Bruno747

seta8967

Zuhl3156
I don't really know anything about latency as I am still pretty much a noob when it comes to the more technical issues. What I do know is that my Z97 with a Realtek network chip, the Z97 with the Killer network chip and my old Core2-Duo laptop with an Intel network chip all get the exact same results from Speedtest with a ping of 14 to 19ms.

What i think brad is trying to say is this. You can control how fast your network is and the ping aka latency is, for your home only. Even if you have a 1000gig connection with 1 ms ping/latency, inside your house, it doesnt matter. As soon as you try to grab something outside your house via your ISP, you are at the mercy of your ISP. If they cap you at .35gb/s and have a 300ms ping, you are stuck at .35gb/s with 300ms ping.

The real issue with internet in USA and some other countries (looking at you too canada). Is that the ISP only care about profits and upgrading backbones and servers takes a huge hit to profits. We have grown used to it, and people are just barely really concerned about it. Romania that many people tease as a "backward eastern euro country" has faster intenet, places that USA citizens think are 3rd world countries beat our internet. It really is sad when you see how much money ISP make and how much they upgrade their equipment.

I'm curious if you have ever had to manage a project where you install your company's own lines across a city for multiple remote sites rather than leasing connections from vendors.

I am just wrapping a year long project to put in fiber to 35 remote sites across a medium sized city. Just hardware and vendor installation was almost a million dollars. That number is even with us using county existing fiber that would have made it impossible to finance if we had to lay it as well. This also doesn't count my pay, and the pay of all the others that worked to get the project done.

Now magnify that by a factor of even just 1,000 to upgrade the backbone and equipment servicing say 35,000 endpoints toss in cost for staff to support the endpoints, management, connections to feed those endpoints with, lawyers, insurance, and all the other things needed to run the company and suddenly it seems like ISPs aren't doing too bad of a job.

The reason so many other countries have such great internet is population density. Which is easier to sell to shareholders and management. Several billion dollars to update backbone and endpoints for 650,000 people over 1200 square miles for Lee county Florida. OR several billion dollars to update connections for 8.3 million people that spans 600 square miles in London?

Managing this last big project really opened my eyes as to why ISPs are slow to get increased speeds rolled out especially to remote locations that they have to upgrade the entire path to the endpoint to get faster speeds. The costs are uterly astronomical and takes many years to pay off. Midway through people start whining about wanting more speed at lower prices.

seta8967



I have never done a metropolitan area, but military installations which can get as large as small cities and run multiple type of networks. We run millions of dollars between laborers to dig holes, switches, routers, cable, etc etc. 
 
The issue I have is that in places like Korea a 20mb internet connections is free. In fact my internet for a 100mb connection ate my apartment is actually free. My issue is that the ISPs saying how expensive it is. Then how are companies like google doing it? There are places that haven't had updated internet connection in years but are paying 60+ a month. We need to reform how we handle internet and upgrading. I am curious how much ISPs make vs how much they put into a area's upgrades every year.