Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (
More info?)
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4131817c.5531007@supernews.seanet.com...
> "Alminair" <Alminair@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Sooner or later (Hopefully sooner, most likely later) telco's will
upgrade
> >that last mile as a competitive edge.
>
> There is little incentive for them to do so, there isn't much
> competition in the land line business. (I.E. a single physical adress
> is served by a single telco, always.)
True in and of itself, however as other options such as wireless and
satalite improve and take over the market share simple greed will prompt
telcos to improve. After all that will be money they could be makeing.
>
> >Once that happens every other will have to follow suit or die. Plus as it
> >gets cheaper to make fiber it gets cheaper to install.
>
> No. Labor costs are in no way related to the costs of the fiber. (A
> friend of mine is currently supervising the installation of a large
> county wide fiber plant... And labor accounts for over half his
> budget. The raw fiber less than 10%.)
Advances to fiber also covers installation. The longer a tech is in use the
more ways are found to simplfy installation as well. 10 years ago the same
project you mention would have cost multitudes more money both from the
fiber cost AND the installation labor cost. All things improve over time.
>
> >The less that last mile costs the closer we are to getting it. One last
thing to keep in
> >mind... Modem to broadband took a long time...
>
> DSL/broadband came on *very fast* when online living shifted from
> being the province of a few geeks to being a major part of peoples
> lives. (And what's available depends greatly on where you live.)
My point still stands that customer desire is what pushes this.Desire will
only push the tech towards more bandwidth to the home. How fast? Who knows.
It will have an effect though.
>
> >So did 286 to 386 PC's (8 years if I remember correctly... now its a new
processer
> >every 6 months).
>
> You confuse the marketing driven 'updates' to a processor with a 'new'
> processor. You also seem to not realize that the later 286's were
> considerably faster than the early ones, they were no more static than
> any modern processor. (That non-staticness was hidden because few
> folks got E-rections over their machines, and because replacing the
> mobo/CPU combination was far more expensive than simply swapping out a
> new CPU as is frequently done today.)
*To correct myself: 286-Introduced Feb '82, 386SX-June '88, 386SL- Oct '90*
No, I do not. The 286 was a 16 bit processor. The 386 is a 32 bit processor.
That was a jump to a whole new level of processor. There was not even a
mainstream operating system to USE the 32 bit processor until 10 years later
whem MS brought out Win95. (I realsise that NT, Unix, and OS/2 did but they
arguably were never mainstream.) Even in processors today are still getting
better. Not huge jumps, and they are sitting on 'old' architecture, but the
increases are there even with the 'marketing' issues asside. Just as an
example using the iCOMP 2.0 as a measure the P74 scored 67 and the PII400
scored 440. However this is way OT so if you don't agree with my point we
can agree to disagree.
>
> D.
> --
> Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram