In article <3b0bc95b-c741-7561-1692-75fac74d5...@mtcc.com> you write: >I'd definitely appreciate symmetric, or at least better in upstream. >Obviously zoom and all of that has made a lie of us not needing >upstream. It would make cloud based "filesystems" more feasible too. > >But the larger point is why bother going to all of that effort if you're >just going roll it out with low bandwidth? I mean, 100Mbps isn't even >competitive with cable these days. But they're a somewhat crazy amalgam. >They have POTS everywhere, cable tv everywhere, cable IP in some areas >and DSL in others. I wish I knew somebody there to talk to this about >because it's really odd.
I agree it is odd to make 100/100 the top speed. The fiber service I have from my local non-Bell telco offers 100/100, 500/500, and 1000/1000. FiOS where you can get it goes to 940/880. The obvious guess is that their upstream bandwidth is underprovisioned, or maybe they figure 100/100 is all they need to compete in that particular market. -- Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly