TDS Telecom Launches 50 Mbps Fiber > "The need for speed is insatiable..."

"The need for speed is insatiable..."

The 50mbps might not serve to be very useful for a single user, but when you've got a household with multiple users [computers, xbox, etc] accessing larger sized content, I'd imagine the added throughput could serve to be useful.

And even if not the downstream, the 20mbps of upstream would be a very nice step up from the average upload speed of most connections. Uploading any large sized file from a 512kbps connection SUCKS.

reply to mod_wastrel

said by mod_wastrel:

except when it's more the equivalent of driving a Ferrari on the typical 45mph (or slower) roads you typically find yourself on. 50mbps doesn't have a lot of usefulness, insatiable speed-wise, when the sites you visit limit bandwidth to only a fraction of that--either on purpose or due to congestion, unless you're doing a lot of concurrent browsing/downloading (which a family of 10 or 20 might actually be doing ).

Still, that's not a bad price for what you get (if you do actually get that).

My main "point" is not that such a connection could not be well-used by some (only a few get to hit the Autobahn all that often--none in the US), but that "the need for speed" is *not* "insatiable" (except for a few). On the other hand, the need for value (and economy) is in far more demand... and that demand is seldom being met. If you want 50/20, and you can get it, then more power to you; but way many more people would really like something (much) slower and (much) cheaper. The lower end of broadband is being washed away by rhetoric and marketing due to the "need" for revenue to finance all of those getting-cheaper-all-the-time network upgrades (or was that for some CEO's yacht upgrade?).

Fiber is expensive. Dialup is cheap. 768k DSL was $20 last I checked.

reply to jmn1207
According to the original poster, you are not "normal". *rollseyes*

He probably thinks you are a media pirating whore. *rollseyes again*

I know of many legitimate uses for such an connection and we are in the HD media age where content will be delivered more and more online. MLB, NBA, NHL, and the NFL are some pro sports leagues that stream games live (or achived) in HD for a fee. Let's not forget those video delivery services either: Netflix and Blockbuster.

Personally, I'm more interested in upload than download speeds. I game alot here at home on two XBOXes and my 1 MB connection is not even enough.

But then again, I'm not normal either for consuming the bandwidth that I do.

*end rant*

reply to iansltx
Fiber isn't expensive; build-outs are expensive. But customers buying something is better than no customers buying nothing. Frankly, it's kind of pitiful that 5/2 for $30 isn't available. I like my 30/5 FiOS, but I know plenty of people (tech people, like me) who neither need nor want to be on the bleeding edge of ISP hype or ISP revenue streams.

reply to jarthur31

reply to mod_wastrel

Build the pipe and uses will follow...

reply to mod_wastrel

Re: "The need for speed is insatiable..."

reply to joebarnhart

Re: Build the pipe and uses will follow...

reply to mod_wastrel

Re: "The need for speed is insatiable..."

Well, yeah, please feel free to buy everything from your ISP that your ISP says you need (aka the 1972 telco mindset). I stream plenty of SD video, which peaks at about 2mbps or so; HD video at maybe a little more than twice that. So, a typical 2-person household would "need" all of 10mbps (max) most of the time to do all of the typical things that make an Internet connection useful and entertaining. Sorry, but the huge majority of customers aren't gaming or taking part in LAN parties; most don't upload much at all. As I said before, everyone has the right to want whatever speed they want, to do whatever they want with it; but the number of customers who can, or want to, find all of the uses to maximize a 50mbps (or better) connection are very much in the minority; and their "insatiable" needs... aren't. Most people don't "live" on the Internet... they just use it; and the less they can spend to do the things they really "need" to do, the happier they are. But for those who want to drink the ISP kool-aid, enjoy that UBB, too, when it comes rollin' in.

And since we are on the subject of needs, when I was kid I surfed BBS's on a 9600 baud modem, which was fine for the time. I checked email, played games, even early MMO types (LORD).

So was that all anybody needs as well since we've decided to be so thick-headed and obtuse?

Your argument doesn't even BEGIN to give answers to what people need when large portions of the country can't even get 5 mbit, or future needs, etc. You may as well be telling us that all we need is 640k of ram.

Here's a clue: Stop talking about websites. Again, the ones based around text and graphics can easily be ran on 256 kbit dsl.

Sites requiring large download capabilities are growing fast and will be upgrading as time moves. Again, your outdated argument is based on ignorant assumptions of what people need and is based at around 2006.

You are using a limitation of speed to say that people who have slow speeds at high prices wouldn't find ways to use high speeds ALL BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY CAN'T USE THOSE OTHER METHODS, while clearly ignoring what countries like Japan does.

All you're saying is that things change over time. Duh. All I've been saying is that there are always going to be those that want the fastest connections possible--some who'll be able to max it out and some who just want it (which is fine)--as well as those who just want a connection and don't really care about how fast it is as long as they can do what they need/want to do. No matter how fast the fastest connections available are, there are always going to be more people who want better value instead of faster speeds, and ISPs are always going to be pushing to get people to spend more on their products (because that's what "business" is all about). Yeah, a lot of people can't get any broadband at all--thanks to ISPs that don't care because the ROI isn't enticing enough. You need to stop assuming things for and about others based on your (limited) personal experience and/or learn that there are many more people out there who *aren't* you and don't want what you want. ISPs *never* have your best interests at heart, only their coffers, and the only thing "insatiable" in this discussion is their desire to stick their hands in your wallet. You need to take you head out of the sand. (BTW, for future reference, your arguments will work better when they don't consist of putting words in other people's mouths. In other words, I really feel no need to defend a position I never took.)

You originally stated that 50/20 was not useful because of congestion and bandwidth limiting. Having had such a connection, I merely pointed out that this was not the case, and even provided an example off the top of my head.

I think that was the meat of the follow ups, but things got a bit clouded and off the beaten path.

The fact that the US ISPs seem to be competing in services, rather than prices, is something I completely agree with you on. There really aren't too many options for affordable plans that are "good enough" for 95% of the people. It's overpriced and overkill, or back to dialup, it seems.

reply to mod_wastrel
A few years ago, Fiber buildouts were cost prohibitive.

Now fiber build-outs are cheap or cheaper than copper. The problem is, existing companies already have a significant investment in copper.

Discuss Further: »monticellofiber.net