dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2006-12-19 13:01:20: The Associates Press ran two stories on upstream bandwidth this week; the first, which we discussed yesterday, focused on user frustration with limited upload speeds. ..


RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

2 recommendations

RadioDoc

They're right

Most cable customers have not a clue what speed they're actually getting. The small minority of ISP customers who hang out at this site are irrelevant in the bigger marketing picture.

Oddly, The Evil Deathstar doesn't seem to have any problem giving me 768 up for well under $40 a month, and doesn't limit what I can do with it either.

Until email requires 10 megabits up you won't be seeing it widely deployed anywhere near the US of A. There's no money in it.
haplo2112
join:2003-05-12
Charlton, MA

haplo2112

Member

Re: They're right

Ah but there could be...I'd be willing to pay a little and I do mean a little on the order of .50 per 128k more for higher upload.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: They're right

said by haplo2112:

I'd be willing to pay a little and I do mean a little on the order of .50 per 128k more for higher upload.
Thank you for supporting my point.
HyPeRbAnD
join:2006-01-07
Stow, MA

HyPeRbAnD to RadioDoc

Member

to RadioDoc
You are right most people have no clue what speed they are at. However I do think they need to increase uploads to about 2-3mbps at least. The uploads of 512kbps days were for the mid 90's

JackKane
@depaul.edu

JackKane

Anon

Re: They're right

Most people were uploading with dial-up in mid 90s - 25kbs on average?

Michieru_
@dadeschools.net

Michieru_ to RadioDoc

Anon

to RadioDoc
Or at least the freaking option to pay for the equipment needed to get the faster rate at the CO. Looking around the price for the equipment needed to upgrade my line to a ADSL2+ capable one was around 2K. (Remote line shelf card)

Speakeasy said they will contact Covad if it where possible only for Covad to respond back and say no.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102 to RadioDoc

Member

to RadioDoc
and I have 512kbps upstream for $25/month.
JimmySask
join:2004-06-24
Regina, SK

JimmySask

Member

Re: They're right

In order to get the masses to see the benefits of greater upload, they need to see what they could do with that upload. One needs to get the point across that there would be benfits to them. For example, my parents could care less that their torrent files may get faster, because they haven't a clue what a torrent file is. On the other hand, if I told them that it could take minutes, instead of hours, to upload 50 full resolution pictures (~1MB) to Wal-mart's photolab, they would see the benefit. If I told them they could upload the digital video from my sister's improv competition to send by e-mail (most of our local providers allow for large attachments, and the videos are about 50MB apiece), and not have to set it up and walk away for the evening, only to hope that the upload completes properly, they would see the benefit.

The point is, people need to see just how much they could benefit from the increased upload before they start asking for it. Until then, to them it's just "the way it is". We in our geek community already see those benefits, but we are a minority.

Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI

Nightfall

MVM

Re: They're right

said by JimmySask:

In order to get the masses to see the benefits of greater upload, they need to see what they could do with that upload. One needs to get the point across that there would be benfits to them. For example, my parents could care less that their torrent files may get faster, because they haven't a clue what a torrent file is. On the other hand, if I told them that it could take minutes, instead of hours, to upload 50 full resolution pictures (~1MB) to Wal-mart's photolab, they would see the benefit. If I told them they could upload the digital video from my sister's improv competition to send by e-mail (most of our local providers allow for large attachments, and the videos are about 50MB apiece), and not have to set it up and walk away for the evening, only to hope that the upload completes properly, they would see the benefit.

The point is, people need to see just how much they could benefit from the increased upload before they start asking for it. Until then, to them it's just "the way it is". We in our geek community already see those benefits, but we are a minority.
Very well said. Right now, there has to be a benefit to the common user. The common user doesn't upload jack. In fact, most users could get away with 1.5 meg down and a very low latency connection. Most users only care on if they get their email fast and if the websites come up quickly.

However, as more and more users use that Walmart picture lab and more people get those slingboxes, then the demand for more upload will rise.

Geek issues will continue to be in the minority. Heck, I got a second broadband line just to get more upload bandwidth. Its pretty bad when I have to do that, but at 384k upload, its painfully slow for what I need. At least I can start 2 connections and split them between both upload lines on both broadband connections with my current setup.
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA

wtansill to JimmySask

Member

to JimmySask
said by JimmySask:

The point is, people need to see just how much they could benefit from the increased upload before they start asking for it. Until then, to them it's just "the way it is". We in our geek community already see those benefits, but we are a minority.
Somehow I don't think that we will be in the minority much longer. Time magazine has just named You the person of the year for all the consumer-created content posted to YouTube, Google Media, Break.com, MySpace, and the like. A large percentage of the traditional user base is now perceiving the need for more upload bandwidth in order to post these video clips and what have you. I suspect that the "customers don't demand it" line is more wishful thinking than actual fact, and I think it will only get worse from here.

phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL

phattieg

Member

Re: They're right

said by wtansill:
said by JimmySask:

The point is, people need to see just how much they could benefit from the increased upload before they start asking for it. Until then, to them it's just "the way it is". We in our geek community already see those benefits, but we are a minority.
Somehow I don't think that we will be in the minority much longer. Time magazine has just named You the person of the year for all the consumer-created content posted to YouTube, Google Media, Break.com, MySpace, and the like. A large percentage of the traditional user base is now perceiving the need for more upload bandwidth in order to post these video clips and what have you. I suspect that the "customers don't demand it" line is more wishful thinking than actual fact, and I think it will only get worse from here.
Typed in bold to show stats...

Yeah, and your example failed to state that "According to a July 16, 2006 survey, 100 million clips are viewed daily on YouTube, with an additional 65,000 new videos uploaded per 24 hours", which re-enforces the fact that download is more desired than upload for the average user.

Ok, so the bold is off, and I guess I still haven't been given a valid recreational use for more upload. I have shot down 2 arguments about it by simply showing the numbers. People like Comcast, BellSouth, AT&T, Verizon, etc, all pay people to decide on stuff like this. The consistent research has been done, and the conclusion is "things are fine the way they are right now". Look at other examples, and you'll see.
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA

wtansill

Member

Re: They're right

said by phattieg:

Typed in bold to show stats...

Yeah, and your example failed to state that "According to a July 16, 2006 survey, 100 million clips are viewed daily on YouTube, with an additional 65,000 new videos uploaded per 24 hours", which re-enforces the fact that download is more desired than upload for the average user.

Ok, so the bold is off, and I guess I still haven't been given a valid recreational use for more upload. I have shot down 2 arguments about it by simply showing the numbers. People like Comcast, BellSouth, AT&T, Verizon, etc, all pay people to decide on stuff like this. The consistent research has been done, and the conclusion is "things are fine the way they are right now". Look at other examples, and you'll see.
I see. Glad you could quote stats to me. Before you go though, consider -- YouTube et.al. is a nascent phenomenon. What is the rate of increase in uploads over time? How long do you think it will be based on the uptake numbers before upload becomes important to the masses?

phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL

phattieg

Member

Re: They're right

said by wtansill See Profile

I see. Glad you could quote stats to me. Before you go
though, consider -- YouTube et.al. is a nascent phenomenon. What is the rate of increase in uploads over time? How long do you think it will be based on the uptake numbers before upload becomes important to the masses?
[/BQUOTE :


YouTube might be a "nascent phenomenon", but considering that the site REQUIRES VIDEO FEEDS TO PERPETUATE IT'S CONTENT, I doubt that it really matters. It's a numbers game. This site isn't new, or a "phenomenon" (sorry Justin ). The rate of increase doesn't matter. 65000 of 100000000 is only a very small fraction of the overall downloads. The honest truth is you are getting a fast connection, considering most people on AVERAGE, don't have much to send, other than pictures, or text.

Everyone is entitled to "THEIR OPINION", but when you vote for your president, do you do it by opinion, or by voting ballot? The reason I ask is this, when the cable or telco does something that the public really hates, the FCC or Government is called in, and issues fines if it's not fixed. So far, all these business deals are going thru, and the FCC hasn't said one thing about the internet being too slow on the upload side either.

Honestly, I don't thing upload will ever be as important to the masses. I expect the current speeds to keep gradually increasing, but I don't think I'll see symetrical speeds, or even half of my download speed, anytime soon, if ever.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: With all the upload being added, how bad do you think the internet will crawl when the next big worm hits?
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA

wtansill

Member

Re: They're right

said by phattieg:

YouTube might be a "nascent phenomenon", but considering that the site REQUIRES VIDEO FEEDS TO PERPETUATE IT'S CONTENT, I doubt that it really matters. It's a numbers game. This site isn't new, or a "phenomenon" (sorry Justin ). The rate of increase doesn't matter. 65000 of 100000000 is only a very small fraction of the overall downloads. The honest truth is you are getting a fast connection, considering most people on AVERAGE, don't have much to send, other than pictures, or text.
Of course it matters! As you state, YouTube and similar sites REQUIRE VIDEO FEEDS TO PERPETUATE ... CONTENT. How does the content get there? Via upload. The upload numbers may be insignificant compared to download now, but will they continue to be? I think they will grow over time, and that upload speeds will become more important as the need increases.
said by phattieg:

Everyone is entitled to "THEIR OPINION", but when you vote for your president, do you do it by opinion, or by voting ballot? The reason I ask is this, when the cable or telco does something that the public really hates, the FCC or Government is called in, and issues fines if it's not fixed. So far, all these business deals are going thru, and the FCC hasn't said one thing about the internet being too slow on the upload side either.

Honestly, I don't thing upload will ever be as important to the masses. I expect the current speeds to keep gradually increasing, but I don't think I'll see symetrical speeds, or even half of my download speed, anytime soon, if ever.
You may be entirely correct, and I may be entirely wrong. Time will tell. I don't think that the fact that the FCC has yet to be called on to increase speeds is an indicator of anything at this early stage.
said by phattieg:

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: With all the upload being added, how bad do you think the internet will crawl when the next big worm hits?
Non-sequiter. The fact that an Internet worm may or may not propagate is no reason to limit upload speeds. If it were, then the solution would be to do away with the Internet altogether. I do not see that happening any time soon, do you?

phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL

phattieg

Member

To put this lightly...

In a nutshell, this is how much this website contributes to the over-all internet userbase of the world (since this is the world wide web).

Users
1323603
Registered users over all time Accounts
915829
Current login accounts Recent
630805
Active membership 90-day horizon

This was given from this site at the following link:
»/who

As an example of how small that is, if everyone was a Comcast user on this site, it would only equal about 10% of their subscriber base. There are about 10 million Comcast High Speed Internet customers in the US. Do you think people care THAT MUCH about upload???

ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA

ninjatutle

Member

Re: To put this lightly...

But half of those people probably came here just to fix their internet connection or computer problem then go away.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc to phattieg

to phattieg
And those numbers are wildly inflated. Based on forum post counts, there are about 1% of those 630805 actually here.

But yeah, even using those it's an insignificant percentage of users.
kdandaoc
join:2003-10-13
608052427

kdandaoc

Member

Head in the arse....

This is a crock. People have been asking for years about higher upload speeds to which the ISPs have declined assuming Joe user was running a peer to peer network, or the demand wasn't there, or some other bs.
Heres another question: if I as a businessman have to spend more for greater upload speeds from a cable co, just how are they going to guarantee the speed an a shared bandwidth network?
They're full of it, we know it, maybe the masses will start to figure it out!

phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL

1 recommendation

phattieg

Member

Re: Head in the arse....

said by kdandaoc:

This is a crock. People have been asking for years about higher upload speeds to which the ISPs have declined assuming Joe user was running a peer to peer network, or the demand wasn't there, or some other bs.
Heres another question: if I as a businessman have to spend more for greater upload speeds from a cable co, just how are they going to guarantee the speed an a shared bandwidth network?
They're full of it, we know it, maybe the masses will start to figure it out!
To respond to your statement, people in small numbers have been asking for faster speed, so if I justified the cost of opening up the pipes, to suffice the needs of even a hefty 45% of the users, I would need to increase my revenue to cover the cost of the data hitting the backbone. You're a businessman, trying to get away with paying mediocre rates as a residential user. You want more speed, but don't think you should pay for a business account from any ISP. Now, you need a bigger pipe to do this uploading, how can you do it on a shared medium, easy, QoS the UBR/BSR router and open a separate upstream channel to handle the individual traffic from business customers coming from node X, Y, and Z (as you can splice those signals into the CMTS from different nodes). Do you think an ISP would be able to offer a business plan/package without at least guaranteeing 90% of promised speed on a business plan?

The problem with people and their understanding of how Cable and DSL are shared is that people don't "really" know how it's done. There is SOOOO many ways to free up nodes in Cable Internet, that oversold nodes are practically a thing of the past. Load balancing and putting 3 nodes with nobody in them on 1 cmts card, or separating a part of a node to another ubr card is just a few things done. QoS rules can also be used at timed intervals to prevent a heavy load when everyone decides to download their e-mail at 5:30 to 5:45 each day. I won't even talk about DSL, because they can't guarantee their max speed usually, and wifi isn't even reliable enough or consistent with regards to latency.

To do what you purpose, rates would increase, and the people who didn't care (the 55%) would consider leaving. Why do you need 512k up for on residential service. I haven't seen an online game that REQUIRES anything higher than 128k to 256k upstream, which even the slowest DSL package could handle. Per the TOS, you aren't suppose to run anything other than personal services, so downloading or streaming an mp3 thru IIS can survive off 14k/s. If you're uploading lots of movies to your job, then thats more a business need, because it make YOU money, and is convienent, as opposed to burning lots of CD's. I do lots of VoIP with Asterisk, and ran a chatline capable of 40 calls at one time on 786k upload speeds.

Thats another thing, "DOES IT MAKE YOU MONEY??", and if you use if for work, then you should be grunting "YEAH!", and to that I say, "Welcome to the cost of making money". Money isn't free, you have to work for it, and pay your dues. If your job is worth a crap, they would pay for your internet if you are suppose to be doing work from home. If you're a small home business, tough, deal with it, nobody said owning a business that requires internet should be the same as a regular ol' residential user. If you have a demand for more speed, then pay for it, you're job will thank you. Even the phone company has different rates for business telephone use, not just T1's, but plain old copper. And you get priority repair service, instead of "the next available slot" if you have a service visit, which means your job won't suffer as long.

More would be great, but at the moment, it's just not practicle enough for everyone to jump in on. Look at Verizon's investors right now, they don't want to wait for money to come. And I don't see how their service can be always reliable if it passes thru regular everyday neighborhoods. Cut a fiber feed, everyone goes out, including phones (we know it's a SONET ring).

RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

RARPSL

Member

Re: Head in the arse....

said by phattieg:

You're a businessman, trying to get away with paying mediocre rates as a residential user. You want more speed, but don't think you should pay for a business account from any ISP.
The problem is that most so called "Business" Accounts are just Residential Class accounts with a higher price tag.

To be a REAL Business class account, it must offer the following features:

1) A separate IPN Block that is NOT listed as DHCP/Dial-Up in the black lists so that the company's SMTP Server can actually send email without the possibility of having it rejected by the receiving SMTP Server due to being on a "not allowed to send due to being DHCP/Dial-Up" Black List.

2) A static IPN and DOMAIN Name (not a generic type DHCP Name) OR if the address MUST be DHCP, the automatic updating of the rDNS and DNS A records when the ISP alters the IPN (a short TTL to expire the prior IPN if this is a scheduled split would be useful so when the new address goes into effect, the cached copies will expire fast).

3) No restrictions on Servers or Bandwidth usage. If you DO have caps, they must be specified and able to be monitored by the user not "invisible"/"undocumented".

NOTE: I am NOT asking for the full QoS Commitment of a Dedicated Line type contract but only some justification for the extra money that is being charged due to it being labeled as a Business Class account.

phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL

phattieg

Member

Re: Head in the arse....

said by RARPSL:
said by phattieg:

You're a businessman, trying to get away with paying mediocre rates as a residential user. You want more speed, but don't think you should pay for a business account from any ISP.
The problem is that most so called "Business" Accounts are just Residential Class accounts with a higher price tag.

To be a REAL Business class account, it must offer the following features:

1) A separate IPN Block that is NOT listed as DHCP/Dial-Up in the black lists so that the company's SMTP Server can actually send email without the possibility of having it rejected by the receiving SMTP Server due to being on a "not allowed to send due to being DHCP/Dial-Up" Black List.

2) A static IPN and DOMAIN Name (not a generic type DHCP Name) OR if the address MUST be DHCP, the automatic updating of the rDNS and DNS A records when the ISP alters the IPN (a short TTL to expire the prior IPN if this is a scheduled split would be useful so when the new address goes into effect, the cached copies will expire fast).

3) No restrictions on Servers or Bandwidth usage. If you DO have caps, they must be specified and able to be monitored by the user not "invisible"/"undocumented".

NOTE: I am NOT asking for the full QoS Commitment of a Dedicated Line type contract but only some justification for the extra money that is being charged due to it being labeled as a Business Class account.
Then open up shop and offer what "YOU" call a business package. The point is, it IS treated different in the headend/CMTS. You pay extra for the guarantee that it will work, and provide you with a consistent class of service at all times. Comcast gives you 5 IP's, up to 10 e-mail account standard, and a whole list of other things that can be viewed at »work.comcast.net. Just an example. And there is no caps, or limits to the amount of usage.

And if cable is not for you, you can pay a few hundred/thousand more for a T1 with all the bells and whistles. All I'm saying is, you want UPLOAD, then tell me why we should pay all this money to have it for everyone, when most of the paying world could give a crap about it (and I DO care about upload, but I am not upset that mine is 768k, and not higher). I feel, given the current pricing of all thats out there, the speed is perfect. I also know that more upload leads to more expense for ISP's, and backbone providers, as upgrading is necessary to cover all the additional equipment and cable costs for capacity. With the numbers I just threw in there stating how many "concerned, savvy users" this site alone carries. If you compare that to the world population (since this is a world wide site), all the numbers on »/who added together wouldn't even be 1% of the entire world population. Nobody on a grand scale gives a crap about more upstream, just statistically speaking, but I myself would love any more speed that is given to me for the same price, aka, free, and I know I'm not alone here..

NOW... Why did you even post your business requirements for service, when this discussion was based on upstream increases, and who has a valid, legitimate, non work related, legal use for the extra bandwidth? None of the things you just posted have anything to do with upload, including the NOTE you placed at the end of the message about not asking for QoS Commitment, etc. Why do you feel you should have the special option of more upload, as opposed to the rest of the happy subscribers who enjoy our rates remaining static, while our speed increases?
Indymike8
join:2004-12-06
Indianapolis, IN

Indymike8 to phattieg

Member

to phattieg
Why do I need the upload speed? Hmmm ... lemme think.

1) I'd like to send my quicken data to my personal accountant to have him do my taxes.

2) I'd like to upload my photos and videos (my camera does both) to my personal web-site so i don't have to email them to everybody.

3) I'd like to use one of the on-line backup companies to backup my system (80Gb currently).

4) I'd like to video conference with my relatives (spread out all over the world as they travel a lot).

5) I'd like to upload my pod-casts (yep, we make'em) to the appropriate servers.

6) I'd like to tag Google-Earth sites with my photo's and videos.

It's not that I can't do these things at all, but that they take so darn long to finish. Waiting an hour to upload a 10 minute pod-cast is ridiculous.

I guess my last point would be this; how in the world can you say no one wants upload speeds when they aren't offered at all? Offer them and THEN tell me no one wanted it!

BTW, trying to use cable for ANY business reason is a sure fire recipe for disaster. Between invisible caps, erratic performance, and lousy tech support, you can't get anything done.

phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL

phattieg

Member

Re: Head in the arse....

said by Indymike8:

Why do I need the upload speed? Hmmm ... lemme think.

1) I'd like to send my quicken data to my personal accountant to have him do my taxes.

2) I'd like to upload my photos and videos (my camera does both) to my personal web-site so i don't have to email them to everybody.

3) I'd like to use one of the on-line backup companies to backup my system (80Gb currently).

4) I'd like to video conference with my relatives (spread out all over the world as they travel a lot).

5) I'd like to upload my pod-casts (yep, we make'em) to the appropriate servers.

6) I'd like to tag Google-Earth sites with my photo's and videos.

It's not that I can't do these things at all, but that they take so darn long to finish. Waiting an hour to upload a 10 minute pod-cast is ridiculous.

I guess my last point would be this; how in the world can you say no one wants upload speeds when they aren't offered at all? Offer them and THEN tell me no one wanted it!

BTW, trying to use cable for ANY business reason is a sure fire recipe for disaster. Between invisible caps, erratic performance, and lousy tech support, you can't get anything done.
WOW! Your ISP really sucks bad if you don't have enough upload to do 1 thru 4 quick enough. About # 2, considering if you e-mailed it, and it went thru (under 10 megs) you should be able to host it as a link to your own page, and at 384k, it will d/l in about 3 or 4 minutes, or if you upload it to a filelocker, they (family) can d/l it in less than 1 minute.

80Gig on a online backup is not a "requirement" for a residential user, as you can also burn CD's. Backing up something that large, unless your upload is a gig a sec, is never going to be easy or quick.

I'm glad you make podcast, judging they are finally starting to rise again in distribution. Nobody cared about them for the longest. Since you make them, perhaps you can upload them to YouTube so everyone can download it at a decent speed. I hope your podcast do not contain any copyright material, because if so, you're not showing a "valid" reason for upload increase. Excluding ILLEGAL activities, I can't see a reason NOT to deal with the current upload speeds.

Tagging Google-Earth sites with photo's and videos doesn't seem like it should take that long. I imagine you're on DSL, or a wireless provider, as you don't seem too fond of cable, and currently cable and fiber are the only 2 out there with the best upload speed for the $.

A 10 minute podcast should only take you about 10 minutes, unless you decide you want to record a high resolution picture on a low resolution I-Pod. Depending on your market, faster upload speeds are available. I have 384 or 768k upload speeds available to me thru Comcast. I really hardly use the upload. It's nice to have, but I recently removed it because I didn't need the speed as much as I felt I needed the $10 difference in billing. When you benefit once a week from it, it's nothing to remove it.

Cable internet for business works great, I'm thinking Cable has made you pissed about something, and you feel that it's an incompetent method of internet. I can assure you, being able to run a chatline with 40 callers on the line @ 768k with virtually no jitter is an amazing feat. I doubt the 60ms ping times I was maintaining during that load would be possible without QoS'ing my modem. The node I did this in has 312 modems on the same node. The difference, my UBR/BSR card is different than the other 312 modems, so I don't "share" that pipe with everyone. I have called for tech support, and they walked me right thru the Cisco UBR900 commercial modem setup. Caps haven't ever (that I know of) been brought to BBR by a commercial customer, all are residential people. And again, erratic performance has never been an issue, and I have a very busy node I am using, so lots of competition for bandwidth, but somehow I always get at least 90% of the max, which is all you really can EXPECT someone to hold true to. I don't know how many logged speed tests I have, but you are welcome to look.

Just keep wishing, you're now offically noted as one of the 20% - 30% who feels that everyone should pay for your speed increase, when they don't want it. I hope that podcast collection works out for ya.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to phattieg

Member

to phattieg
"Even the phone company has different rates for business telephone use, not just T1's, but plain old copper. And you get priority repair service, instead of "the next available slot" if you have a service visit, which means your job won't suffer as long."

T1 customers ALWAYS get top priority. That's just part of why they pay much more for that T1. If I have a problem with a DSL customer that requires a truck roll I get "Someone will be their by 6pm tomorrow" If I get the same thing on a T1 I can have someone from Bell there with in 4 hours.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc to kdandaoc

to kdandaoc
They put your traffic on a different segment, or on different RF channels, than the consumer-grade traffic. That's how. Same way they isolate their VoIP product.

phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL

phattieg

Member

Re: Head in the arse....

I just said that, but they also can transfer multiple nodes that are not in use to another cmts card, thus reducing the load even more than what you just said...
Derfel
join:2004-06-06
Winnipeg, MB

Derfel

Member

Upstream ain't bad for me

I'm on a DSL connection from MTS, which gives me speed test results of 4500/700. For most applications, that's fine for me. Sure, I'd love to get even more out of it (4/1 MB?) but to be honest, there are other upgrades I'd rather see before upload speeds.
bohn
join:2006-05-30
Scarborough, ON

bohn

Member

Re: Upstream ain't bad for me

Ask yourself one question. What country do you live in? You got your answer. The future for canada's internet is american companies. Just like dial up from america wireless internet from america will be cheaper than dsl in canada.

GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium Member
join:2001-10-29
Indianapolis, IN

GlobalMind

Premium Member

Special market...

Comcast does offer some packages for small business which give you some greater upstream, but of course it comes down to money. As I recall those offerings are over $100 a month.

For me as a home office worker on vpn all day and constantly sending files to my office, more upstream would be a very nice thing to have. The question is can I get the company (or myself) to pop for the extra $$ required to make that happen.

So far with my ISP BellSouth about the only offering I could see would be if I decide to go dedicated circuit. Their SB DSL doesn't appear to be any better than what I have now.

A telecommuter package would be nice offering more upload, say 3Mbps down and 1.5 up. My downstream is fine, so no need for a 6Mbps connection there although I'll take it whenever they offer it for my area.

I'll say my price point perhaps around $10-20 more a month than what I pay now would be a good plan. A bit more if they offer QoS guarantees with it.

Kevin.

phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL

phattieg

Member

Re: Special market...

said by GlobalMind:

Comcast does offer some packages for small business which give you some greater upstream, but of course it comes down to money. As I recall those offerings are over $100 a month.

For me as a home office worker on vpn all day and constantly sending files to my office, more upstream would be a very nice thing to have. The question is can I get the company (or myself) to pop for the extra $$ required to make that happen.

So far with my ISP BellSouth about the only offering I could see would be if I decide to go dedicated circuit. Their SB DSL doesn't appear to be any better than what I have now.

A telecommuter package would be nice offering more upload, say 3Mbps down and 1.5 up. My downstream is fine, so no need for a 6Mbps connection there although I'll take it whenever they offer it for my area.

I'll say my price point perhaps around $10-20 more a month than what I pay now would be a good plan. A bit more if they offer QoS guarantees with it.

Kevin.
Comcast offers Teleworker accounts too, but you have to get your company to go for it. It sounds like they want YOU to do all the spending AND work. Corporate America, pftt.

GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium Member
join:2001-10-29
Indianapolis, IN

GlobalMind

Premium Member

Re: Special market...

said by phattieg:

Comcast offers Teleworker accounts too, but you have to get your company to go for it. It sounds like they want YOU to do all the spending AND work. Corporate America, pftt.
I checked into one of those not long ago and from what I recall it wasn't much better than what I have now, other than perhaps download speed.

My company will actually pay for my internet access should I care to expense it. The key would be having them agree to pay for a say over $100 a month fee, which from what I recall is what most of those went for. Have to go check again and see what they have now.

Kevin.

•••
raye
Premium Member
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA

raye

Premium Member

Speed has not been an issue for most of our customers...

Gee, I have only complained to TWC about 512 kbps upload when promised/paid for 1 Mbps upload fives times since upgraded to Extreme Tier in October. I guess I am the only customer who cares.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Cost is issue; because customers want to pay less; not more

As recently discussed the technology does exist -- it's just a matter of ISPs being willing to pay for upgrades
But it isn't just the ISP willing to pay for upgrades. The customers must be willing to pay for the increased costs incurred by the ISP of adding upload bandwidth. And, for now, they don't seem to want to do that - except for a small minority.

RayW
Premium Member
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT

RayW

Premium Member

I have 1.5/1 meg using QWEST/XMISSION DSL

Of course there is a 100 GB cap from Xmission, but I never get close to that, even with three people (one is a teen) sharing three computers. NOTE: that is a REAL cap, not a VIRTUAL cap like some providers do not tell you about.

Now if UTOPIA ever gets here, they tout up to 15 meg up AND down (30 for businesses) and Xmission supports that (along with the 100GB cap). I do not know what the real speed after overhead is, but some of the speed tests from people in the UTOPIA area, it seems to be fairly normal.

As bad as QWEST is at times, at least they did my DSL line right (probably only because AT&T, now COMCAST, came into the area or so the timing and original deployment plans seemed to say four years ago).

I listen to people here talk about the almost narrow band uploads they have and wonder how they ever get anything done.
kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Bakersfield, CA

kd6cae

Member

do business users really get better upload?

I can only speak for my current cable provider here which is Charter, but prior to July, the best a consumer could get was a crappy 3000/256, while Charter business users choosing cable internet could get 5000/1000. Now however, a consumer can get up to 10000/1000, yet last I checked, a business user wanting cable high speed internet still only gets 5000/1000. So just how are the business Charter cable users benifiting from faster upstream speeds, when near as I can tell, they're getting the same upload speeds now? I know with Cox business cable service I believe there is a slight increase in upstream, like around 100kbps or so, I don't know if Charter does this though. Even still, we know existing cable networks can provide 2mbps upload, so why aren't even business customers getting to see this? And only those users in FIOS areas are getting a chance to see what cable can truly offer? If it can be offered there, then I should be able to get those kinds of speeds over cable too if I want them!

•••
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

Rick5

Premium Member

There's a few things folks should understand

For starters, "industry execs" will ALWAYS downplay that which they don't have and can't offer today.

Remember that AOL Executive who was quoted as saying that broadband was just a second rate issue compared to dialup (or something to that effect)?

Of COURSE it was going to be that when it came to their public statements. Imagine them saying the reverse.

The same holds true for what the TW exec is quoted as saying in that article. Do you REALLY think he believes that statement? Do you REALLY think that the executive of the company that brings you RoadRunner who has built their lively hood on TALKING about speeds and SELLING DOWNLOAD speeds really believes that upload ones are really insignificant?

What I think he's really saying is..we just really can't give it to you today and so we'll just kind of pretend it's not really an issue.

But once we can!! Watch out! It's all we'll talk about.

The issue for the cable industry is the limitations of the current standards and the shared nature of these pipes.
Docsis 3.0 will rectify a lot of that. That's when they'll change their tune.

Actually, for the most part..the telco's do do a better job delivering on upload speeds with their middle and upper tier packages. I won't argue with my Good friend Radio Doc that his top tier dsl package isn't a good one...for the price.

The PROBLEM with it is..availability. And all the dsl people who can't get it.

Today, the telco's can't really compete at all on the super fast speed front like the doubling of speeds that comcast gives with powerboost..Time Warners 10MB..and OOL's competition with fios at 15MB and above.

And so, they offset that by dominating the very low cost dsl market..and by giving the upper ones all that they can as far as Upload speeds.

One thing that uverse MIGHT be good for is if AT&T decides it will sell it as a stand alone HSI service. then it could probably very effectively compete with the likes of both cables up coming docsis 3.0 as well as fiber to the home.

And hopefully, it will allow many more current DSL customers to get in on what the good doc has too.

But the bottom line is, I wouldn't believe for one single minute what any of these execs is saying in terms of how important this is to them. If it's really not important..why would verizon be spending 18 billion of fios? AT&T spending 5 or 6 on UVerse?

And TW be sweating every time a new fios setup cranks up in their service territory?

It's a case of what they don't have today...and what they know they need for tomorrow in order to compete.

And until that happens..their stance will always be..it just really isn't that important.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

Re: There's a few things folks should understand

DOCSIS 3.0 wont change anything, it'll just allow cable to load even more subs on a node.
99664227 (banned)
Heavily MODerated
join:2002-11-21
USA

99664227 (banned)

Member

RE

I have 2Mps upstream for $44.95 a month. Come on Verizon lets get those 5 Mbps increased upstream here!

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

Re: RE

said by 99664227:

I have 2Mps upstream for $44.95 a month. Come on Verizon lets get those 5 Mbps increased upstream here!
It probably is there. have you called up verizon lately and asked?

Cjaiceman
MVM
join:2004-10-12
Castle Rock, WA
(Software) pfSense
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-AC-PRO

2 edits

Cjaiceman

MVM

Re: RE

Don't rub it in.... I can't get FIOS because I am in Qwest's area.... I would love to have the 20/5, I might even go up to the 50/5 if they offered it at a reasonable price... (not sure the price of that package?) I would bundle 1 HD tv, plus 2 regular TVs, and the 50/5 if they offered it for me under $200/month....

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

Why the push

For download? Why no upload? because upload can actually be used unlike the token downstream increases that go largely unused.

MoreSpdPlz2
@198.252.240.x

MoreSpdPlz2

Anon

Re: Why the push

I think that as long as you can provide the finaces you should be able to get what ever spee you want as long as your willing to pay. There should be no limit because we live in generation where it is all about money.

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram

Premium Member

Mstar on Utopia

They offer 15/15 for $39.95 a month, so don't talk to me about how expensive it is for ISPs to provide the bandwidth.

I pay around $55 for 5000/768 and frankly 768 is pitiful.

I made a 3.5 min video the other day, while I was playing WoW, and was thinking I was going to send it to some friends. That video was 2.5 gigs. Even after I converted it to xvid, which by the way, really looked like crap compared to the original, it was still around 70 megs.

If I was on the 15/15 plan, I wouldn't think twice about sending out the full sized video.

I wish we all had fiber. We should ALL have fiber.

What the hell is wrong with this country.
bohn
join:2006-05-30
Scarborough, ON

bohn

Member

Re: Mstar on Utopia

Just look north of buffalo. I'm talking about canada, communist canada. We have no newsgroups no email speed throttling down to one third of dial up speed caps sometimes as low as one gigabyte a month and $7.95 a gigabyte charge on every month's bill. Add to this that we pay double or triple what americans pay and america starts to look good once again.
cwilliams194
join:2006-12-04
Hamilton, ON

cwilliams194

Member

Re: Mstar on Utopia

It sounds like you got the short end of the stick up in T.O.

not that I use them but we have newsgroups, no email throttling (who throttles email?), and I have don't even know of an ISP with a 1 gig cap (dial-up? who would want to?) and as far as I'm concerned $39.95CND for a 10Mb/650Kb connection isn't out of line with the price my few American friends pay.

the only thing I notice even though my ISP will deny it is torrent throttling

sounds like you need to look into switching ISPs

Boredness
So bored...
Premium Member
join:2005-07-07
Fresno, CA

1 edit

Boredness

Premium Member

The customer is always wrong b**ch

What AT&T needs to do for me is upgrade their DSL Express users to 1536/512k since that is the highest package I can get and that isn't due to money issues! Their end maybe but not mine! More upload speed please since my lousy line can handle it!

jonez
Got Anime?
Premium Member
join:2004-09-24
Stow, MA

1 edit

jonez

Premium Member

Atleast Verizon's doing something...

with providing 2mbps as the lowest upstream speed on their fios packages, upgrading two more states (MA & RI) to 5mbps upstream for the mid-package and upgrading the 30/5 to 50/5 (not as relevant since the upload was not changed) and lowering the highest package by 40 dollars, down to $139.95/month.

Business tiers are now 15/2 to 20/5, 5/5 to 35/10 and 30/5 to 50/10, so they've also atleast doubled the upstream on each of those packages.

This 20/5 residential package is basically a comcast HSI killer -- 4 mbps faster on download and 5 times the upstream bandwidth and a few dollars cheaper than the 16/1. I say that because from what i've heard, comcast just recently rolled out the 16/1 tier in massachusetts. So if that's the case, we have to thank comcast for these speeds (that'd be a first).

Why this wasn't posted in the news here on dslr is just beyond me, especially since they've been running news articles on upstream speeds -- highly relevant to these upgrades I would say.