Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
Chicken and egg again. If we don't have products to drive uptake of consumer grade 10Gb equipment we won't have any manufacturers mass-producing economical consumer-grade 10Gb equipment.
I ought to also point out the benefit of 10Gb internet is solely in multi-user scenarios right now, given virtually no single desktop will be able to consume that amount of bandwidth; you'd need something on the order of ten hard drives or four SSDs in RAID to sustain 10Gb levels of throughput. And if you can afford a £500+ storage setup to download at that speed you can afford a 10GbE NIC.
And you forget multi-GbE switches with 10Gb uplinks and/or GbE link aggregation are half that price, not to mention second-hand 10GbE NICs ranging from £50 to £150.
---------- Post added at 15:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:58 ----------
The whole London thing has been done to death.
Nomatter how you twist it, it's cheaper and thus more economically feasible to cover an area considerably smaller than London with FTTH than it is to cover an area the size of Scotland and Northern Ireland combined.
That's the point I was getting at  |
I said it was impractical. It's a penis enlarger on the part of the telco.
Your point falls down as it begs the obvious question of asking why HK has extensive FTTP while our cities' CBDs and the MDUs within them do not?
The answer is of course that we have a bit of a socialist edge around our broadband, where cities subsidise rural areas and everyone should get the same products. This applies to VM as well - Comcast, Time Warner, etc, offer different tiers in different areas which would be frowned upon here. People bemoan the digital divide and would protest if their £5,000 to pass home didn't have the same services as a £400 to pass MDU.
It is at least being addressed now, thanks in no small part to Hyperoptic's FTTB with small contributions from Openreach and others