  Amr3Pointing out the obvious
Premium Member
join:2001-12-03
San Antonio, TX |
Amr3
Premium Member
2008-Jun-6 11:41 am
With a cap of course...50Mbps with a cap of 250GB...horrible. | |
|
 | | |
Re: With a cap of course...and by 2010 it'll be 100mbit with a 50GB cap =P | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: With a cap of course...Yeah, but they're still the BMW of the interweb. | |
|
| | |
1 edit |
Re: With a cap of course...CARBQ!!!!!!!!!!! marshmallows? Or.. Burn baby burn let that sucker burn!!
both work there =) | |
|
|  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
1 recommendation |
to Amr3
Thats almost irrelevant. You will be hard pressed to find a site on the internet that can serve data at that rate. In fact, one of the only things you can do "full throttle" is steal content, and thats precisely why the caps are being implemented. Email and websurfing wont be any faster on a 50Mbps connection than they will be on a 3Mbps connection in most cases. | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: With a cap of course...said by wifi4milez:.. and thats precisely why the caps are being implemented. .. caps are being implemented for the sole reason of sucking more money out of existing customers. stopping p2p and illegal downloading is a red herring. | |
|
| | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY |
Re: With a cap of course...said by nasadude:said by wifi4milez:.. and thats precisely why the caps are being implemented. .. caps are being implemented for the sole reason of sucking more money out of existing customers. stopping p2p and illegal downloading is a red herring. Thats your opinion, however my statement that most sites cant be accessed any faster (on a 50Mbps connection) is an irrefutable fact. Each time DSLR reports about faster internet speeds there is inevitably an avalanche of "now I can reach the cap faster" posts. I am simply looking to point out that with the exception of piracy, most "normal" websites will behave in the same manor, and thus your caps wont be reached any quicker. | |
|
| | | |  Pz_
join:2001-03-31
Brownsburg, IN |
Pz_
Member
2008-Jun-6 1:00 pm
Re: With a cap of course...Not true, I can access content on Steam at my full speed allowed by Comcast. Whenever I buy a new game from them and start the download, I max out (way over 3) the entire transfer. You don't have to be a copyright infringer for Comcast to not want you to use your bandwidth. They hate all customers equally.  | |
|
| | | |  RR206
join:2001-12-11
united state |
to wifi4milez
I guess an AppleTV would be a bad idea. | |
|
| | | | | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2008-Jun-6 3:12 pm
Re: With a cap of course...said by RR206:I guess an AppleTV would be a bad idea. Well yeah but not for the reason you're thinking. HD movies from Apple are about 6 GB max. So even watching 1 day would be 180 GB and leave 70 GB left over. Last time I checked 30 HD movies from apple would cost $120-$150 to rent. If you can afford that you can afford cap overages. | |
|
| | | | | |  Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 recommendation |
Re: With a cap of course...Comcast hopes you will afford Comcast PPV-VOD instead (which is the real point of having the caps) | |
|
| | | | | | |  telcolackey5The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA |
Re: With a cap of course...Can someone bump this record player.... it is skipping | |
|
| | | | Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA |
to wifi4milez
That's because most sites are small...most people don't go to most sites. They frequent large ones and large ones have plenty of capacity. | |
|
| | | | | |
to wifi4milez
Unfortunately the underlying technology is failed....you can only bond so many channels together, which is what DOCSIS 3.0 does..there are limitations inherit in DOCSIS 3.0, sure nobody needs the speed now, but within 5 years it will be DOCSIS 4.x bla bla bla....trying to keep up with FTTP....run MTF run.... | |
|
| | | | | |
to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:said by nasadude:said by wifi4milez:.. and thats precisely why the caps are being implemented. .. caps are being implemented for the sole reason of sucking more money out of existing customers. stopping p2p and illegal downloading is a red herring. Thats your opinion, however my statement that most sites cant be accessed any faster (on a 50Mbps connection) is an irrefutable fact. Each time DSLR reports about faster internet speeds there is inevitably an avalanche of "now I can reach the cap faster" posts. I am simply looking to point out that with the exception of piracy, most "normal" websites will behave in the same manor, and thus your caps wont be reached any quicker. Many of us have SEVERAL people pulling data at the SAME time, so your argument is short sighted and doesn't think further ahead than simply getting email and browsing by 1 person. Silly rabbit! | |
|
| | | | | RUSTOOPID |
to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:said by nasadude:said by wifi4milez:.. and thats precisely why the caps are being implemented. .. caps are being implemented for the sole reason of sucking more money out of existing customers. stopping p2p and illegal downloading is a red herring. Thats your opinion, however my statement that most sites cant be accessed any faster (on a 50Mbps connection) is an irrefutable fact. Each time DSLR reports about faster internet speeds there is inevitably an avalanche of "now I can reach the cap faster" posts. I am simply looking to point out that with the exception of piracy, most "normal" websites will behave in the same manor, and thus your caps wont be reached any quicker. Many of us have SEVERAL people pulling data at the SAME time, so your argument is short sighted and doesn't think further ahead than simply getting email and browsing by 1 person. Silly rabbit! | |
|
| | |  Cheese
Premium Member
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL |
to nasadude
said by nasadude:said by wifi4milez:.. and thats precisely why the caps are being implemented. .. caps are being implemented for the sole reason of sucking more money out of existing customers. stopping p2p and illegal downloading is a red herring. Caps are being implemented to get more money out of the top 1 percent of the people who use XXXgb a month. | |
|
| |  scrummie02Bentley
Premium Member
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA |
to wifi4milez
Actually that's false.
More and more website are pushing multimedia through their websites. Sites like hulu, netflix, joost and others are letting people watch full movies on the internet.
Games are more bandwidth intensive as well. Let's not forget things like xbox live marketplace where you can also purchase and download movies and shows and watch them in high def.
So no, high bandwidth usage isn't for only stealing content. | |
|
| | |  Matt3All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2008-Jun-6 12:11 pm
Re: With a cap of course...said by scrummie02:Actually that's false. More and more website are pushing multimedia through their websites. Sites like hulu, netflix, joost and others are letting people watch full movies on the internet. Games are more bandwidth intensive as well. Let's not forget things like xbox live marketplace where you can also purchase and download movies and shows and watch them in high def. So no, high bandwidth usage isn't for only stealing content. I agree. I can tell the difference in my 15Mbps connection and a Time Warner 5Mbps connection ... even though latency is about the same. | |
|
| | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
1 recommendation |
to scrummie02
said by scrummie02:Actually that's false. More and more website are pushing multimedia through their websites. Sites like hulu, netflix, joost and others are letting people watch full movies on the internet. Games are more bandwidth intensive as well. Let's not forget things like xbox live marketplace where you can also purchase and download movies and shows and watch them in high def. So no, high bandwidth usage isn't for only stealing content. Well, you raise an interesting argument. First let me say that when it comes to streaming content, you can only watch that content as fast as it is meant to be displayed. This means that even if you have a 10Gbps pipe the movie wont play any faster, so there will be no difference between between 3Mbps end user or a 50Mbps end user. Yes, sites are pushing more media content from their websites but unless you want to watch/listen to it in "fast forward mode" the extra bandwidth wont do anything for you. Neflix, Joost, and Hulu will provide exactly the same end user experience whether you have a 50Mbps connection or a 3Mbps connection (aside from the content loading slightly quicker). Contrary to popular belief, online games hardly use any bandwidth. In fact, most dont use much more than a few VoIP calls worth at a given time (if that). Again, an online player with a 50Mbps connection wont notice any difference over that of a 768k player. With online games, its latency that matters and bandwidth has absolutely nothing to do with it. As for purchasing/downloading HD movies from places like Xbox live, that too is irrelevant. To begin with, you need to pay for that content so its not like you are going to be downloading 24/7. Secondly, you plan on watching those movies at some point, right? The fact remains that a 2 hour HD movie will still take 2 hours to watch, regardless of how long it takes you to download it. Also, the Xbox site (and the Xbox itself) might not even be able to properly manage a 100Mbps request at this point in time (since nobody has them yet), so the who argument is moot. Dont get me wrong, having more bandwidth is a good thing. My point is that other than people who are pirating (fill in the blank), the vast majority of end users wont be reaching their caps any quicker than they are now. The infrastructure of most sites simply wont allow it. | |
|
| | | |  Frank
Premium Member
join:2000-11-03
somewhere |
Frank
Premium Member
2008-Jun-6 1:22 pm
Re: With a cap of course...said by wifi4milez:said by scrummie02:Actually that's false. More and more website are pushing multimedia through their websites. Sites like hulu, netflix, joost and others are letting people watch full movies on the internet. Games are more bandwidth intensive as well. Let's not forget things like xbox live marketplace where you can also purchase and download movies and shows and watch them in high def. So no, high bandwidth usage isn't for only stealing content. Well, you raise an interesting argument. First let me say that when it comes to streaming content, you can only watch that content as fast as it is meant to be displayed. This means that even if you have a 10Gbps pipe the movie wont play any faster, so there will be no difference between between 3Mbps end user or a 50Mbps end user. Yes, sites are pushing more media content from their websites but unless you want to watch/listen to it in "fast forward mode" the extra bandwidth wont do anything for you. Neflix, Joost, and Hulu will provide exactly the same end user experience whether you have a 50Mbps connection or a 3Mbps connection (aside from the content loading slightly quicker). Contrary to popular belief, online games hardly use any bandwidth. In fact, most dont use much more than a few VoIP calls worth at a given time (if that). Again, an online player with a 50Mbps connection wont notice any difference over that of a 768k player. With online games, its latency that matters and bandwidth has absolutely nothing to do with it. As for purchasing/downloading HD movies from places like Xbox live, that too is irrelevant. To begin with, you need to pay for that content so its not like you are going to be downloading 24/7. Secondly, you plan on watching those movies at some point, right? The fact remains that a 2 hour HD movie will still take 2 hours to watch, regardless of how long it takes you to download it. Also, the Xbox site (and the Xbox itself) might not even be able to properly manage a 100Mbps request at this point in time (since nobody has them yet), so the who argument is moot. Dont get me wrong, having more bandwidth is a good thing. My point is that other than people who are pirating (fill in the blank), the vast majority of end users wont be reaching their caps any quicker than they are now. The infrastructure of most sites simply wont allow it. there's a difference between watching a movie on a 50mbps pipe and 3mbps pipe. Just like you cant stream a 196mb 2minute 30 second movie trailer from www.apple.com/trailers @ 1080p on a 3mbps pipe unless you sit there and wait like 7 minutes or so for it to load. You wouldnt be able to stream a whole movie @1080p. The reason for this is the same reason you cant really stream a movie file while on dialup unless you sit there and wait for like an hour (not enough bandwidth). If you think 1080p is big, wait until the new hd resolutions come out which are even larger. | |
|
| | | | | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
2 edits |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2008-Jun-6 3:16 pm
Re: With a cap of course...said by Frank  If you think 1080p is big, wait until the new hd resolutions come out which are even larger. Only 25% of people have HDTVs and I would hazzard a guess that most are only 720p or 1080i. HD downloads from Apple or XBL are 720p. Nobody broadcasts in 1080p nor do they have such plans in the near future. So anything higher than 1080p is at least 20 years off at the earliest. I'm not really worried about 2028 right now. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: With a cap of course...Microsoft virtual earth uses quite a bit when you are browsing around the large cities with lots of skyscraper models | |
|
| | |  C_9084Kill The Socialists
Premium Member
join:2001-03-19
1 recommendation |
to scrummie02
False  bears, beets, battlestar galactica Online gaming barely takes up any bandwidth, latency is far more important | |
|
| | | |
to wifi4milez
I can download video content at that speed from LEGAL pay sites.
Your comment is ignorant. | |
|
| | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY |
Re: With a cap of course...said by Sturm :
I can download video content at that speed from LEGAL pay sites.
Your comment is ignorant.
Yes you can, but you will need to pay for it so you wont leave you connection running 24/7 like people do with Bit Torrent. Also, unless you are unemployed you can only watch so many movies in a given period of time. There comes a point that the number of movies you can download exceeds the amount of free time you have to watch them. This effectively negates any "benefit" you gain from downloading them quicker. | |
|
| | | | Matt3All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2008-Jun-6 12:49 pm
Re: With a cap of course...said by wifi4milez:said by Sturm :
I can download video content at that speed from LEGAL pay sites.
Your comment is ignorant.
Yes you can, but you will need to pay for it so you wont leave you connection running 24/7 like people do with Bit Torrent. Also, unless you are unemployed you can only watch so many movies in a given period of time. There comes a point that the number of movies you can download exceeds the amount of free time you have to watch them. This effectively negates any "benefit" you gain from downloading them quicker. Actually, no it does not. Being able to download them faster allows things like instant start to watch the movie while it's downloading, or gives you the ability to start watching the movie faster if you have to download the whole thing ... if I can download a movie in 20-30 minutes, rather than 24 hours, that's a better product to me. A higher speed allows this. | |
|
| | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY |
Re: With a cap of course...said by Matt3:Actually, no it does not. Being able to download them faster allows things like instant start to watch the movie while it's downloading, or gives you the ability to start watching the movie faster if you have to download the whole thing ... if I can download a movie in 20-30 minutes, rather than 24 hours, that's a better product to me. A higher speed allows this. Incorrect. The "instant start" thing that Netlfix offers has nothing to do with your bandwidth. They basically have a (very limited) selection of movies queued up on the head end of their network of servers. When you select instant start, they stream that particular title directly to you instead of waiting for it to download. As long as you have enough bandwidth to support a video stream (anything much above 1.5Mbps will work fine) you are in good shape. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: With a cap of course...said by wifi4milez:said by Matt3:Actually, no it does not. Being able to download them faster allows things like instant start to watch the movie while it's downloading, or gives you the ability to start watching the movie faster if you have to download the whole thing ... if I can download a movie in 20-30 minutes, rather than 24 hours, that's a better product to me. A higher speed allows this. Incorrect. The "instant start" thing that Netlfix offers has nothing to do with your bandwidth. They basically have a (very limited) selection of movies queued up on the head end of their network of servers. When you select instant start, they stream that particular title directly to you instead of waiting for it to download. As long as you have enough bandwidth to support a video stream (anything much above 1.5Mbps will work fine) you are in good shape. Ah no. Netflix uses clusters not "head ends" to stream video to you , And They are working on HD streaming , soon that would blow the 1.5 mbit idea out of the water. | |
|
| | | | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY |
Re: With a cap of course...said by BosstonesOwn:said by wifi4milez:said by Matt3:Actually, no it does not. Being able to download them faster allows things like instant start to watch the movie while it's downloading, or gives you the ability to start watching the movie faster if you have to download the whole thing ... if I can download a movie in 20-30 minutes, rather than 24 hours, that's a better product to me. A higher speed allows this. Incorrect. The "instant start" thing that Netlfix offers has nothing to do with your bandwidth. They basically have a (very limited) selection of movies queued up on the head end of their network of servers. When you select instant start, they stream that particular title directly to you instead of waiting for it to download. As long as you have enough bandwidth to support a video stream (anything much above 1.5Mbps will work fine) you are in good shape. Ah no. Netflix uses clusters not "head ends" to stream video to you , And They are working on HD streaming , soon that would blow the 1.5 mbit idea out of the water. You clearly dont understand what the term "head end" means. I never said the used "head end", I said they use servers (yes, clusters!) at their head end to deliver the content. Yawn...... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: With a cap of course...You're an idiot, you clearly did say head end, next time why don't you try actually providing a useful post instead of pretending you're the smartest member on DSLreports.
Clusters/Servers it's the same frigging thing. It's a computer with a better processor attached to a switch or router serving up your content. Stfu idiot. I never even comment on this site, but you sir, need a warm glass of stfu. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY |
Re: With a cap of course...said by DarkSorcerer:You're an idiot, you clearly did say head end, next time why don't you try actually providing a useful post instead of pretending you're the smartest member on DSLreports. Wow, you just made my day. You apparently have been puzzling over what "head end" means for over two months, given that was when this thread ended. The hilarious part is that you still dont understand the term! I am not even going to "insult your intelligence" (as if that was possible!) by linking to the widely known definition of the term, so have a great weekend amigo! One last thing, instead of sticking your foot in your mouth and looking like an idiot, try using Google (or your search engine of choice) to learn common technology related terms next time. | |
|
| |  jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA |
to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:Thats almost irrelevant. You will be hard pressed to find a site on the internet that can serve data at that rate. In fact, one of the only things you can do "full throttle" is steal content, and thats precisely why the caps are being implemented. Email and websurfing wont be any faster on a 50Mbps connection than they will be on a 3Mbps connection in most cases. Doesn't anyone have a family or perhaps a roommate or two? This does not have to be just one computer utilizing this bandwidth. Geez, it only takes a couple of teenagers to bog down a network. This increased bandwidth may not be necessary for a single user, but anyone with a home network and multiple users might find the increases to be a godsend. | |
|
| | |
••••••••••••••••••••• |
| |  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium Member
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX |
to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:In fact, one of the only things you can do "full throttle" is steal copy content, and thats precisely why the caps are being implemented. Fixed it for you. | |
|
| | | |
to wifi4milez
I've hit 60 mbit/s on Akamai hosted content (ATI, Microsoft). I could have gone faster but my HD light was solid. | |
|
| | |
to Amr3
said by Amr3:50Mbps with a cap of 250GB...horrible. even more horrible is 50Mbps at $150/mo.; the only people that would pay for that are likely to be power users. throw in the cap, which will only be reached quicker at 50Mbps, and I can see people saying "why bother". seems to be contradictory things going on in the broadband business. | |
|
|  Cabal
Premium Member
join:2007-01-21 |
Cabal to Amr3
Premium Member
2008-Jun-6 12:33 pm
to Amr3
Comcast doesn't have caps. | |
|
| |
•••• |
| 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
to Amr3
said by Amr3:50Mbps with a cap of 250GB...horrible. Just because you have 50 Mbps does that mean you have to download 24/7 at that speed? Isn't the benefit of having that speed is to download FASTER not MORE? Sorry but you could download 8 GB a day and still not go over your cap. Exactly how many GB a day do you intend to downloading LEGALLY? At least half their customers don't even download that in a month. What maybe 10-15% at best download that much in a week? | |
|
| | | |
Re: With a cap of course...said by 88615298:said by Amr3:50Mbps with a cap of 250GB...horrible. Just because you have 50 Mbps does that mean you have to download 24/7 at that speed? Isn't the benefit of having that speed is to download FASTER not MORE? Sorry but you could download 8 GB a day and still not go over your cap. Exactly how many GB a day do you intend to downloading LEGALLY? At least half their customers don't even download that in a month. What maybe 10-15% at best download that much in a week? I'm going to point something out to you. If you can download a file 5X faster wouldn't that mean you would have 5X more free time on the web to do other things such as download another Video? I don't think you realize file size on HD content. Have you looked at the size of a full Blu Ray movie? Your looking at 20GB easy and the fact is HDTV's are so much more affordable and sales are going up and up. Not to mention gas prices on the rise. Its only a matter of time before downloading vs driving to the rental store or waiting for a video in the mail will be eliminated. If I had the bandwidth to simply stream and download a full 1080P HD rental movie I'd probably download 3 or 4 a week. Even at 20GB thats 80GB per week at a cost of say $2.50 per rental so $10 bucks a week. Christ I'd have that tied up driving to the rental place to pick them up. Not to mention people that actually network and have more than one user on there setup. What happens when dad likes to download HD movies, Mom likes to stream here TV series, daughter likes Itunes, and there son likes porn? Anyone that doesn't see overall usage going up and up is a naive fool. As bandwidth gets faster and faster the options you have to do something increase. Why else would everyone's overall usage have went up and caps become a problem all of the sudden? P2P has been around for quite some time so don't blame torrents for the problem. People downloaded/uploaded just as much via P2P before Torrents were invented. | |
|
| | | fndelta
join:2008-04-28
Grosse Pointe, MI |
Re: With a cap of course...Haha This reminds me of when Bill Gates said that all we needed was 1mb of ram and we would be set for the future!!.. Plain and simple...agreed... caps and speed should go hand and hand... heck... i would even go about saying that 250 was fine for 8mbit but now those with 16 could be pushing it | |
|
 AdamB0
join:2001-01-07
Columbus, OH |
AdamB0
Member
2008-Jun-6 11:43 am
AwesomeNow we can reach our cap faster than before.  | |
|
| |
100Mbps / 2Mbps? Great package!Wow. I am excited.
/Sarcasm | |
|
|  DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey |
Re: 100Mbps / 2Mbps? Great package!It will probably be less. Like 100M / 128, and offer you a home package for 10 computers. | |
|
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ |
to fatmanskinny
2mbps upload couldn't supply enough ACKs to deliver 100mbit. | |
|
Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
3 edits |
And Verizon could be at 400MbVerizon has already demonstrated 100Mb residential over B-PON with Verizon employees, currently offers 50Mb/20Mb service in select markets and with G-PON which is currently being deployed could easily support 400Mb.
Comcast will have to do better than bragging about 100Mb service not to be seen for 2 years.
How about deploying speeds their network can actually support without draconian network management and drop the prices a bit? | |
|
|
•••••• |
Asus RT-AC66
|
caps?If they have any ethics to them at all, then the data caps will either be increased or lifted completely with the new DOCSIS implementation, because from what we've been told v.3 alleviates congestion problems, and therefore 'hogs' should no longer be a problem.
perhaps instead of 100Mbps, they should simply offer 10-20Mbps and not pack their network so tight now. I'm sure most users will not mind the 1/5 speed difference if data-caps are removed. the only reason for touting higher speeds IMO is for sales literature, and it will more than likely still include an 'up to' asterisk. | |
|
|
•••••••••••• |
 Ol
@80.lb.no
-2 recommendations |
Ol
Anon
2008-Jun-6 11:51 am
Docsis blowsDocsis is pure trash compared to FTTH. | |
|
 FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
1 edit |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Jun-6 12:04 pm
Docsis3 News highlighted at annual investor conferenceThe annual Merrill Lynch media conference highlights presentations from many media companies. Here was Comcast's presentation: » library.corporate-ir.net ··· 0508.pdfComcast customers are still upgrading to digital video and HSI, but at a slower rate than last year. But voice growth is still accelerating quickly. | |
|
 BSD24Tier 4
Premium Member
join:2008-04-30
Middleboro, MA |
BSD24
Premium Member
2008-Jun-6 12:07 pm
Why mention caps?Why would you guys even post about caps. Comcast hasn't setup caps for ppl yet, Time Warner is testing it. The faster the speed the higher you pay = the higher your cap anyways. Comcast hasn't decided if they will even cap it. I doubt an isp would give you a 100Mbps connection with a 50Mb cap! | |
|
|
•••••• |
| |
floridaguy
Anon
2008-Jun-6 12:45 pm
Sites can handle itWhile I lived in a dorm I had a gigabit fiber connection. I easily received 11-14 megaBYTE/second downloads from many legit free and pay sites. This would be the equivalent of 88-112Mbps (for those that have trouble with multiplying by 8). So to say that most sites can't push 50 may be true in some cases. *****MANY***** can. | |
|
|
••• |
 SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA |
SLD
Premium Member
2008-Jun-6 1:12 pm
Still waiting for the 2Mbit uploadI'm still waiting for the promised 2Mbit/sec upload speed that was supposedly going to be available yesterday at the latest. Lets get the current features working first, then worry about unrealistic claims later. | |
|
|
••••• |
| |
pitiful upstream100/5 is pitiful on the upload.. if it's not at least 10-20mbits on the upstream they might as well kill the idea altogether. Why in this day & age with docsis 2 (not even talking about the 100mbit upstream capability of docsis 3) upstream speeds capable of much more than 5mbit are companies so stingy when it comes to the upstream? | |
|
|
•••••••• |
| |
AND!!!BIIIIIIIIIIIG DEALLLLLLLLLLLLL  | |
|
| |
The question is?What would this mean to caps of 250 Gig? would the ability to download faster cause the user to change their behavior or habits? Using myself as an example, my usage wouldn't change. What would change is my streaming radio would now be 192 kbps instead of the 128 kbps it is now. The movies and shows that I watch and download wouldn't change, but the quality would change. Instead of downloading 480 X 720 videos It will be 720 X 1280. So, my quantity of content demanded wouldn't change, but the quality would change which will increase my total usage. I figure with the increase bandwidth the average user downloads will increase by less than 20% for most things other than movies or TV shows. In 2003 the average American family watched 145 hours of television a month. Let's say 25% or 36 hours of that will be from the internet. Based on Apple's iTunes use of 7 gigabyte for a 2 hour movie in 720p 36 hours of high definition would roughly use 126 Gigabyte. So, it seems (initially) that 95% of customers will download far less than 250 gigabyte a month even with a 100 Mbps pipe. | |
|
 siberx4Bandwidth hog
join:2004-10-19
West Vancouver, BC |
Games don't need the bandwidth?For those of you who were kind enough to remind us how online gaming requires very little bandwidth and simply requires low latency - yes, this is true. However, with the increasing adoption of direct downloads and digital distribution (that's a lot of D's  ) and the rapidly increasing *size* of games, you're going to be sitting there twiddling your thumbs for a long time if you're trying to buy games or similar content online. The recently released Age of Conan, for example, which occupies over 24gb installed, had a whopping 14gb download for the installer - and that was pretty decent compression as well (the install process took quite some time to extract it all). At 3mbps that's nearly 11 hours of straight downloading. Stack a few 8-15gb HD movies on top of that, and it becomes apparent pretty fast why a larger pipe might be warranted these days. | |
|
SlyLoK6
join:2007-10-19
Sugar Grove, VA |
What about.....What about a tiered cap system?
The first 250gb you receive full speed.
Once you go over the 250gb your speed is halved down to 25mb.
Download another 250gb and the speed is halved again... ect.
I honestly cant think of enough stuff to download to reach the 250gb myself much less 500gb... How many HDDs do these people have? lol | |
|
| |
mmatthe8667
Anon
2008-Jun-7 6:13 am
some businesses could use faster uploads or downloadsI personally do graphics. When I render I render to png or bmp format. these pictures can be up to 700 or megs each. So to be able to upload faster to sites for having them printed could be of major use. Now the turn around is the same..if I have a site I go to that allows people to post pics of this size and I download from there. Then I am looking at liking the higher speeds to be able to go from pic to pic as fast as possible. Just my 2 cents though.
mmatthe8667 | |
|
|
|
bears, beets, battlestar galactica
) and the rapidly increasing *size* of games, you're going to be sitting there twiddling your thumbs for a long time if you're trying to buy games or similar content online.