some future government finally sells the scraps and turns it over to private companies, as it should have done from the get-go.
We had a grandiose government scheme announced 7 years ago. 7 Years down the track, private investment is forbidden, none of the Telcos have made any additional investment, existing infrastructure is being torn up. And the number of people passed by the new system is less than what a decent football stadium will hold, but they are $15 billion spent already. The forecast cast has progressed beyond $65 billion, but any number you hear is just finger-in-the-wind anyway.
It's fashionable - very fashionable- to love on the NBN, but it is a terrible, terrible idea. Fibre? great. Government owned communications monopoly with grandiose promises and an army of people and advertising, but little actual rollout.
Worst. Idea. Ever.
You think I'm being partisan? No. I would have opposed the idea no matter which party put it up. You've only got to look at various transport projects which are endlessly promised, re-promised, and then re-re-promised when a PR opportunity is ready. The Redcliffe rail link has been promised for 100 years now.
If you want fast speeds, then you need competition. Just like this article says. Not a quasi government department full of paper shuffling. Please kill the NBN and invite Google over. Give them tax money if necessary, but dismantle a nationalised communications network, stat.
Things are getting better here slowly, can't believe how retarded the liberal party is over the NBN.
Please help us, Google!
Oh, gee, look at all this bandwidth I just found...
> AT&T maintains it has been planning this fiber upgrade for a long time, and that Google's announcement didn't affect the timing of its network.
No, no, we planned this all along...
> What Google recognized that others didn't is that Americans want to have the best communications infrastructure
Yes, as it turns out study after study showing Americans were fiercely proud of being in 15th place, may have suffered some sort of statistical vagaries. We're looking into it.
This is also very consistent with America in general, we say we like competition, but our businesses don't like competition beyond the lip service of uttering the word. We have virtually zero competition in so many aspects of our economy and society, especially in those that matter in the current type of world.
What we are not realizing is that our corporations are actually strangling America like a psychopath strangling a hooker, repeating "I love you, mommy!"
100Mbps isn't 1000Mbps, but I'll take it.
Competition they call it.
Disclosure: I wrote some of the software for the early hardware behind FiOS back 10 years ago or so. Wow FiOS has been out there for a long time. Also I am old.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140424/06185027014/verizo...
http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2014/03/hopewell_town...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS#Stable_footprint_....
Note: I was focused on them being technical leaders. Which they were. I make no endorsement of their business practices. Also they were not the first to FTTH in the US or not the world, just the first big mover in the US.
Check the amount of subsidies that they have received over the years for promising fiber to the home. That is why, IMO.
I actually think part of the problem is that no one in the bay area seems to know about FiOS because it doesn't exist here. They do offer the service to 15% or so of US household, but not me, or other folks by the bay.
Disclosure: I was a Verizon vendor and worked closely with several of their staff. At an individual level they were nice folks. But, their corporate culture only understood competing as a monopoly and didn't know how to play on a level playing field.
Or better yet, why not treat ISPs as utilities. Could anyone offer insight as to why internet in this day and age is not regulated like electricity or other utilities?
This was the obvious solution after the telecom act of '96. Many experts in the field said so much at the time. But the telecoms dug their heels, broke the law by locking out people from the DSLAMS, and used disinformation and lobbying to get the FCC to say it was O.K. to have a telecom-cable duopoly. This was also around the time that telecoms did everything they could, at the state level, to prevent cities from offering free city-wide internet [1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband#Controversy
The expensive part - digging the road and laying the physical cable - is already done, and was done 30+ years ago in many cases. These assets have been paid for.
The high internet prices in the US are down to terrible regulation. While there are many things that the EU hasn't done well, it has really nailed telecom (both fixed and cellular) regulation.
UK: 660 people per sq mile Kentucky: 101 people per sq mile
http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3479092379
Incredible what happens when you get a little competition!
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/why-co...
tl;dr: by using more spectrum in the coax cable can get pretty fast... So pressure from Google should get them to crank up the speed sooner than later.
However you are correct that coaxial cable has plenty of room for improvement with a cost that pales in comparison to rolling out FTTH.
Sure they don't, they also don't need bluray or terabyte hdds either... Should be rephrased to 'We hope customers don't realize they can use that type of speed.'
Good read on the subject: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
As an example, consider the current topic of broadband. In theory net neutrality is beneficial in terms of keeping costs down. This is beneficial for web companies. However, consider that without net neutrality, broadband providers have additional business models available that increase overall revenue. This additional revenue can help drive broadband R&D, which in turn could actually benefit web companies in the long run.
Making technology cheaper is good in the short run, but in the long run it may interfere with innovation, which benefits from things not being cheap, but actually profitable to produce.
And what's up with San Francisco disliking fiber so much?
We have a TWC connection 2000m outside of Google Fiber availability that's been disconnecting up to 10-20 times a day for months that says some rivals just don't give a shit. The disconnections are only mildly more annoying than the constant spiking and pl that had been going on for a year or so..
Interestingly enough, Grande Communications has actually beat Google with regards to being the first company to actually start offering/installing fiber services within the city limits [2]. Granted, their fiber offerings are limited to a small subset of people living in downtown/west Austin, but it's progress nonetheless.
Google has been incredibly tight-lipped about their fiber rollout. To this day, there have not been any official announcements since their initial unveiling 1 year ago. But from small news pieces I can find online, it seems their service launch has been delayed to 'later this year' (compared to the summer 2014 date they originally gave) [3]. Last, performing a search of permits files by Google for fiber construction reveals that their initial rollout/offering will be exclusively to south Austin residents (south of Lake Austin) [4].
[1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/2099908/aha-time-warner-cable...
[2] http://mygrande.com/austin/1-gig-fiber-internet/
[3] https://gigaom.com/2014/04/08/google-delays-austin-fiber-lau...
[4] https://mapsengine.google.com/map/u/0/edit?mid=zKGIh6VixM7Q....
I have Grande and AT&T fiber to my house. I have service from Grande. AT&T won't sell me their 300Mbps service.
When Google comes, Grande is dropped like a hot rock.
They seem to be on that second point and it seems to be working well.
