[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by MGM135is

Don't forget that Verizon also provides much higher, if not equal upload speeds as their download speeds. I think it's ridiculous that I can download at 250mbps, but only upload at 10mbps through xfinity. I have started using a personal vpn for additional privacy through public hotspots, so routing back through my house is a pretty bad bottleneck. I am also hosting my nas with music and photos so could really use more upload speed.

I was happy with Verizon, for the most part, when I was able to have them. I only use internet now along with PS Vue, Netflix and Amazon prime. It's enough for me. I'm more of a news and movie watcher. I casually watch a few TV sitcoms, but have started enjoying Netflix content better, like Longmire, Bloodlines etc. I apologize for the Netflix references.

Someone who gets it. Asymmetrical speeds are a joke. As I said previously in this post, people only focus on their download speeds and don't pay much attention to their uploads. You all should care more about uploads as more and more of your devices are pushing up data into the Internet such as all of your cloud enabled devices.

I also have Comcast for my service as it's really the only game in town other than DSL. It's stupid that Comcast is still doing 10 Mbps upload up to your 250 Mbps download service. I have 150 down and am getting 10 (actually 12 when I do a speed test) uploads. I need better upload speeds as I stream all sorts of things through my Internet circuit: Plex, Slingbox, NAS, VoIP, IP security cameras, and generic access to my home network/lab environment for work purposes (hardware/software demonstrations for my customers). I'll be standing up a site to site Suite B VPN tunnel between my main residence and my vacation property soon so I can do replication of data out to my vacation property as an offsite DR site...that's if the crap Mediacom service stays consistent enough to allow this to work 24/7.

[3rdcoast228i]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

This is a misconception. You're just buying into marketing hype. Just because you're running fiber doesn't mean you have reduced latency. There are a myriad of factors which go into latency of a network path point to point. The use of fiber however allows the provider greater flexibility to support future faster speeds and to do things like multiplexing multiple network connections over a single fiber (CWDM and DWDM). Fiber also allows providers to run longer distances between points compared to copper cabling.

Basing my claim on pings to the same server before and after.

Comcast before and att fiber after. 40-50ms vs 10ms soild and more stable.

Does the average user notice this? No... But to a FPS gamer its a big difference.

My game got better big time, and I noticed the big difference again when I moved and could no longer get fiber.

[Joe240]

Like they mentioned, there are different factors going into latency. Different days I'm assuming you ran your pings? So there could have also been different loads on the network as well, different hardware, different routes the network took between the 2 pings, etc.

[CO_Steve]

I use Comcast for internet only. You have to play the game. They offer discount promotions. Everyone qualifies, even existing customers. The deals run for a year. Every year your bill goes up you call them and ask for the current promotion. Set for another year. My internet will go up to $80/month. I call, $45/.

[fbsm]

I had FIOS for a couple years in another house and the service was flat out amazing

[3rdcoast228i]

Originally Posted by Joe240

Like they mentioned, there are different factors going into latency. Different days I'm assuming you ran your pings? So there could have also been different loads on the network as well, different hardware, different routes the network took between the 2 pings, etc.

Played on the same server for months, I had historical data to base my cliam.

Fiber was good enough for me to consider where would buy my next house. Unfortunately other factors won out and I'm back to comcast. I miss the fiber every day.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by 3rdcoast228i

Basing my claim on pings to the same server before and after.

Comcast before and att fiber after. 40-50ms vs 10ms soild and more stable.

Does the average user notice this? No... But to a FPS gamer its a big difference.

My game got better big time, and I noticed the big difference again when I moved and could no longer get fiber.

You're comparing apples to oranges. If you had Comcast provide you with both cable and fiber and all the physical networks go through the same pathing and routing, then you have a case. But because you switched providers, your comparison is not valid.

I do networking for a living and have deployed both copper and fiber networks. I even have 10/40/100 Gig switches in my home lab over both fiber and copper. So trust me when I tell you the physical transport medium makes no difference when it comes to latency. In fact, here's an interesting tid bit. If we're really talking about latency and what affects physical medium has on it, then fiber might actually add some very small amount of latency. This is because that light has to be converted to electrical energy. Over copper that doesn't happen. In Infiniband networks which have the lowest latency of all networking technologies out there, the cabling is over DAC/twinax cabling. Infiniband networks are used in high performance compute applications where latency is absolutely critical; many factors greater than gaming. You're splitting hairs about milliseconds of latency. Infiniband networks are concerned about nanoseconds of latency. Yet again all of the wiring between an Infiniband switch and a compute node are done over copper.

If we want to get to the "brass tax" of latency on a network, this is a function of port to port latency with the ASICs used in switching, the performance of the carrier's routers in processing the route tables and routing protocols (BGP), and the route selection the router makes to pass on your packets to its ultimate destination.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Joe240

Like they mentioned, there are different factors going into latency. Different days I'm assuming you ran your pings? So there could have also been different loads on the network as well, different hardware, different routes the network took between the 2 pings, etc.

Yep. I left this part out of another reason why latency would change between providers. The amount of traffic saturation on the local segment going up to the ISP central network also has an effect. Cable technology is a shared topology unless you pay extra for business class service where they will set QoS values to provide you with a more guaranteed throughput and latency. This is why you see variances in performance based on the time of day. If you're home during the day, usage of the local cable segment is low due to most people being gone to work and school. At night, everyone's back and the network is slammed.

In network capacity planning, there are games always played. Many times networks are a overprovisioned with the idea that the odds of having a 100% saturation of the network is not very frequent. This helps save cost as going 1:1 overprovisioning is big money. It's the job of the network admins to monitor usage and if the network usage averages around 70 to 80% of current capacity, then it's time to start planning on adding capacity or upgrading. This is why there's been all this talk about usage quotas and caps.

[catcher22]

Fiber vs. cable?

This should not even be a question.

Fiber all the way.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by catcher22

Fiber vs. cable?

This should not even be a question.

Fiber all the way.

And what are you basing this on? If you're talking about what AT&T and Verizon are providing as a service over fiber then yes. If you're talking about fiber versus copper cabling, then read what I wrote to understand why there's no real advantage of one over another.

[Joe240]

I think catcher22 is basing it on raw speeds of fiber vs cable offered.

But yes, everything you mentioned is 100% accurate zx10guy. Don't meet another networking guy often. I'm one of the network technicians for the USAFE/PACAF network and people don't realize that networking is excessively more complicated than they think.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Joe240

I think catcher22 is basing it on raw speeds of fiber vs cable offered.

But yes, everything you mentioned is 100% accurate zx10guy. Don't meet another networking guy often. I'm one of the network technicians for the USAFE/PACAF network and people don't realize that networking is excessively more complicated than they think.

That's why it drives me crazy how marketing slants the truth.

And yes, it's great to run into another networking guy. I've designed and deployed data centers for various government agencies in my past life working for a systems integrator and now provide consulting services/presales.

[3rdcoast228i]

Then AT&T had the better network, regardless of copper or fiber it was better than comcast from the same location.

The TV service was also much better.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by 3rdcoast228i

Then AT&T had the better network, regardless of copper or fiber it was better than comcast from the same location.

The TV service was also much better.

Yep. That's the point I was making. For your situation in your area, it seems AT&T has a better network implementation.

That's why I get up in arms about all the smoke and mirrors these companies throw out there about stuff they know would trigger the oohhs and ahhhs but have nothing to do with the ultimate performance.

I do agree that fiber has better overall potential due to the ability to maintain high throughput over longer distances. I've had discussions with some clients where we actually looked at using single mode fiber for installation in a campus network environment. It would be expensive as all get out but it would provide a good amount of future proofing. The LR optics alone would be in the 5 figures each.

[Maestro]

They all such, each provider has it own set of issues from service to the equipment.

I currently have Comcast for internet and I do not have the top tier service, I am in the middle of what they offer. I have DirecTV, and I would have told you they had the best customer service and great quality product, been with them since 97. Since being bought by AT&T the customer service went to shit and they been increase the costs and finding new ways to charge you like the new Local Sport access fee $7, call about that and was told I had to pay it, I asked them what it was for and all the guy could do was read a script, but if I go to the lower package I did not have to pay even though it did not eliminate any local sport shows. I asked which channel this fee applied to and did not get an answer, it was not part of the script. Also been having issue with the equipment it is mostly due to the software updates they are doing. Sometime it works and the next day it has an issue.

It comes down to which set of problems you want to deal with. There are nightmare with each of them, read the internet these companies have no interest in doing the right thing. They all will increase your price unless you call them all the time.

For those arguing about which is faster, keep in mind Ethernet is a collusion base networking technology it has been this way since the very beginning. The provide try to solve the problem by making the pipes bigger, but at the end of the day the network is only as good as the slowest link in the connection. Some days it fast and other days it is slow. If Comcast provide 30Mb download and 6Mb upload that is all you get they throttle your bandwidth, VZ does the exact same thing even though their pipes are bigger they will not let you have a faster speed unless you are paying for it. The issue I have seen both with Comcast and VZ if you get those high tier service like 150Mb download it is very unlikely you can take advantage of it with your equipment in your house. I have tests those types of connect and they seem to have more issue maintaining the speed than those of 30Mb. Why, the higher speed means it run the risk of hitting a limit somewhere down the line.

I personally could not be bother switching back and forth to get the best deal for a year or two.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Maestro

They all such, each provider has it own set of issues from service to the equipment.

I currently have Comcast for internet and I do not have the top tier service, I am in the middle of what they offer. I have DirecTV, and I would have told you they had the best customer service and great quality product, been with them since 97. Since being bought by AT&T the customer service went to shit and they been increase the costs and finding new ways to charge you like the new Local Sport access fee $7, call about that and was told I had to pay it, I asked them what it was for and all the guy could do was read a script, but if I go to the lower package I did not have to pay even though it did not eliminate any local sport shows. I asked which channel this fee applied to and did not get an answer, it was not part of the script. Also been having issue with the equipment it is mostly due to the software updates they are doing. Sometime it works and the next day it has an issue.

It comes down to which set of problems you want to deal with. There are nightmare with each of them, read the internet these companies have no interest in doing the right thing. They all will increase your price unless you call them all the time.

For those arguing about which is faster, keep in mind Ethernet is a collusion base networking technology it has been this way since the very beginning. The provide try to solve the problem by making the pipes bigger, but at the end of the day the network is only as good as the slowest link in the connection. Some days it fast and other days it is slow. If Comcast provide 30Mb download and 6Mb upload that is all you get they throttle your bandwidth, VZ does the exact same thing even though their pipes are bigger they will not let you have a faster speed unless you are paying for it. The issue I have seen both with Comcast and VZ if you get those high tier service like 150Mb download it is very unlikely you can take advantage of it with your equipment in your house. I have tests those types of connect and they seem to have more issue maintaining the speed than those of 30Mb. Why, the higher speed means it run the risk of hitting a limit somewhere down the line.

I personally could not be bother switching back and forth to get the best deal for a year or two.

I've stayed with DirecTV because of the customer experience in the past and have not bundled my TV services with Comcast even though I use Comcast for Internet. I guess time will tell as I used to get a bundle discount by having my Verizon landline bundled with DirecTV under one bill. Well that stopped so I have to see what the pricing is now.

With regards to your statement about Ethernet, you mean the network operates off of collision domains. Your premise about how this was solved is incorrect with regards to increasing the connection pipes. The solution to Ethernet operating under collision domains was first the use of CSMA/CD. Because of how this collision detection protocol works, everything ran at half duplex and as more clients are added to the hub topology network, performance would degrade. The fix to this was switched networks which allow clients to run at full speed without needing to invoke CSMA/CD. None of this discussion even applies to what we're talking about here as it's all WAN based networks which have a totally different set of constraints. The only similar technology to Ethernet used on LANs is MetroE which wouldn't be offered up to residential users. That's why cable has a set of protocols such as DOCSIS. FIOS runs on a specific protocol. DSL runs on a specific protocol. In the business world, the WAN circuits used are T1, DS3, OC3, OC48, OC192, SONET, X.25 frame relay, etc, etc. All of these protocols are built to deal with the distances and environmental losses that occur in WAN deployments.

[Never_Enough]

Verizon is here installing Fios as I type this. We shall see!

[infinitekidM2C]

Originally Posted by Never_Enough

Verizon is here installing Fios as I type this. We shall see!

do you have access to fiber optic?

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by infinitekid2002

do you have access to fiber optic?

That's what FIOS is.

[infinitekidM2C]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

That's what FIOS is.

oh... now the FIOS makes sense ha... i actually signed up for Uverse back when they only had DSL in my area, then fiber optic became available and they grandfathered me in at no extra charge...i though it had FIOS all the time but i guess not.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by infinitekid2002

oh... now the FIOS makes sense ha... i actually signed up for Uverse back when they only had DSL in my area, then fiber optic became available and they grandfathered me in at no extra charge...i though it had FIOS all the time but i guess not.

Uverse is AT&T and FIOS is Verizon.

When I got Internet service for my mom's house, Verizon wouldn't offer DSL to her. They said all their current DSL circuits have been provisioned and they're not adding more capacity. They're holding the current infrastructure static and were planning on even shrinking availability of DSL as subscribers roll off onto FIOS. So I ended up getting her Comcast service as she didn't need even the lowest speed tier from FIOS.

It's funny because I want FIOS at my home but can't. Verizon however offers DSL.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

Uverse is AT&T and FIOS is Verizon.

When I got Internet service for my mom's house, Verizon wouldn't offer DSL to her. They said all their current DSL circuits have been provisioned and they're not adding more capacity. They're holding the current infrastructure static and were planning on even shrinking availability of DSL as subscribers roll off onto FIOS. So I ended up getting her Comcast service as she didn't need even the lowest speed tier from FIOS.

It's funny because I want FIOS at my home but can't. Verizon however offers DSL.

Here is what I know about FIOS.

First, Verizon paid to installed all the fiber, they did this because they did not want the government to regulate the Fiber like they do the copper wires which DSL runs on. Since the pay all the cost verse it being subsidized like copper was back in the day they can do what they want with it. However, they are still required to use the right a ways owned by the government. To gain access to the right a ways Verizon said they would run fiber everywhere, which they did, except what is know as the last mile or community demarcation.

Since Fiber is expensive to put in and maintain VZ made a decision some yrs back to only hook communities which meet certain criteria. That criteria is average income for the homes, if the communities average income is not over a certain number like $100K they did not bother running the fiber to any of the homes in that area. VZ decided to only go after top tier customers, they were not interesting in most of the Comcast customer who pay for the minimum package like $20/month. VZ wants customer who are going to spend $100 to $200/month.

This is probably why you can not get FIOS around you and why your mom can not get DSL since they are not installing any new copper based equipment, as they move people to FIOS they turning off all that copper equipment. When my mom got FIOS they removed all the copper phone lines to her house all the way back to the pole.

Comcast Cables were also subsidize back in the day that is why most places have it and Comcast will be the one stuck supporting all the place VZ does not think it worth putting in the fiber. Most of Comcast customer are basic subscribers and VZ and DirecTV have all the higher tier customers.