how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
462 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 BHNtechXpertBHN StaffPremium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:32
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| Your FIOS bias is showing again Karl.... Karl,
Your FIOS bias is showing again. Seriously man stay neutral and just report the facts. Your statement above is inflamatory and clearly favoring Verizon in tone. This is not the first time you've done this...please make it your last.
The facts are the cablecos you mentioned are all FTTN and were long before Verizon decided to go with FIOS. This is the point each of those ads is trying to make while Verizon is prancing around as though they are the fiber gods....there are clear advantages and disadvantages in going either way with fiber...so long as the end result is a quality product to the consumer it really doesn't matter which way you go (FTTP or FTTN).
As for the bandwidth issue...with current emerging technologies this point is moot as well. Besides there is NO clear advantage to the residential consumer to offer anything above 30mbps at this time as there are only a handful of sites that are ready to deliver content anywhere close to this rate...something you always seem to leave out when you sing your FIOS praise songs...and to further complicate the issue most residential customers who own residential class routers find themselves unable to see those speeds as their routers are incapable of delivering anything close (wan to lan) and with the very few routers being made today that reliably deliver in a residential class price range (yea there are many that claim it...very few actually deliver and even fewer deliver such in a reliable manner). | |
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | The confusion is that cable company ads (or at least the Comcast ones I've seen) strongly imply and essentially outright say that Comcast's fiber is exactly the same (or better) compared to Verizon's fiber. This is a falsehood.
Not sure about your router comments, as Verizon provides its own router partially for that reason (and also for MoCA). Now the quality of said router is, well, debated. As for high speed capacity, I agree that really there's no point in having a 30mbps+ connection for a single download- the whole advantage of high speeds are to have multiple downloads and connections. | |
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
3 edits | reply to BHNtechXpert
said by BHNtechXpert:Besides there is NO clear advantage to the residential consumer to offer anything above 30mbps at this time as there are only a handful of sites that are ready to deliver content anywhere close to this rate... Why support 30 Mbps transfers when none of the access networks support it?
Maybe, just maybe, its because too few residential customers have ISPs that have kept up with normal individualized worldwide growth rates of bandwidth consumption.
Go back to the year 1999, when people jumped at Broadband for 1.5 Mbps speeds (give or take) and add the 40% or so each year... (has been trending downward lately, currently it's 33-36%, I'll use 40% as a swag)
1999 1.5 Mbps [1][2] [3]
2000 2.1 Mbps
2001 2.9 Mbps
2002 4.1 Mbps
2003 5.8 Mbps
2004 8.1 Mbps
2005 11.3 Mbps
2006 15.8 Mbps
2007 22.1 Mbps
2008 31.0 Mbps
30 Mbps isn't far off (if the "per user" demand growth was the current rate, it would be about 22 Mbps). So the truth can be seen somewhere in there.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
BHNtechXpertBHN StaffPremium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:32 Reviews:
·Clearwire Wireless
| said by funchords:said by BHNtechXpert:Besides there is NO clear advantage to the residential consumer to offer anything above 30mbps at this time as there are only a handful of sites that are ready to deliver content anywhere close to this rate... Why support 30 Mbps transfers when none of the access networks support it? Maybe, just maybe, its because too few residential customers have ISPs that have kept up with normal individualized worldwide growth rates of bandwidth consumption. Go back to the year 1999, when people jumped at Broadband for 1.5 Mbps speeds (give or take) and add the 40% or so each year... (has been trending downward lately, currently it's 33-36%, I'll use 40% as a swag) 1999 1.5 Mbps [1][2] [3]
2000 2.1 Mbps
2001 2.9 Mbps
2002 4.1 Mbps
2003 5.8 Mbps
2004 8.1 Mbps
2005 11.3 Mbps
2006 15.8 Mbps
2007 22.1 Mbps
2008 31.0 Mbps 30 Mbps isn't far off (if the "per user" demand growth was the current rate, it would be about 22 Mbps). So the truth can be seen somewhere in there. The consumption rates you quote are generated by the minority of users...yea I said it...the few are generating 80% of the traffic and quite frankly using way more than their fair share as it is and in many cases for questionable activity. When you take the torrent geeks out of the figures above its a whole different situation.
(don't bother flamin me on this one guys...I'm not pro "I should be able to do anything I want with my internet connection and to hell with everyone else or what it costs"....) -- people have lost all common sense, morality and responsibility for their actions while on the internet...they are under the false impression that its just a big free for all...and its not. Bandwidth and capacity cost big bucks in this world and the minority is coming nowhere close to actually covering the costs of the services they utilize meanwhile the rest of the responsible public picks up the expense.....
Back to the real issue.... | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by BHNtechXpert:The consumption rates you quote are generated by the minority of users. No, the rates I quote are the projections if you took 1999 speeds and added normal user consumption growth -- all users, individualized (or per capita, I guess)...and you are...said by BHNtechXpert:..the few are generating 80% of the traffic and quite frankly using way more than their fair share as it is and in many cases for questionable activity. As it has been since the day of the "party line", (which is not what you youngsters think it is).said by BHNtechXpert: When you take the torrent geeks out of the figures above its a whole different situation. And when you take the web surfers out of the figures, its a whole different situation. And if you go back another 5-10 years, you could take the FTP users out of the picture, or the gopher users. S.S.D.D.. said by BHNtechXpert:(don't bother flamin me on this one guys...I'm not pro "I should be able to do anything I want with my internet connection and to hell with everyone else or what it costs"....) In other words, "don't bother flamin me on this one guys, my minds made up and your vicious pack of facts won't sway me."said by BHNtechXpert: -- people have lost all common sense, morality and responsibility for their actions while on the internet...they are under the false impression that its just a big free for all...and its not. I think you've lost all sense of perspective.said by BHNtechXpert:Bandwidth and capacity cost big bucks in this world  said by BHNtechXpert:and the minority is coming nowhere close to actually covering the costs of the services they utilize meanwhile the rest of the responsible public picks up the expense..... And that's different than any other flat-rate system how?Which is?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
BHNtechXpertBHN StaffPremium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:32 Reviews:
·Clearwire Wireless
| When you find your vicious pack of facts get back to me....I'll be around.
As for perspective...I work in the industry...I deal with the facts EVERY single day and blv me when I say my perspective on this is liberal compared to many.
Comparing FTP and other forms of downloads from years gone by is a seriously flawed concept. I operated one of the largest BBS on the west coast for a number of years and never did we have issues like today because we (like all good operators) mandated responsible behavior whether it was downloads, uploads, posting, whatever and when people got out of control we put the brakes on them and repeated issues with a given person or group resulted in the offenders being sent away.
Now ISP's are looking at similar methods to handle abuse issues as they should...enough is enough. The few should not impact the many nor should the many have to pay for the flawed ways of the few.
****
On a side note....I have a website that requires streamed audio, video, images and related files to be streamed to the main server from my home 24/7 365. Even on a busy month with all this data trading places I come nowhere near what would be deemed unreasonable or unfair...in other words my usage while deemed high by my standards falls squarely within the average we expect to see (where I work).
I've reviewed accounts however that were so obscene in their usage you it would amaze you (and then probably make you angry...)
--
Can't find me here today? You can always reach me at »www.ispgeeks.com | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | When you find your vicious pack of facts get back to me....I'll be around.
As for perspective...I work in the industry...I deal with the facts EVERY single day and blv me when I say my perspective on this is liberal compared to many. said by BHNtechXpert:Comparing FTP and other forms of downloads from years gone by is a seriously flawed concept. Not at all. In fact, in the space of 14 years (my last data was 2007), FTP (14 years ago) and (today's) P2P protocols took up roughly the same percentage of Internet traffic. There was a lull about 8 years ago which is when HTTP was really taking off and long file transfers went HTTP as well. But the data says that, long file transfers have always been with us and at roughly the same proportion to total network traffic.
said by BHNtechXpert:I operated one of the largest BBS on the west coast for a number of years Then I probably was one of your users.
said by BHNtechXpert: and never did we have issues like today because we (like all good operators) mandated responsible behavior whether it was downloads, uploads, posting, whatever and when people got out of control we put the brakes on them and repeated issues with a given person or group resulted in the offenders being sent away. You're right, that's what used to happen.
said by BHNtechXpert:Now ISP's are looking at similar methods to handle abuse issues as they should...enough is enough. No, I see the opposite happening. I see abuse desks becoming more and more automated, less expert, because ISPs see these as an ongoing labor cost. So instead of stopping spammers, they create policies intended to reduce spam but that end up also tripping up the publisher of the church bulletin, or the Christmas newsletter, or the Rotary Membership Roster and some half-functional robot process thinks its spam because it has more than 10 addressees.
Part of the problem we're having today is that ISPs won't pick up the phone and talk to users in order to come to an understanding about what they're doing or to give users an education about acceptable use over a shared resource. If it's not automated or heavily scripted, it doesn't get done.
As a result, ISPs and users are at odds with one another instead of cooperating with each other.
With respect, we don't have "good operators" today.
said by BHNtechXpert: The few should not impact the many nor should the many have to pay for the flawed ways of the few. If you've been reading along, I subscribe to exactly the same credo.
said by BHNtechXpert: On a side note....I have a website that requires streamed audio, video, images and related files to be streamed to the main server from my home 24/7 365. Even on a busy month with all this data trading places I come nowhere near what would be deemed unreasonable or unfair...in other words my usage while deemed high by my standards falls squarely within the average we expect to see (where I work). What is it? I'd bet you'd find someone who thinks its beyond the pale. (Have you seen what Frontier is trying to pull off?)
said by BHNtechXpert:I've reviewed accounts however that were so obscene in their usage you it would amaze you (and then probably make you angry...) Probably. But I encourage you and others to get on the phone and find out. Could be that it's a case of complete innocent ignorance, it could be a telemetry error, it could be a hijack of some kind, or it could be someone who might be very cooperative but who doesn't realize their impact on others.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to EPS
Hey ispgeek, explain this to me .... Verizon made a fiOS commercial stating FACTS that their upload speeds blows cable away ... then cablevision DIRECTLY responds with an upload commercial comparing themselves to DSL. Why is that Karl? Is that NOT MISLEADING???
The term FiOS will NEVER be heard in a cablevison commercial. | |
J0k3r
join:2002-03-15
Lebanon, PA | reply to BHNtechXpert
said by BHNtechXpert:said by funchords:said by BHNtechXpert:Besides there is NO clear advantage to the residential consumer to offer anything above 30mbps at this time as there are only a handful of sites that are ready to deliver content anywhere close to this rate... Why support 30 Mbps transfers when none of the access networks support it? Maybe, just maybe, its because too few residential customers have ISPs that have kept up with normal individualized worldwide growth rates of bandwidth consumption. Go back to the year 1999, when people jumped at Broadband for 1.5 Mbps speeds (give or take) and add the 40% or so each year... (has been trending downward lately, currently it's 33-36%, I'll use 40% as a swag) 1999 1.5 Mbps [1][2] [3]
2000 2.1 Mbps
2001 2.9 Mbps
2002 4.1 Mbps
2003 5.8 Mbps
2004 8.1 Mbps
2005 11.3 Mbps
2006 15.8 Mbps
2007 22.1 Mbps
2008 31.0 Mbps 30 Mbps isn't far off (if the "per user" demand growth was the current rate, it would be about 22 Mbps). So the truth can be seen somewhere in there. The consumption rates you quote are generated by the minority of users...yea I said it...the few are generating 80% of the traffic and quite frankly using way more than their fair share as it is and in many cases for questionable activity. When you take the torrent geeks out of the figures above its a whole different situation. (don't bother flamin me on this one guys...I'm not pro "I should be able to do anything I want with my internet connection and to hell with everyone else or what it costs"....) -- people have lost all common sense, morality and responsibility for their actions while on the internet...they are under the false impression that its just a big free for all...and its not. Bandwidth and capacity cost big bucks in this world and the minority is coming nowhere close to actually covering the costs of the services they utilize meanwhile the rest of the responsible public picks up the expense..... Back to the real issue.... I wonder where these people got the idea of the "internet" being a giant free for all? Could it be all the years the ISPs were marketing their service as "Unlimited"? I mean come on, these ISPs created the heavy users and now they are upset about the consumption rate? Next time they should be honest of what they are selling so that way the users don't get false impressions.
With todays technologies you do not have to be some maniac data hungry "Pirate" to consume a large amount of bandwidth. I have verizon and I downloading gigs upon gigs of movies through the StarzPlay service that they offer for $5.99/mo. Keep in mind Netflix, Itunes, even my local news website has a large archive of news videos which can eat up some bandwidth.
The internet should not be looked at as a way to surf sites and check email, it does not do the technology justice. The only reason we have speed increases today is not because of the email checkers of the world, it is because of the highbandwidth users driving the need. Think about it, why would any company spend $100 bil if it was needed to support the business? I always hear how its just a few users consuming all of the bandwidth but if that was truely the case why do the companys spend all the money when it would be cheaper to just boot the "handful". I know comcast tried with all of the shady tactics a few years ago, hows that working?
Anyways /rant | |
|
