re: Lafayette, LA may have the best ISP in the nation.....

quote:

---

The companies using these speeds tend to have employees that can work remotely. It's nice for your employees to have nice bandwidth to work from home, yet still be local enough to come in when necessary.

---

My goodness, do you even hear yourself? You're telling me an office with 50-100 employees sharing a 1Gbps connection without issue is the same thing as 1 employee working from home needing the exact same bandwidth??

quote:

---

It's nice for a remote machine on a VPN to have the same connection speed as two machines on the local intranet

---

quote:

---

I'm done arguing with you after that statement. You obviously don't understand this.

---

What don't I understand? At the office, an employee likely has a gigabit or 10gigabit connection to the local server. Why shouldn't a remote employee have similar access to the server at the office?

this is with the baseball game streaming...

quote:

---

That's not accurate. The employees have a 1Gbps pipe coming into the building from the ISP that they ALL share along with servers, phones, VPN, etc.

---

yep

quote:

---

No one at any time will have a full Gbps connection, unless they happen to be the only one there and no other equipment is up and on the network and no devices between the PC and the ISP throttle it.

---

yep

quote:

---

Not to mention some Cisco devices in production still have 100Mbps ports so if your pc is in the office with 1Gbps coming in, 100Mbps to the switch and a computer NIC of 1Gbps (which some older NICs are still 100Mbps max) that person is throttled to 100Mbps and I assure you never uses that on normal business.

---

Aren't we talking about tech companies moving operations to locations where their employees have access to gigabit at home? I am more than sure their 100megabit equipment would be long gone.

quote:

---

I've seen some companies with offices of 20 people never get above 300Mbps total bandwith usage during PEAK times.

---

What type of company? Any remote users? What kind of data did they work with? What does the internet traffic consist of? Did they use local or hosted services?

quote:

---

So 20 people share 300Mbps why does 1 need 1Gbps at home?

---

Let's just go with your numbers here, and let me ask: how fast a connection do you believe a remote user needs in this company? Surely you aren't suggesting he only needs 300/20 = 15Mbps, are you? So users on the intranet can use company resources at 100mbps, gigabit, or even 10gigabit, but the remote user has to settle for 15mbps? No, surely you can't be saying that. Does he need 100mbps? That way he's at least on par with the slowest of the office workers, and his use should still be sporadic enough as to not interrupt the 20 office workers' internet connection.

quote:

---

You should. Huge upside for only $15. If you stream, game or torrent, it would make life sweet.

---

Not really.

At this point in time, torrenting would be the only thing the average user would sincerely notice a difference on unless you have a lot of household members that are simultaneously streaming, gaming, torrenting, etc. That kind of bandwidth is wholly unnecessary in the vast majority of the nation's households right now. But don't mistake that for a negative attitude, I would love to have a symmetrical gig link for that price and I think it's great for consumers and will force other ISPs to move forward with better services and to upgrade their infrastructures to support higher bandwidth links to customers.

Also, having the infrastructure to support gig links all the way to residential homes, and doing it for so cheap, is an impressive feat and should serve residential bandwidth needs for many years to come.

quote:

---

Let's just go with your numbers here, and let me ask: how fast a connection do you believe a remote user needs in this company? Surely you aren't suggesting he only needs 300/20 = 15Mbps, are you? So users on the intranet can use company resources at 100mbps, gigabit, or even 10gigabit, but the remote user has to settle for 15mbps? No, surely you can't be saying that. Does he need 100mbps? That way he's at least on par with the slowest of the office workers, and his use should still be sporadic enough as to not interrupt the 20 office workers' internet connection.

---

Example:

My connection to our devices in the office is really, really fast. But some of our devices have huge configs so even with LAN speeds they can take 5-10 seconds to load up the GUI (should you choose to go the GUI route). From home, through our VPN, I can't even load the configuration through the GUI. It times out after getting about halfway through loading.

Yes, more bandwidth is better.

quote:

---

Got a rebuttal, loopback?

---

To you? No.

I will address Hulk though:

quote:

---

Are you not aware that, so long as all of the devices along the way from PC to server in a LAN have gigabit ports, that the PC will get a gig link, regardless of what other devices are on the LAN?

---

Yes, I misread the statement, didn't realize he said local server. That being said my earlier statement still applies for connceting to another office or sever not on the LAN.

quote:

---

Even cheap routing and switching products have Gig ports these days. The Cisco Small Business line has switches and routers with gig ports

---

I'm well aware of that. That being said, I don't know many established companies with the budget to upgrade all thier existing network switches to to gigports throughout. Over time yes, and any decent company should be well on its way to replacing all that legacy gear.

quote:

---

That doesn't mean companies shouldn't roll out higher bandwidth options. Technology is growing exponentially, thus bandwidth needs are growing at a rapid pace.

---

I have never disputed this, not even once. I agree that unless you have plans currently in action to upgrade bandwidth capacity accross the board, then you are already behind the 8-ball.

My beef..all along, which somehow got twisted, is that HOUSEHOLDS don't need this kind of speed yet.
And companies are rushing to bring this speed to market in fear of losing those subs. Which, in my opinion will cause corners to be cut, compromises to be made, and in the long term a lot more troubleshooting and unessessary work.

I believe it's silly that these ISPs are rushing to provide a service that 90% of its customer base doesn't need. You said so yourself:

quote:

---

At this point in time, torrenting would be the only thing the average user would sincerely notice a difference on unless you have a lot of household members that are simultaneously streaming, gaming, torrenting, etc. That kind of bandwidth is wholly unnecessary in the vast majority of the nation's households right now.

---

And as for this:

quote:

---

My connection to our devices in the office is really, really fast. But some of our devices have huge configs so even with LAN speeds they can take 5-10 seconds to load up the GUI (should you choose to go the GUI route). From home, through our VPN, I can't even load the configuration through the GUI.

---

I work from home, alot, and never have issues with a 25Mbps connection, then again, I like to stick to the No GUI no Troubles policy (I'm all command line)

I game online at home, I stream video through Netflix, hell I'm even playing the playstation now Beta (streaming game service) right now with no issue.

What all that boils down to is what I've argued from the start. I don't feel like ISPs should be rushing to get this to market when no one truly needs it...right now.

Should they be building the infrastructure to support it and make it available? Absolutely, but should they be rushing to keep up? Nah. Unfortunatley due to free market and competition, they will have to rush.

You know nothing of my work environment. But by all means keep up the excellent posts pumpkin.