dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2
share rss forum feed
« Special market...
This is a sub-selection from They're right

JimmySask

join:2004-06-24
Regina, SK
reply to en102

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.
--
I do whatever my Rice Krispies tell me too....



Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com

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.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal

wtansill
Ncc1701

join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
reply 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.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony.


phattieg

join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL

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.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1.

wtansill
Ncc1701

join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA

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?
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony.


phattieg

join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL

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?
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1.

wtansill
Ncc1701

join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA

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?
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony.