 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | reply to Hpower
Re: caps? Again, faster speeds doesn't always equal more consumption. |
|
| The vast majority of people purchase the lowest tier broadband speeds. So yes, when someone purchases the highest tier and pays premium prices for those speeds it almost always means higher consumption. Those people are purchasing those tiers so that they experience the benefits of faster and easier consumption of the vast quantities that they intend to consume. |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | Faster. You said it right there. I get faster speeds so I can get things done in less time. That doesn't mean I am always going to search out more and more. |
|
| You seem to be intent on ignoring the crux of what I'm pointing out. People who consume very little are focused on paying as little as possible, and therefore access the minimum tier of broadband available. Why do you think cable operators like Time Warner never, *ever* advertise their super lowest tier at $20/month? Getting them to admit they even have that tier requires that you request to speak to a manager at customer service.
When someone willingly and knowingly purchases a higher-priced tier for higher speeds, they are almost exclusively doing so for the sake of consuming more data. Thus in Sweden, when someone pays $50/month for their 100/100mbit line, instead of $10/month for their much slower line, they're doing so with the intent of using that connection frequently and consuming a huge quantity of bandwidth. |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·VOIPo
| said by sonicmerlin:You seem to be intent on ignoring the crux of what I'm pointing out. People who consume very little are focused on paying as little as possible, and therefore access the minimum tier of broadband available. Why do you think cable operators like Time Warner never, *ever* advertise their super lowest tier at $20/month? Getting them to admit they even have that tier requires that you request to speak to a manager at customer service. When someone willingly and knowingly purchases a higher-priced tier for higher speeds, they are almost exclusively doing so for the sake of consuming more data. Thus in Sweden, when someone pays $50/month for their 100/100mbit line, instead of $10/month for their much slower line, they're doing so with the intent of using that connection frequently and consuming a huge quantity of bandwidth. As do you. Alot of people also purchase faster speeds simply for the fact that it won't take as long to get things done. I had AT&T DSL at 5 mbps. I ordered the 10 mbps line from my cable provider so it doesn't take a painfully long time to download a demo on Xbox Live, etc. I cut the time to do things in half. That doesn't mean I automatically go out in search of more things and my consumptions goes through the roof.
People want to do things faster, but that doesn't always means they want to do more of it.
We can agree to disagree.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to ptrowski
said by ptrowski:Again, faster speeds doesn't always equal more consumption. most of the time it does though
--
God Blesshttp://www.emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com-- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" |
|
 mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to ptrowski
At some point the faster speed for less becomes irrelevant. If you want speed 10-15 mbps is enough, anything above is a waste because you're typically not going to get any higher for surfing or email use. You can't justify low caps on a 50 mbps service otherwise what's the point. |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| reply to hescominsoon
There was a study out of Japan someone had posted here that even though 100 mbps lines have been available for a while the average usage was around 35 gigs or so.
I never said it is a sweeping statement I made. But to say almost everyone who gets faster speeds will consume tons more is a bit off. |
|
| reply to ptrowski
you mean faster so you can hit them low caps faster LOL |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to mlerner
said by mlerner:At some point the faster speed for less becomes irrelevant. If you want speed 10-15 mbps is enough, anything above is a waste because you're typically not going to get any higher for surfing or email use. You can't justify low caps on a 50 mbps service otherwise what's the point. That's not necessiarily true..
I have game updaters that user torrent technology and it routinely saturates my 20Mbit/20Mbit service while it's running.
iTunes/Amazon/Netflix also get upwards of 10mbit when downloading movies etc.
Webservers can also get up there. Anything less than 5mbit can slow down page loads for content rich pages since most large companies can burst up to 5-10mbit for small files. Though Youtube seems to be having some major issues.
I would argue that 50mbit is overkill for anyone.. Right now 20mbit to me is a sweet spot for price/vs performance.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com |
|
mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | said by NOCMan:said by mlerner:At some point the faster speed for less becomes irrelevant. If you want speed 10-15 mbps is enough, anything above is a waste because you're typically not going to get any higher for surfing or email use. You can't justify low caps on a 50 mbps service otherwise what's the point. That's not necessiarily true.. I have game updaters that user torrent technology and it routinely saturates my 20Mbit/20Mbit service while it's running. iTunes/Amazon/Netflix also get upwards of 10mbit when downloading movies etc. Webservers can also get up there. Anything less than 5mbit can slow down page loads for content rich pages since most large companies can burst up to 5-10mbit for small files. Though Youtube seems to be having some major issues. I would argue that 50mbit is overkill for anyone.. Right now 20mbit to me is a sweet spot for price/vs performance. Right you may get more or less but 15 is all you're gonna need realistically for low usage and if you're that low usage chances are you're NOT using torrents. |
|
| said by mlerner:said by NOCMan:said by mlerner:At some point the faster speed for less becomes irrelevant. If you want speed 10-15 mbps is enough, anything above is a waste because you're typically not going to get any higher for surfing or email use. You can't justify low caps on a 50 mbps service otherwise what's the point. That's not necessiarily true.. I have game updaters that user torrent technology and it routinely saturates my 20Mbit/20Mbit service while it's running. iTunes/Amazon/Netflix also get upwards of 10mbit when downloading movies etc. Webservers can also get up there. Anything less than 5mbit can slow down page loads for content rich pages since most large companies can burst up to 5-10mbit for small files. Though Youtube seems to be having some major issues. I would argue that 50mbit is overkill for anyone.. Right now 20mbit to me is a sweet spot for price/vs performance. Right you may get more or less but 15 is all you're gonna need realistically for low usage and if you're that low usage chances are you're NOT using torrents. And that is still not true.
Sure, 15MBPS may have been all someone needed... if this was 2003. Try 150MBPS for today's applications. Video streaming, teleconferencing, VPN, digital distribution, porn (caught that didn't you? :P), heavy gaming; and I don't mean joke marathon sessions, I mean TRUE heavy gaming. Remind me to map my network for you to give you an idea of what I mean.
Then come little stuff like torrents. Though that's a matter of opinion depending on if you play games like World of Warcraft, or used things like Joost before it changed its application model. Such things are likely to burn GB at a time.
50MBIT is not overkill.
1GB is not overkill. It all depends on your application level and your needs. Frankly, my needs are more than most other persons.
I apologize. Sorry that I actually take advantage of the markets and mediums available to me. Ask around what I do with access to 100mbits. I've been known to do, at minimal, 300GB per day, and that's before accounting for torrent traffic (which doesn't raise the numbers by much).
Perhaps I should curtail my usage? (Ha ha, no). |
|
| reply to ptrowski
said by ptrowski:I never said it is a sweeping statement I made. But to say almost everyone who gets faster speeds will consume tons more is a bit off. I would never say the same either, but the available room to grow should always be available to those who wish to take advantage of it. |
|
|
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| said by PapaMidnight:said by ptrowski:I never said it is a sweeping statement I made. But to say almost everyone who gets faster speeds will consume tons more is a bit off. I would never say the same either, but the available room to grow should always be available to those who wish to take advantage of it. Of course. Do I consume some more as things can be done faster, sure, it's enevitable. But the notion that almost everyone will download 4-5 HD movies per se instead of 1 is a stretch.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
| reply to ptrowski
Um...that simply confirms what I said about people choosing the lowest tier. Only high bandwidth and bit consumption consumers will purchase those symmetrical 100mbit connections. They do so in order to *use* those speeds for significant periods of time. |
|
 KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to ptrowski
I completely agree. As my speeds have gone up, my consumption has too, but not because of the increased service speeds, but because of the availability of services themselves, like TV streaming from NBC and the like.
However, that a correlation, not a direct cause. I don't actively go out and hunt for ways to saturate my connection.
What I DO want faster speeds for are things like faster file transfers via VPN to/from the office, or faster up/download for client files and reviews. That amount of data has remained fairly static over the past couple years but the time it takes to up/download that data has lessened considerably....which is simply a matter of convenience.
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
| reply to ptrowski
said by ptrowski:Again, faster speeds doesn't always equal more consumption. of course it does. especially if your somebody that actually USES the internet for its for -- the consumption as much data as possible  |
|
| reply to ptrowski
said by ptrowski:There was a study out of Japan someone had posted here that even though 100 mbps lines have been available for a while the average usage was around 35 gigs or so. I never said it is a sweeping statement I made. But to say almost everyone who gets faster speeds will consume tons more is a bit off. thats because the majority of internet users dont do anything useful on the internet, checking email and MSN and facebook and downloading your " ipod" mp3s
shouldnt be more than 35GB so there you go |
|
 DaneJasperSonic.NetPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:7 | reply to ptrowski
I'll toss my 2c in the ring and tell you that based upon real statistics in our real network, customers who buy higher speeds also use more bandwidth.
ALL other things being equal, a person given two different speed connections might consume the same amount of actual data, but all things are not equal. The consumer who pays a higher price for a higher speed is also the same consumer who makes more use of that connection.
-Dane |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | Right, there would be some as I have myself. But the typical arguement is wow, now we can hit our caps in 3 days so to speak. |
|
