When did 100 megabyte ethernet become 100mega-bit ethernet?

Hello,

Just reading around, and ran across a wiki discussing ANSI X3.263 TP-PMD

where it states that the 10-100 megabits standard was established in 1995.

Yet when i was subscribing to various ISP's speeds were listed as KBytesPS or megabytes per second. previous to 1995 and up to 2001.

The fastest speeds i obtained over dial up, 768KBYTES per second before the 53,333Kbits standard was placed on us, and isp's got greedy. Using 2 or more paired devices(14). down. up was like 30-460Kbytes per second. Both to local pcs in a home network and to various pc's in the state. The cost to power it was like $10 a month...considering we paid $15-$20 or more...the isp's were still making a killer profit. Even more after the fcc limitations =c because we paid the same fees and got less.

DSL 768-5Megabytes! before the fcc limitations.

I first obtained 100megbyte ethernet or cable around 2003. Where advertised speeds were 1-10 megabytes! per second.

thankfully the company i had at the time actually delivered this and at times more.

after about 2005ish, i noticed that everyone now referred to the same lines as 10Mbit and 100mBIT. etc up to 10gigabits...

So now 100megabits = 10megabytes...But we are paying the same amount. For less bandwidth?

In my reading there are all kind of intricate and confusing things, that may be lost in translation. Clock speeds, methods of binary manipulation, variable voltages...

In terms of bits...physical copper connections and it's established standard to transmit data. usually 4 bits per wire. I don't understand why people all the sudden referred to these connections in terms of bits per second. 4bitsx4 wires in full-duplex x 33mhz? = 528?bits per second?

some devices had 133mhz clocks?

What am i not understanding here?

ISP's can designate their speed any way they want as long as it's acurate. As far as I know, ethernet has always been 10/100/1000Mbits. Even as far back as arcnet (4Mbit) it was measured in Mbits/s.

thx hawk, yea it may be possible that they were advertiseing as 1 megabyte, but it was actually 10Mbits...hence my confusion.

hardware 100mbyte ethernet...device/cable modem...a bit jumpy there eh mr kewl?
Please don't use words like troll inappropriately, I am asking a question and clearly stated that i am confused. I am not insisting anything i am saying is true without citation. Please google trolling... your use of the word is out of context.

yup your right, I "bonded" them in some fashion or another. xD

Some os's even allowed software bonding/bridging

Then isp's made it so you could not do this. And forced people to buy separate lines. Extremely expensive, impractical and they often throttled down the connections if you had multiple connections.


I'm simply very confused. And all past data i've been able to retrieve stateing megabytes or kilobytes has been removed.

The megabit standard was actually instated by an advertiseing campaign.< you can look this up if it hasn't been removed as well... Not hardware capabilities. The link i had no longer exists... Or what an individual isp advertised...Which is part of the reason why i asked this question. I'm trying to figure out how and when it took hold. Why did everyone jump on the band wagon. And why are they removeing previous documentation stating otherwise.

-OR-

There is really something to this, and bits more accurately measures data throughput based on binary bits and various things i don't understand =c

"it's always been bits. I have NEVER seen bytes used to indicate a network speed, except during file copies/etc. "

So why make it mbits if we are transferring files over the wire to the net...instead of on a hard drive...what is the difference?

This would be my guess. I don't have an "answer" for you other than I can always remember them using Mbits. Also a bit is the most basic unit of data. You also have to look for capitalization. The term Mb (megabit) is not the same as MB (megabyte).

Bits and bytes are too confusing for the layman and that generally is the issue. While not advertising wrong, this forum of full of people who think they have 16mbyte download speeds but in reality have far less.

People are too stupid to understand.

http://www.v3im.com/2011/03/kansas [...] z1lK7H4F2r

Woot more fiber to the home.

Nut's it's google... it could be another google gimmick.

But in any shape or form I support fiber to the home, particularly if it's affordable. And google can do this even if it loses money in the start-up.


1Gb/s is already obtainable even over copper wires. Isp's have been offering this service for $200-$5000 or more, aimed mostly at corporate america. Without routeing new lines. You simply need the router and nic capable of doing it. Most isp's included this in the setup fee's. another $200-$400

At this point in time, in my area, I know comcast can provide 10gb/s but it may not be available to consumers in all areas. But this still provides more bandwidth with less problems, to more customers. So far this has been what comcast actually does. Upgrade their end, then eventually offer better services at an affordable price, while updateing current plans to better speeds because they can. With little additional costs for the consumer.

1gb/s hub can supply 10mb/s to 1000 people. Google will probably go with 100 per node. for 100mb/s during start-up. Useing throttleing and distribution, this could go higher in short order. But the people would have to be able to afford it, and like the service.

isp's data priceing has been atleast 4x what is standard for data. I noticed this mostly after the monoplization and consolidation of telecom and ISP's...It seems as though they pass off the higher maintance costs of the bigger networks into our priceing plans. Even though newer technologies have made it cheaper and easier to maintain. And a majority of the networks still aren't well maintained. =c grrr

Google may offer a service, but it's still gonna be 10/100/1000 plans offered. And they would have to be cheaper then anything else. Or we'd be buying 10 when we want/need 1000...because we can afford 10. If google does a great job supplying that 10...it would only help them. The problem with most isp's is all forms of their services suck. And they do little to address it. Just keep collecting money.

Even then, With all the censorship going around...I'm not sure how google will be pressured into tactics to censor information on their networks. It should offer a better service if they route their own private back bone. KSU, Is an optical hub and is apart of the world wide web, Without that, it would be the same old internet that we are all tired of.

I have high hopes for this. But various things have to be in place to offer a better service. And thus make it a sustainable option for consumers.

I'm willing to try it out when it's available in my area for sure. Which it most definately should be. Virginia has the highest concentration of back-bone hubs. Makeing options and routing convenient, and profitable. It could even be used to add redundancy to other parts of the nation, or world.

I think the atlantic hub is based in Georgia?

So yea i don't think i'm moving any time soon. I'd like to supply my own isp services at some point.

Right now i'm trying to decide what collage course would help in this.

Do i focus on network management, or electrical theory? From what i've been looking into, it would seem that i need a solid understanding of how electricity and radiation flow...more then How a network works....but the two are closely related. The networking classes i have taken don't even scratch the surface, obviously. Of what we need to know.