2.5Gbps widely adopted?
-
@mcury
Here's my thing.....
I dunno about you folks, but comcast/xfinity just laid out a disclaimer saying that if you're over 1.2TB of data per month, they're gonna start charging by the download.. i tend to think (and unfortunately i'm usually right about this), they're teasing you into up-ing your download speeds so that the faster your speeds, them more you down load... the more you download, the more they've got you by the balls... so be careful. i'm a comcast/xfinity customer.. for the record, i absolutely HATE THEM!! i have a 100/5 internet only plan, i get 115DL on the average. i have my own gear. i pay $39.95/mo for my service.. which in that aspect is fine. but to start charging on the quantity downloaded? that's horrendous! it doesn't cost them anything.. just another way for them to nickel & dime the consumer. and because they're a utility company, they own the franchise on all the roads.. i'd KILL to be a verizon fios customer, but i cant get it where i live because comcast/xfinity has the rights to all the copper in the street. I live in boston proper. fios is right down the block, but we can't get it.sorry, thats my vent...
-
@jc1976 said in 2.5Gbps widely adopted?:
@mcury
Here's my thing.....
...but to start charging on the quantity downloaded? that's horrendous! it doesn't cost them anything.. just another way for them to nickel & dime the consumer.sorry, thats my vent...
Well, it's not 100% accurate that increased traffic costs them nothing. If every user is downloading 1.5 TB per month, then that will wreck their oversubscription model. All ISPs use an oversubscription model. That means they don't have enough bandwidth in their system for ALL users to download at max rate full time (or even at the same time for just a short duration). The statisticians work out a model that says only 'X' number of users on a given segment are downloading at full rate, and only for 'X' number of seconds or minutes. So instead of serving a neighborhood with say a 10G trunk, they only need a 1G trunk (or maybe less depending on the max tier on the segment) when using the oversubscription model.
This impacts the ISP because they have to buy upstream bandwidth from larger backbone providers. And in that market, they do indeed pay for the amount of bandwidth used (or capacity available, etc.). So yes, while it is a way for them to potentially add some additional profit, it is not all just pure profit. There is an incremental increased cost for them as the bandwidth they provide increases, and they rightly want to pass that cost increase on. And in most users minds, it would be fair for the bigger consumers (the one's pushing the incremental costs up for the ISP by using large amounts of bandwidth every month) to bear that burden. Hence the data caps and overage fees model the cellphone providers adopted years ago. That just naturally spread over to Internet Service Providers.
I'm not an apologist for the ISPs, but just pointing out the other side of the argument. I was introduced to the oversubscription model years ago when I had DSL. My ISP was one of the old regional telcos, BellSouth. I built a new home in a different neighborhood and was able to get 3 Mbits/s DSL service there. It worked great for about a year, then my speeds started fluctuating during the evening. At the time I had an "inside track" to the engineering team, so I was able to get knowledgeable folks to take a look. Turned out the marketing side had oversold the DSLAM I was connected to. My DSLAM was fed by just a 12.5 MBits/s pipe from the Central Office (it was fed with a type of multiplex service composed of nine T1 lines). So 12.5 MBits/s was all the "speed" there was to be had, and it was shared with many homes (users). The users had a mix of mostly 1.5 Meg and some 3 Meg service (there was no 6 Meg sold out of that DSLAM at the time). So if just 4 users downloaded at 3 MBits/s simultaneously, the DSLAM was basically out of upstream bandwidth. That model worked okay, though, when the majority of folks had 1.5 Meg service and just surfed the web and did email. It began to fall apart with any kind of streaming when a lot of those users maxed out their 1.5 Meg service. The solution was for BellSouth to upgrade the feed from the CO to the DSLAM (they upgraded to a T3 providing 45 MBits/s). So they did the upgrade and patched the issue (at least until they then started selling 6 Meg service, then it returned and I moved to cable). The point here is that there was a cost to them. Upgrading the DSLAM meant a new card at both the CO end and the DSLAM end. In this example, the cost increase was largely due to selling more service, so it was a win for BellSouth. But what if the only reason for the overloaded DSLAM was the fact 10 users got Netflix and started binge-watching? What would be a fair way to recover the cost of the equipment and bandwidth upgrade? Charge everyone more, or maybe charge just those folks exceeding a monthly limit more? Those would likely be the Netflix viewers, and the ones largely responsible for the needed upgrade and increased cost.
-
To an earlier question as to why 2.5 exists. Short answer is WiFi. Access points are now exceeding 1Gb and the old 10Gb standard did not support PoE. MultiGig was developed to use existing CAT5 and better cabling to provided PoE for APs and other things at higher than 1Gb.
With MultiGig you can run any speed up to 10Gb on existing wiring with PoE. As the speed increases the distance for the higher speeds drop. 10Gb is not officially supported at any distance on CAT5, but I have read where people have made it work in the single digit feet. 2.5Gb on CAT5E with PoE works at 300+ feet.
As corporate environments buy more the cost will drop, just like 10Gb dropped from $1,000 SFPs to $50 SFPs. -
@jc1976 said in 2.5Gbps widely adopted?:
@mcury
Here's my thing.....
I dunno about you folks, but comcast/xfinity just laid out a disclaimer saying that if you're over 1.2TB of data per month, they're gonna start charging by the download..My main ISP has data caps, but the higher speed has higher data caps, and they charge $10 for each 100G over the cap up to +$50 per month. They also have an optional "unlimited" add-on for $40/mo which is only cheaper if you blow through the cap every month. It took me several months on different tiers to find the best sweet spot for what we use without having to fork over the money for unlimited every month, which at the moment is 300/30 with 1.2T/mo cap. We stream a lot, but not that much. That ISP tops out at 1G speed currently (with a 1.5T cap).
But as we speak there are workers running new fiber down my alleyway and by fall I should be able to get service from another ISP that has no data caps. They also only do 1G at the moment but they are constantly upgrading things from what I've seen others on that service say. So maybe 2.5G, 5G, or 10G is not too far off.
-
@jimp God, how i WISH we could get fiber...
Verizon is in the area, comcast just has a hold on it all.. I get that the companies have to have exclusivity for some time to recoup the costs of the work, but that's long gone.
when i was living in NJ, i had a choice; cablevision/optimum online, and verizon fios..
Free market economy.. that's the way this is supposed to work.. -
@jc1976 said in 2.5Gbps widely adopted?:
@jimp God, how i WISH we could get fiber...
Verizon is in the area, comcast just has a hold on it all.. I get that the companies have to have exclusivity for some time to recoup the costs of the work, but that's long gone.
when i was living in NJ, i had a choice; cablevision/optimum online, and verizon fios..
Free market economy.. that's the way this is supposed to work..I was in the same boat here. Frontier has all but abandoned this area. Copper only and no fiber, so it tops out at like 6M DSL. Cable is via Sparklight (formerly NewWave, formerly Avenue Broadband) and is good aside from the data caps, but they're really the only true high speed choice. There is a WISP here but from what I've heard from others it's decent if you can't get other providers but not great compared to Cable.
Fiber is coming from the local REMC which handles power for the county. They lit up the entire county with fiber except for the towns until just recently they finally got approval to move in. It's good to finally have some viable competition going on.
-
@jimp what area is this? what about satellite?
-
@jc1976 said in 2.5Gbps widely adopted?:
@jimp what area is this? what about satellite?
Rural Indiana. Latency on Satellite is far too high. Starlink may be promising but I'll have fiber by the time that's viable, too.
-
I would say yes.... and compared to just a year ago for super cheap.
I just built a PfSense firewall using an old Lenovo ThinkCenter M92p ($50) with two generic RTL8125B 2.5Gbps nics ($25 each)... FYI, I had to manually add the drivers using pkg add...
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08952DDML/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
On the LAN side my workstation has a Rosewill 10GBE card from Newegg ($75)
https://www.newegg.com/rosewill-rc-nic412v2/p/N82E16833166130?Description=pcie%2010gbe%20card&cm_re=pcie_10gbe%20card--33-166-130--Product&quicklink=true
Everything connects through a ZyXel XGS1250-12 Switch. ($160)
I have an Arris 33 Cable Modem that has a 2.5 GBE port. ($150)
For the first time I am getting a Speedtest download > 1GBPS (1356.96 Mbps from Comcast Xfinity).
-
This post is deleted!
