Gigabit speeds

[John P. Myers]

Oh that. That is what is called throttling. It's very intentional btw.
The reason they throttle is because their backbone(s) (Their primary data lines)
A. Are not as wide ([The largest single packet in MB that can be transmitted on a single data line] x [The total # of data lines they own or lease]) as they let on.
B. Are not as fast as they let on.
C. Are not solely dedicated to their home subscribers. In fact, much is reserved for corporate clients and 3rd party leasing. The public user base get the scraps. And they charge you a very high premium with the "promise" of improved speeds at some undisclosed future date.

In other words they are bullshitting everyone but must subscribers are too ignorant or too apathetic to ever demand better performance for their dollar. That would require voting with their wallet which could mean having to do without the latest DWTS FB update or their daily quota of pron......

+1

Another issue with DSL is they have x bandwidth to split amongst everyone subscribed to their DSL service. All advertised DSL speeds are bullshit and you'll either find an asterisk next to it in the ads, or they'll use phrases like "up to", "as fast as" and other similar things. Also, those phrases will usually appear in a font size 1/10 the size of the rest of the text so you overlook it They do cap your highest possible throughput speed, but as for how slow it can get, there's no limit.

Cable and fiber and the only 2 types of service where you'll get (much closer to) your money's worth. Fiber/cable combos are great too.

[DrPop]

And that's where I'm screwed. I don't understand HOW they can do this in the "modern era" but I've been informed that cable lines stop about 1/2 a mile from my office. Really. huh. Take a look at zip code 93003. We're not exactly in the middle of nowhere. But apparently we are, at least according to the cable guys.
So I'm stuck with this crap DSL until something breaks loose. I'm not holding my breath, it's been 5 years already.

[Justgeo1]

And you aren't out in the boonies far enough to need cable TV? That is crazy! I'm in the 98166 zip and have had cable available since the late 50'... and I'm within spitting distance of Seattle!

[DrPop]

That's the funny part. There's cable all around - have cable internet at the condo here - it's just that for some reason the street my office is on never got cable ran to it! Strange, I know...the street was built up in the late '80s to early 90s I think, but for whatever reason, both of the cable companies around here claim the "other guy" is supposed to service that area. And I just smile and say "sure" whenever I get that line.

[Fire$torm]

That's the funny part. There's cable all around - have cable internet at the condo here - it's just that for some reason the street my office is on never got cable ran to it! Strange, I know...the street was built up in the late '80s to early 90s I think, but for whatever reason, both of the cable companies around here claim the "other guy" is supposed to service that area. And I just smile and say "sure" whenever I get that line.

Me thinks the business district refused to foot the bill so the cable vendors could turn a profit. Sound reasonable?

[Justgeo1]

That's the funny part. There's cable all around - have cable internet at the condo here - it's just that for some reason the street my office is on never got cable ran to it! Strange, I know...the street was built up in the late '80s to early 90s I think, but for whatever reason, both of the cable companies around here claim the "other guy" is supposed to service that area. And I just smile and say "sure" whenever I get that line.

That has to be so frustrating... I bet you can even see the cable lines from your office! Hope someone steps up and gets you plugged in soon!

[Al]

I'm stuck with DSL also. Time Warner did do a site survey and offered to hook me up...FOR $18,000 dollars. In fairness, I do live a bit off the beaten path, but not on the 18 grand path...geez!

[Slicker]

The same people who determine max bandwidth an ISP needs are the same people who decide how many bathroom stalls or urinals are needed in sports stadiums. They look at the average utilization rather than the peak.

At a previous employer (e.g. a publishing company who's name rhymes with the one that the show "The Office" used) there was a director of systems administration who decided we didn't need new servers because they were only running at 3%. From 9:30 to 4:00 on Monday thru Friday they all ran at 100% but the late afternoon, evening, night, early morning and weekends, they ran at <1% so the average was 3%. So instead of buying more or faster servers, the director decided to turn all the existing servers into virtual machines and get rid of 2/3 of them since they had such low utilization. They then became IO and network bound because there weren't separate drives or NICs for each VM so according to the stats, they remained at 3$ so it was a good decision. To save even more money they outsourced the data center so we went from a gigabit switched environment to where they had 350 people sharing a single T3 line (45 Mbps) for all LAN access (not WAN, LAN!!!). That became the biggest bottleneck so the need for faster servers became a moot point proving that the 3% utilization was correct and that the change to an outsourced data center had no impact on the business other than to save money. It was so frustrating working there that I quit. I've been working for myself ever since without regrets.

[Bok]

Strangely enough this is VERY similar to what I'm seeing right now in my work... I can't seem to get my voice heard unfortunately. How can you consider setting up a DB server in an LDOM serving 3Tb of data in a financial system for 500 users and only use two 'cores' of a CPU in that VM. Originally it was only 16Gb Ram too, but I did win that fight and get it bumped up to 128Gb Ram. Madness. All based on average utilization of current machines

The same people who determine max bandwidth an ISP needs are the same people who decide how many bathroom stalls or urinals are needed in sports stadiums. They look at the average utilization rather than the peak.

At a previous employer (e.g. a publishing company who's name rhymes with the one that the show "The Office" used) there was a director of systems administration who decided we didn't need new servers because they were only running at 3%. From 9:30 to 4:00 on Monday thru Friday they all ran at 100% but the late afternoon, evening, night, early morning and weekends, they ran at <1% so the average was 3%. So instead of buying more or faster servers, the director decided to turn all the existing servers into virtual machines and get rid of 2/3 of them since they had such low utilization. They then became IO and network bound because there weren't separate drives or NICs for each VM so according to the stats, they remained at 3$ so it was a good decision. To save even more money they outsourced the data center so we went from a gigabit switched environment to where they had 350 people sharing a single T3 line (45 Mbps) for all LAN access (not WAN, LAN!!!). That became the biggest bottleneck so the need for faster servers became a moot point proving that the 3% utilization was correct and that the change to an outsourced data center had no impact on the business other than to save money. It was so frustrating working there that I quit. I've been working for myself ever since without regrets.

[Fire$torm]

The same people who determine max bandwidth an ISP needs are the same people who decide how many bathroom stalls or urinals are needed in sports stadiums. They look at the average utilization rather than the peak...

Strangely enough this is VERY similar to what I'm seeing right now in my work... I can't seem to get my voice heard unfortunately...

I bet I know why. Those that come up with that rationale are the one who get paid the "Big Bucks". So of course they know what is best.