Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [TheVerge] Time Warner Cable says there's no consumer demand for gigabit internet
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TheVerge] Time Warner Cable says there's no consumer demand for gigabit internet - Page 24

post #231 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by KhaoticKomputing View Post

Personally I feel that is worth around $150-ish a month, No phone, No cable, No goodies. I feel that price should include a "basic" router/modem (nothing fancy, not even wifi or USB ports) with nicer model's (wifi, ect) being available for extra charge. So ABSOLUTE top dollor is 200 a month, just for the connection, I would happily pay extra for phone, fancy router/modem and cable/satalite TV service.

EDIT: shoot, forgot to add that the above price's would reflect in my world a 2-5 year contract.

Ok, $2400 a year might actually work, if you are willing to do a 20 year contract.

That's $75 to $300 a year just for the installation costs on a 20 year commitment ... or $750 per year on the low side for a 2 year commitment, $3000 on the high side for a 2 year, $300 a year on a 5 year low side, $1200 on a 5 year on the high side.

So as you can see, just paying for the installation costs, it gets real expensive, and that's before any other supporting infrastructure (like the backbone, support, and data costs) get factored in.

I wonder how many people are willing to pay $200 a month just for internet ... no tv, no phone, no nothing else ... just a fat pipe.

I wonder if you actualy have any understanding of how networking actually, you know, works.

You go on and on about how "Oh, well, connection to your house..."

NO.

That is not how networking works. Not in the slightest, and frankly as someone who claims to actually work on this stuff, you should be incredibly ashamed for even thinking that way. They do not and will never run a 1Gbps line directly from your home to the ISP. They might for business, and that is why that cost so much, but that's not how residential works.

"Well if you're so smart then Kyad, how does residential work?"

I'm glad you asked. A user nailed it earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuuut View Post


Doesn't that number spread around since in a city people usually live very close to each other.... or are you saying that it costs $6000 to maintain the 2 meter connection from the sidewalk into the house?

Yup, that is in fact how it works, sarcasm on the end aside. Lets look at a diagram.


"But that's obviously a datacenter network..."

You're right! Gold star for you. Well, see, it works the exact same way on much larger scales, liiiike say, ISPs. You don't run 1Gbps to everyone from your switches in the ISP building, that would be stupid! No. You run several 100gbps (or we can pretend it's infiniband because it's fun to dream, but it's fiber) lines to a switch (port channeled of course, it's one fat pipe after all) in a centralized location near your clients. Or, in the case of a city, a block or something. Then you run, say, 4 or 5 10Gbps lines to the building itself to another switch. And then that last switch finally breaks off into individual 1gbps lines to each of the people's routers.

Yes, you could say that there would be massive costs to actually lay down those 100gbps lines, if it wasn't for the fact we have incredible masses of dark fiber sitting there unused. It's what Google wants to buy up in fact.

Now, what might be far more recognizable as "The Internet" is this.


Unfortunately, this is quite the wrong way to think of things... See, each of those switches could be an ISP. Maybe I do rent a 50/10 line for my home, keep 10/2 for myself, and sell 10/2 to each of my 4 friends. I am now an ISP. Not to mention it's far more complex then that. But it gets the idea across. No one short of business gets a direct connection to the ISP. So all these "costs" Knucklehead is coming up with are completely blown out of proportion. That isn't "$1600 for you", that's "$2000 for you, and the 20 people around you". Seems more reasonable now doesn't it? Seeing where the ISPs start making money?

Do you know what businesses pay for, and what Knucklehead here is actually referring to when he comes up with these mythical costs? This:


See how they have to make an entire point-to-point? That cost money. And since it's only for that one customer, that one customer alone has to uphold the cost. Hence, lots of money. Of course, it could be a Business's internet connection in which case the point goes into the ISP network instead of to another regional controller, but the idea is the same. The one customer has to pay for it all. Not to mention the guaranteed service (they actually pay you back if you have downtime at that point), maintenance on that line (they really don't want to pay you back), etc.

Anyway, the above just shows how completely unrealistic Knucklehead's costs are. Now lets move into the part where he rants about what Google gets at the cost of your tax payer money. I think Stealth Pyros hit the nail on the head here.

Google is giving the city gigabit to it's government buildings for free. There's millions of dollars right there that can go to other things. Not to mention all the people moving to Kansas now, who are now paying taxes. And all the business's moving there that can now be taxed by the city. This is called Investing. They are putting money in, in the hopes to gain money at the end. That is how things work in the real world, and if you're just going to sit there and complain about how Google got lucky without actually reading both sides of the bargain, and the bets placed on them, then you should not be putting down either the Business or the City for trying to make progress.

Google got an OK deal from the city, and the City got a sweet deal from Google. I guarantee you in the long run, Kansas gets the better end of the bargain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhaoticKomputing View Post

I tried to point this out.

Its going to be bad when lots of "Fiber hoods" are poping up and people "want it because they can afford it" it doesn't matter how much of the connection they will use, They will buy it anyway, and love EVERY HIGHSPEED SECOND of it! TWC is just doing everything they can to keep the market thinking cable is fine and dandy.

IF they don't offer a gigabit option soon they will be forced to lower their current price's to compete. Its going to suck when their 50/10 connection is only worth $5 a month just because google offer's SOOOO much more for pennies. I also bet Google isn't in the to make stupid money. Their mission statement is "Don't be evil" if I'm not mistaken.

Oh they're in it for the money all right... But not money as an ISP.

See, they already did research on this. People who have to wait longer for a page to load are less likely to look at that page, and thus the advertisements. Google makes money off those advertisements. Google would love for the pages to load faster for them, so they will stick around and maybe click an advert or two, but no ISP is really progressing internet speeds.

So... what if THEY provided the speed? They could cover most of the cost for their own service with a low charge (like $70 per month), and since people like to bundle, maybe they'll jerry rig some solution, like streaming to a DVR for a little more ($120 for both). Heck, they could even charge the TV companies a little bit to provide their service under Google's name. Or maybe they could charge NBC and the others for the right to be on their TV service, like Comcast does, to help make up for more of that loss (and it is indeed a loss) in money for providing all this.

YouTube is also a massive sink hole for money, but it provides something Google really wants. Advertising space and time. This is why Google wants to do that free public WiFi thing too. If more people have access to the internet, they will use the internet more. Using the internet more means using Google more. Using Google more means more chances to show you adverts. The more adverts you click on, the more money Google makes.

The trick to to balance it. How expensive will this be, and what are our projected gains from doing it? Is it really worth it?

Of course, there's more subtle things involved... Doing Google Fiber is a huge PR stunt too. It will give Google an even bigger reputation for bringing cheap or free service to the people, at no obvious cost to them! After all, all they want is for us to use them more. Google also doesn't have to do all those cities, they just have to create demand. Oh for now TWC is saying "no one needs it, it's a waste", but sure enough, they are going to lose a LOT of customers to Google, and it will force their hand to compete. And when TWC is forced to compete, AT&T and Comcast are forced to compete with TWC.

Google doesn't want to bring Gigabit to everyone (sorry everyone, it's true), they just want to get all the ISPs to wake up and offer faster speeds themselves.

THAT is what Google wants. They are still a company, and still in it for the money, they just make very good decisions in front of the public eye and frankly, I have a lot of respect for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhaoticKomputing View Post

Blah! but google IS DOING IT! its not like it can't be done, They just don't want to do it!

How is it that hard to understand! There is a company out there, Offering a rediculas internet speeds, Cable, DVR, Cloud and NAS, Tablet, phone(might as well send you a partridge and a pare tree too!) for a stupid low price! Your just not taking that into consideration!

Its not like this is some impossible feat that cannot be done. It can be done, it is being done and it sucks to be TWC right now lol.

Google can afford to do this because their stunt will pay off. Unlike the ISP (all of them), most of their money will not come from the service itself, and this is important to remember. Google is primarily a Search and Advert company, and as such they can completely undercut everyone else. What "extra" does the ISP get? What else do they sell that will allow them to cut that low, and still make a profit? That is something to remember.

Are they seriously over charging now? Yes. Can they even hope to compete with what Google is offering? No. And Google knows it. And so do TWC and AT&T, and that's why they complain and bash Google all week long.

Yes yes, they don't want to compete, they're happy where they are now, but it's completely possible that Google aimed too low, and will simply eradicate the other ISPs in the area instead of making them move like they want. And that is just as bad for Google, because one little city worth of people will not pay in advertising money what it will cost to do all this. They need country-wide action, and they can't do it on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave12 View Post

I keep coming into this thread and reading and every time I wonder about one thing. I have a Gbit connection in my office, everyone does. All of that is financed by the traders that work in this building, (they actually subsidize the entire business park,) and I have to ask. Paying over 5k plus a traffic fee is one thing when you have revenue to chop off of your taxable income, but why would anyone want an internet connection that requires dozens of people to saturate that costs more than most make in a month? Faster is better and all but this stuff costs, and I have to think that TWC is correct in saying that very few would want a 10,985.66 internet bill. (<--Just checked.)

Xeons cost more then i7s, Opeterons cost more then FX, SuperMicro cost more then Asus, and so on.

You are looking at the price of an Enterprise product, and all the costs that go with it. They do not reflect on the prices of Consumer things. Internet included. wink.gif

And thankyou Scorpion49 for pointing out some of the reasons why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Puft View Post

I have 30 down and 10 up and i dont need more. What i want is a 1-2 ping. Right now i'm at 15

You're going to have fun with that since you're probably (as a household consumer) 7-8 "jumps" away from your ISP, let alone any ISP hand changes, how busy the target server is, how "far" away the server is, etc.

And no, physical location means almost nothing. In networking, your distance is the number of jumps (Switches, Routers, etc) between you and your destination. And no, Fiber will not help you, as at every switch it has to convert optical to digital and back again. Fiber is great at long distance, but for short range things, Copper is actually faster. Only benefits Fiber have going for it are immunity to noise and the ability to go several miles with a single wire.

Ping Google in a command prompt, and look at TTL. It starts at 128, and reduces by one for every router you hit. I get 9ms to google, with a TTL of 57. That means I hit 35 (round trip, so 1/2) routers between my own computer and Google's server.

Put that in perspective for a second. I was able to talk to Google and get a response in just over half the time it takes for my monitor to update one frame. My packet got re-directed 70 times in that same time frame.

At 15ms, you wouldn't notice lower ping at all unless you have a 120hz monitor, and even that is debatable. The real question, is what is your ping to things that matter, like Google, or the servers of whatever game you play.
Forge
(17 items)
 
Forge-LT
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7-5960X (4.625Ghz) ASUS X99-DELUXE/U3.1 EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
64GB Corsair Dominator Platinum (3000Mhz 8x8GB) Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 512GB EK Predator 240 Windows 10 Enterprise x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x Acer XR341CK Corsair Vengeance K70 RGB Corsair AX1200 Corsair Graphite 780T 
MouseAudioAudioAudio
Corsair Vengeance M65 RGB Sennheiser HD700 Sound Blaster AE-5 Audio Technica AT4040 
Audio
30ART Mic Tube Amp 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4720HQ UX501JW-UB71T GTX 960m 16GB 1600 9-9-9-27 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
512GB PCI-e SSD Windows 10 Pro 4k IPS 
  hide details  
Reply
Forge
(17 items)
 
Forge-LT
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7-5960X (4.625Ghz) ASUS X99-DELUXE/U3.1 EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
64GB Corsair Dominator Platinum (3000Mhz 8x8GB) Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 512GB EK Predator 240 Windows 10 Enterprise x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x Acer XR341CK Corsair Vengeance K70 RGB Corsair AX1200 Corsair Graphite 780T 
MouseAudioAudioAudio
Corsair Vengeance M65 RGB Sennheiser HD700 Sound Blaster AE-5 Audio Technica AT4040 
Audio
30ART Mic Tube Amp 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4720HQ UX501JW-UB71T GTX 960m 16GB 1600 9-9-9-27 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
512GB PCI-e SSD Windows 10 Pro 4k IPS 
  hide details  
Reply
post #232 of 326
A rep worthy post Kyad!

thumb.gif
Snowdevil
(16 items)
 
ASUS G750JM
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
[i7 4790K @ 4.4 GHz (1.186v)] [Asus Sabertooth Z97 Mark S] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
[G.Skill 32GB DDR3 2133 MHz] [Crucial MX100 256GB] [Phanteks PH-TC12DX] [Win 10.1 Pro] 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
[LG 29UM65 (2560x1080)] [QNIX Evo II LED (2560x1440)] [WASD v2 Tenkeyless] [NZXT Hale90 v2 ] 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
[ThermalTake GT10 Snow Edition] [Razer Mamba - Chroma] [Razer Kabuto] [Razer Man O' War] 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770HQ Intel HM87 Express Chipset Geforce GTX 860M 8GB DDR3L 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD EVO DVD-RW Stock Windows 8.1 
Monitor
1920x1080 TN 
  hide details  
Reply
Snowdevil
(16 items)
 
ASUS G750JM
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
[i7 4790K @ 4.4 GHz (1.186v)] [Asus Sabertooth Z97 Mark S] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
[G.Skill 32GB DDR3 2133 MHz] [Crucial MX100 256GB] [Phanteks PH-TC12DX] [Win 10.1 Pro] 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
[LG 29UM65 (2560x1080)] [QNIX Evo II LED (2560x1440)] [WASD v2 Tenkeyless] [NZXT Hale90 v2 ] 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
[ThermalTake GT10 Snow Edition] [Razer Mamba - Chroma] [Razer Kabuto] [Razer Man O' War] 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770HQ Intel HM87 Express Chipset Geforce GTX 860M 8GB DDR3L 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD EVO DVD-RW Stock Windows 8.1 
Monitor
1920x1080 TN 
  hide details  
Reply
post #233 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyadCK View Post

I wonder if you actualy have any understanding of how networking actually, you know, works.

You go on and on about how "Oh, well, connection to your house..."

NO.

That is not how networking works. Not in the slightest, and frankly as someone who claims to actually work on this stuff, you should be incredibly ashamed for even thinking that way. They do not and will never run a 1Gbps line directly from your home to the ISP. They might for business, and that is why that cost so much, but that's not how residential works.

"Well if you're so smart then Kyad, how does residential work?"

I'm glad you asked. A user nailed it earlier.
Yup, that is in fact how it works, sarcasm on the end aside. Lets look at a diagram.


"But that's obviously a datacenter network..."

You're right! Gold star for you. Well, see, it works the exact same way on much larger scales, liiiike say, ISPs. You don't run 1Gbps to everyone from your switches in the ISP building, that would be stupid! No. You run several 100gbps (or we can pretend it's infiniband because it's fun to dream, but it's fiber) lines to a switch (port channeled of course, it's one fat pipe after all) in a centralized location near your clients. Or, in the case of a city, a block or something. Then you run, say, 4 or 5 10Gbps lines to the building itself to another switch. And then that last switch finally breaks off into individual 1gbps lines to each of the people's routers.

Yes, you could say that there would be massive costs to actually lay down those 100gbps lines, if it wasn't for the fact we have incredible masses of dark fiber sitting there unused. It's what Google wants to buy up in fact.

Now, what might be far more recognizable as "The Internet" is this.


Unfortunately, this is quite the wrong way to think of things... See, each of those switches could be an ISP. Maybe I do rent a 50/10 line for my home, keep 10/2 for myself, and sell 10/2 to each of my 4 friends. I am now an ISP. Not to mention it's far more complex then that. But it gets the idea across. No one short of business gets a direct connection to the ISP. So all these "costs" Knucklehead is coming up with are completely blown out of proportion. That isn't "$1600 for you", that's "$2000 for you, and the 20 people around you". Seems more reasonable now doesn't it? Seeing where the ISPs start making money?

Do you know what businesses pay for, and what Knucklehead here is actually referring to when he comes up with these mythical costs? This:


See how they have to make an entire point-to-point? That cost money. And since it's only for that one customer, that one customer alone has to uphold the cost. Hence, lots of money. Of course, it could be a Business's internet connection in which case the point goes into the ISP network instead of to another regional controller, but the idea is the same. The one customer has to pay for it all. Not to mention the guaranteed service (they actually pay you back if you have downtime at that point), maintenance on that line (they really don't want to pay you back), etc.

Anyway, the above just shows how completely unrealistic Knucklehead's costs are. Now lets move into the part where he rants about what Google gets at the cost of your tax payer money. I think Stealth Pyros hit the nail on the head here.

Google is giving the city gigabit to it's government buildings for free. There's millions of dollars right there that can go to other things. Not to mention all the people moving to Kansas now, who are now paying taxes. And all the business's moving there that can now be taxed by the city. This is called Investing. They are putting money in, in the hopes to gain money at the end. That is how things work in the real world, and if you're just going to sit there and complain about how Google got lucky without actually reading both sides of the bargain, and the bets placed on them, then you should not be putting down either the Business or the City for trying to make progress.

Google got an OK deal from the city, and the City got a sweet deal from Google. I guarantee you in the long run, Kansas gets the better end of the bargain.
Oh they're in it for the money all right... But not money as an ISP.

See, they already did research on this. People who have to wait longer for a page to load are less likely to look at that page, and thus the advertisements. Google makes money off those advertisements. Google would love for the pages to load faster for them, so they will stick around and maybe click an advert or two, but no ISP is really progressing internet speeds.

So... what if THEY provided the speed? They could cover most of the cost for their own service with a low charge (like $70 per month), and since people like to bundle, maybe they'll jerry rig some solution, like streaming to a DVR for a little more ($120 for both). Heck, they could even charge the TV companies a little bit to provide their service under Google's name. Or maybe they could charge NBC and the others for the right to be on their TV service, like Comcast does, to help make up for more of that loss (and it is indeed a loss) in money for providing all this.

YouTube is also a massive sink hole for money, but it provides something Google really wants. Advertising space and time. This is why Google wants to do that free public WiFi thing too. If more people have access to the internet, they will use the internet more. Using the internet more means using Google more. Using Google more means more chances to show you adverts. The more adverts you click on, the more money Google makes.

The trick to to balance it. How expensive will this be, and what are our projected gains from doing it? Is it really worth it?

Of course, there's more subtle things involved... Doing Google Fiber is a huge PR stunt too. It will give Google an even bigger reputation for bringing cheap or free service to the people, at no obvious cost to them! After all, all they want is for us to use them more. Google also doesn't have to do all those cities, they just have to create demand. Oh for now TWC is saying "no one needs it, it's a waste", but sure enough, they are going to lose a LOT of customers to Google, and it will force their hand to compete. And when TWC is forced to compete, AT&T and Comcast are forced to compete with TWC.

Google doesn't want to bring Gigabit to everyone (sorry everyone, it's true), they just want to get all the ISPs to wake up and offer faster speeds themselves.

THAT is what Google wants. They are still a company, and still in it for the money, they just make very good decisions in front of the public eye and frankly, I have a lot of respect for that.
Google can afford to do this because their stunt will pay off. Unlike the ISP (all of them), most of their money will not come from the service itself, and this is important to remember. Google is primarily a Search and Advert company, and as such they can completely undercut everyone else. What "extra" does the ISP get? What else do they sell that will allow them to cut that low, and still make a profit? That is something to remember.

Are they seriously over charging now? Yes. Can they even hope to compete with what Google is offering? No. And Google knows it. And so do TWC and AT&T, and that's why they complain and bash Google all week long.

Yes yes, they don't want to compete, they're happy where they are now, but it's completely possible that Google aimed too low, and will simply eradicate the other ISPs in the area instead of making them move like they want. And that is just as bad for Google, because one little city worth of people will not pay in advertising money what it will cost to do all this. They need country-wide action, and they can't do it on their own.
Xeons cost more then i7s, Opeterons cost more then FX, SuperMicro cost more then Asus, and so on.

You are looking at the price of an Enterprise product, and all the costs that go with it. They do not reflect on the prices of Consumer things. Internet included. wink.gif

And thankyou Scorpion49 for pointing out some of the reasons why.
You're going to have fun with that since you're probably (as a household consumer) 7-8 "jumps" away from your ISP, let alone any ISP hand changes, how busy the target server is, how "far" away the server is, etc.

And no, physical location means almost nothing. In networking, your distance is the number of jumps (Switches, Routers, etc) between you and your destination. And no, Fiber will not help you, as at every switch it has to convert optical to digital and back again. Fiber is great at long distance, but for short range things, Copper is actually faster. Only benefits Fiber have going for it are immunity to noise and the ability to go several miles with a single wire.

Ping Google in a command prompt, and look at TTL. It starts at 128, and reduces by one for every router you hit. I get 9ms to google, with a TTL of 57. That means I hit 35 (round trip, so 1/2) routers between my own computer and Google's server.

Put that in perspective for a second. I was able to talk to Google and get a response in just over half the time it takes for my monitor to update one frame. My packet got re-directed 70 times in that same time frame.

At 15ms, you wouldn't notice lower ping at all unless you have a 120hz monitor, and even that is debatable. The real question, is what is your ping to things that matter, like Google, or the servers of whatever game you play.


I agree with most of what you have said, There are a few points in your post are reaching a bit(assumptions and all). I will add that I hope Google does run TWC and AT&T.

In my specific area there is no good internet connections for residential area's(None but Google Fiber). As in TWC won't even offer a resident more than 50up and like 10 down. You want more, you have to move to a commercially zoned area. I am 100% irate about this. I live in a massive city, We are a transportation HUB! we have train yards stretching for miles. Kansas has and always will be a mecha in american infrastructural. I dare you to move large amounts of good from one end of the country to the other and never stop in Kansas. It can be done but you will spend tons of money doing it.

Not to mention plug in a kansas zip code and see what TWC offer's you for internet connections and what they want to charge. Then after you pay them your connection speends just as much time down as it does up. Their hardware is crap, I have to reset my modem at least twice a day because the single best modem they offer is crap and they STILL CHARGE ME MONTHLY FOR IT!

IF TWC could figure out how to actually get a stable connection around here I wouldn't be anywere near as irate at them as I am now. For how slow my connection is and how much uptime I get to use its a total waste of $70 a month just for net. However I have started deviding my uptime by my bill and only pay for uptime. I have to call TWC Billing and raise total hell but its gotten my bill disccounted a lot in the last few months.

I will NOT pay for service I cannot use or access.
Gizmoto
(18 items)
 
They beat me:(
(15 items)
 
Home Server V1.0
(17 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II x6 1040t @2.7Ghz ASRock 880GM-LE FX  AMD Radeon HD 4250 integrated graphics Micro Center(ADATA) 8Gb (2x4) 1333 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Western Digital Caviar Blue 640Gb Samsung SpinPoint F4 2Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 ST3500641AS-RK 500Gb Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 ST3500641AS-RK 500Gb 
Optical DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
ASUS 24X DVD Burner ASUS 24X DVD Burner Stock AMD Cooler Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
OSOSPowerCase
Linux Mint (VM) Linux Ubuntu (VM) Inland ILG-500R2 500w PSU DiabloTek Evo Mid-tower Case 
Other
Inland IL internal card reader 
  hide details  
Reply
Gizmoto
(18 items)
 
They beat me:(
(15 items)
 
Home Server V1.0
(17 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II x6 1040t @2.7Ghz ASRock 880GM-LE FX  AMD Radeon HD 4250 integrated graphics Micro Center(ADATA) 8Gb (2x4) 1333 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Western Digital Caviar Blue 640Gb Samsung SpinPoint F4 2Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 ST3500641AS-RK 500Gb Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 ST3500641AS-RK 500Gb 
Optical DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
ASUS 24X DVD Burner ASUS 24X DVD Burner Stock AMD Cooler Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
OSOSPowerCase
Linux Mint (VM) Linux Ubuntu (VM) Inland ILG-500R2 500w PSU DiabloTek Evo Mid-tower Case 
Other
Inland IL internal card reader 
  hide details  
Reply
post #234 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by RagingCain View Post

A rep worthy post Kyad!

thumb.gif

I share similar sentiments, thanks for the wonderful and informative post
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 2670 @ 2.8Ghz m4600 m5100 @ 1100c/1500m 16GB DDR3 1333Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
c300 128GB SSD 2TB FireCuda 7mm 2TB Firecuda 7mm 1TB 5400rpm 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB 5400rpm Windows 10 x64  1920x1080 @90hz 150w 
Mouse
Corsair M40 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 2670 @ 2.8Ghz m4600 m5100 @ 1100c/1500m 16GB DDR3 1333Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
c300 128GB SSD 2TB FireCuda 7mm 2TB Firecuda 7mm 1TB 5400rpm 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB 5400rpm Windows 10 x64  1920x1080 @90hz 150w 
Mouse
Corsair M40 
  hide details  
Reply
post #235 of 326
[TheVerge] Time Warner Cable says there's no consumer demand for gigabit internet followed by [USNews] Net providers begin warning of illegal downloads thumb.gif
BLACK!CE
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k Z68 Exetreme4 Gen3 MSI 6950 Twin Frozr II 8g 8-9-8 24 1600 
Power
CM 800w Silent Pro Gold 
  hide details  
Reply
BLACK!CE
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k Z68 Exetreme4 Gen3 MSI 6950 Twin Frozr II 8g 8-9-8 24 1600 
Power
CM 800w Silent Pro Gold 
  hide details  
Reply
post #236 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyadCK View Post



Ping Google in a command prompt, and look at TTL. It starts at 128, and reduces by one for every router you hit. I get 9ms to google, with a TTL of 57. That means I hit 35 (round trip, so 1/2) routers between my own computer and Google's server.

Put that in perspective for a second. I was able to talk to Google and get a response in just over half the time it takes for my monitor to update one frame. My packet got re-directed 70 times in that same time frame.

At 15ms, you wouldn't notice lower ping at all unless you have a 120hz monitor, and even that is debatable. The real question, is what is your ping to things that matter, like Google, or the servers of whatever game you play.

Awesome post. Thank you
Core I7 5960X
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core I7 5960X ASRock X99 OC Formula MSI GTX 970 Gaming MSI GTX 970 Gaming 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill 16GB DDR4 2600 Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD Custom 480 Water Setup Windows 10 
PowerCase
AX1500I Corsair 900D 
  hide details  
Reply
Core I7 5960X
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core I7 5960X ASRock X99 OC Formula MSI GTX 970 Gaming MSI GTX 970 Gaming 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill 16GB DDR4 2600 Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD Custom 480 Water Setup Windows 10 
PowerCase
AX1500I Corsair 900D 
  hide details  
Reply
post #237 of 326
First bring people to at least 50 lol then go 100 then 250 then 500 and so on. 1000 its a bit much for todays technology in current home. I mean most would need SSD speeds to use 125MB/s or very new fast HDDs.
Ishimura
(21 items)
 
Silent Knight
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 3770K @ 4.6GHz ASRock Z77E-ITX eVGA GTX 1080 Ti Hybrid AMD Radeon R9 16GB DDR3-2400MHz  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
SanDisk Ultra II 960GB Toshiba X300 5TB Corsair H100i GTX eVGA Hybrid Water Cooler  
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
4x GentleTyphoon AP-15 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Philips Brilliance BDM4065UC 4K Razer BlackWidow Chroma  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
eVGA SuperNOVA 750 G3 Define Nano S Logitech G502 Proteus Core PECHAM Gaming Mouse Pad XX-Large 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Audioengine D1 DAC Mackie CR Series CR3 Audio-Technica ATH-M50 Sennheiser HD 598 
Audio
Sony XB950BT 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 4.2GHz ASUS M4A79XTD EVO AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB @ 1200/1500 2x 4GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
OCZ Agility 3 60GB WD Caviar Green 1.5TB 2 x Seagate Barracuda 2TB XSPC Raystorm 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
EK-FC7970 XSPC RS360 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Corsair TX750 
Case
NZXT Switch 810  
  hide details  
Reply
Ishimura
(21 items)
 
Silent Knight
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 3770K @ 4.6GHz ASRock Z77E-ITX eVGA GTX 1080 Ti Hybrid AMD Radeon R9 16GB DDR3-2400MHz  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
SanDisk Ultra II 960GB Toshiba X300 5TB Corsair H100i GTX eVGA Hybrid Water Cooler  
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
4x GentleTyphoon AP-15 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Philips Brilliance BDM4065UC 4K Razer BlackWidow Chroma  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
eVGA SuperNOVA 750 G3 Define Nano S Logitech G502 Proteus Core PECHAM Gaming Mouse Pad XX-Large 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Audioengine D1 DAC Mackie CR Series CR3 Audio-Technica ATH-M50 Sennheiser HD 598 
Audio
Sony XB950BT 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 4.2GHz ASUS M4A79XTD EVO AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB @ 1200/1500 2x 4GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
OCZ Agility 3 60GB WD Caviar Green 1.5TB 2 x Seagate Barracuda 2TB XSPC Raystorm 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
EK-FC7970 XSPC RS360 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Corsair TX750 
Case
NZXT Switch 810  
  hide details  
Reply
post #238 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

First bring people to at least 50 lol then go 100 then 250 then 500 and so on. 1000 its a bit much for todays technology in current home. I mean most would need SSD speeds to use 125MB/s or very new fast HDDs.

But there is no customer demand for 50Mb/s either!
Gaming n' Stuff
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 3570K Gigabyte Z77 Gigabyte GTX 970 Windforce 3X 16GB DDR3 1600MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
90GB Corsair SSD + 2TB Raid Corsair H100 Windows 8.1 2x Asus PA248Q 
KeyboardPowerCaseAudio
Razer Blackwidow Ultimate SeaSonic X-1250 HAF 932 Beyerdynamic DT-990 600ohm w/ Soundblaster ZX 
  hide details  
Reply
Gaming n' Stuff
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 3570K Gigabyte Z77 Gigabyte GTX 970 Windforce 3X 16GB DDR3 1600MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
90GB Corsair SSD + 2TB Raid Corsair H100 Windows 8.1 2x Asus PA248Q 
KeyboardPowerCaseAudio
Razer Blackwidow Ultimate SeaSonic X-1250 HAF 932 Beyerdynamic DT-990 600ohm w/ Soundblaster ZX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #239 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven.7 View Post

But there is no customer demand for 50Mb/s either!

Not at $89.99 a month there isn't.
Gizmoto
(18 items)
 
They beat me:(
(15 items)
 
Home Server V1.0
(17 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II x6 1040t @2.7Ghz ASRock 880GM-LE FX  AMD Radeon HD 4250 integrated graphics Micro Center(ADATA) 8Gb (2x4) 1333 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Western Digital Caviar Blue 640Gb Samsung SpinPoint F4 2Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 ST3500641AS-RK 500Gb Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 ST3500641AS-RK 500Gb 
Optical DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
ASUS 24X DVD Burner ASUS 24X DVD Burner Stock AMD Cooler Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
OSOSPowerCase
Linux Mint (VM) Linux Ubuntu (VM) Inland ILG-500R2 500w PSU DiabloTek Evo Mid-tower Case 
Other
Inland IL internal card reader 
  hide details  
Reply
Gizmoto
(18 items)
 
They beat me:(
(15 items)
 
Home Server V1.0
(17 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II x6 1040t @2.7Ghz ASRock 880GM-LE FX  AMD Radeon HD 4250 integrated graphics Micro Center(ADATA) 8Gb (2x4) 1333 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Western Digital Caviar Blue 640Gb Samsung SpinPoint F4 2Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 ST3500641AS-RK 500Gb Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 ST3500641AS-RK 500Gb 
Optical DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
ASUS 24X DVD Burner ASUS 24X DVD Burner Stock AMD Cooler Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
OSOSPowerCase
Linux Mint (VM) Linux Ubuntu (VM) Inland ILG-500R2 500w PSU DiabloTek Evo Mid-tower Case 
Other
Inland IL internal card reader 
  hide details  
Reply
post #240 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhaoticKomputing View Post

Not at $89.99 a month there isn't.

Good lord I pay that much for 30Mb/s with TWC 50 is well over $100 a month.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [TheVerge] Time Warner Cable says there's no consumer demand for gigabit internet