said by cdru:
Show me a graph of your past 24 hours of bandwidth usage with your upload pegged at your service's limit and you can prove your point. Show it at anything less then near 100% utilization and you help support mine.
The relevance of the point doesn't hinge solely on 24/7 use of the upstream bandwidth, rather, whether functionality which occurs sporadically is contingent on there being even more upstream bandwidth than there is.
The assumption you're making here is that the average amount of stuff someone uploads can be easily spread out over the course of a day inside that 1-2 megabit window, comfortably. That doesn't always apply.
For example, I use a number of wireless networked security cameras for offsite monitoring, both at my house, other peoples houses (ones that I've recommended and setup for family, friends, e.t.c.). These things do MPEG4 640x480 streams, and a normal to high quality compression ratio uses at least
1.2-2 megabits. If you switch to MJPEG (for compatibility), that falls off even more. If you have more than one person viewing at a time, you're just guaranteeing a headache. Given the fact that I have 3, and another property has 4, you'll see that it often isn't possible to comfortably (at about 10 FPS) view more than two at a time. In situations like this (I guess another example would be placeshifting with a slingbox) the user doesn't have the convenience of simply letting the accrued bandwidth nicely integrate over the span of several hours. They need it, and they need it fast.
When I get home, if you really care, I'll show you my last 24 hours of usage pattern so you can see how viewing the camera immediately saturates both the "powerboosted" 3 megabits of upstream, and then the sagged 2 megabits that comes after.
said by cdru:
I agree that if the bandwidth is available, then uses will come up for it. But I disagree that demand always
grows to fill available space. If that was the case then everyone would be demanding their ISPs increase their upload speeds. But the majority of us still sit here with very asymmetrical connections. Why? Because people tolerate it because it meets their needs for what they want to pay.
If they wanted faster, symmetrical speeds then they would go with a plan that offered them, if available (e.g. FiOS's 20/20 plan), or be demanding them if they weren't available. But most residential customers don't want to pay the premium to they go on their merry way.
I think we're going to just have to disagree here. The example you give of FIOS is an entirely different and (from a penetration point of view) exotic newcomer. Trust me, as an optical engineer, I recognize the fact that FIOS and FTTH are so clearly the way to the future, but the current asymmetric offerings of the cable networks (which, ironically as you know is Hybrid Fiber Coax, I love fiber...) are endemic because of the narrow return bandwidth in the DOCSIS 1.x and even 2.0 (and even, arguably, the 3.0 spec as the article suggests).
It seems like, if the bandwidth is there, people will find a use for it eventually. That's what I mean when I say that it always grows (albeit sometimes slowly) to fill that space.
Interesting... I learn something new every day. I had no idea that actually wasn't him. I guess he just gets a bad rap for it.--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB.