dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14
share rss forum feed


Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1
reply to iansltx

Re: I'll beat the 3/768 dead horse

said by iansltx:

Granted, it's not a high number at all, but I'd say that about 95% of everything on the internet can be done perfectly well over a connection that delivers 3 Mbps down and 768 kbps up, with a latency to the nearest major city less than 60ms. For ADSL that means provisioning the link at 3490 kbps down and 894 kbps up, and delivering provisioned speeds 24x7. Granted, these are laughably low numbers for everyone on 20+ Mbit cable connections, but if the above connection was made available to almost everyone in the US (90% or more, maybe 95% or more) at a reasonable price ($50 or less per month either unbundled or with the cost of the minimum bundle included) then everyone AT LEAST would be able to use the internet of today, though more upgrades will be needed to bring things up to par for, say, five years down the road.
No, no it can not handle 95 percent of everything. Maybe 5-10 years ago.


CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

I would absolutely say the average household can get by just fine with 3\768. I know far too many who are getting by with no issues with 3 down and even 1.5 meg down (like me).
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

said by CylonRed:

I would absolutely say the average household can get by just fine with 3\768. I know far too many who are getting by with no issues with 3 down and even 1.5 meg down (like me).
That`s probably because they limit their activities to things that actually work on a 3/1.


CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

1 edit

No - they have no problems and they do not limit. I have yet to find anything I can't do on 1.5 meg. Large downloads can be done over night without issue. Streaming has zero issues as well.

I won't and don;t (and neither do my friends) watch tv or movies online but streaming a TV has (the few times I have done it) has never been an issue. We do not watch movies on the PC - we have TV we do that on and prefer to watch on.

I would bet teh majority of folks in the US would use the internet connection to download files - and for that you do nto need a uber fast 50 meg download.
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain



udontneeddat

@ameritech.net

IDontUseItSoYouDontNeedIt(TM)
YouDontNeedFasterBandwidth(TM)
AllWebSitesAreUnder500K(TM)
YouDontNeedYouTube(TM)
SlowLinesAretheNewGreen(TM)
ThereAreNoHomesWithMultipleUsers(TM)

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

My apartment complex is shared with about twenty other colege students. Most of them (everyone except myself and, some of the time, my roommates) are sharing a Qwest connection that's about 4.2 Mbps down and 700 kbps up. It's not blazing fast (the university connection next door is as long as you plug into Ethernet) but I'm the only one paying for my own internet connection. I have friends on 7M 9really 6M) Qwest and they're fine too. I personally like my 22/5 Comcast but realize that most people don't use the internet as much as I do, and the only benefits I see with the speed are faster downloads and uploads of large files (I could still do them over a slow connection, but it would take longer). Assumiing Qwest's network wasn't jacked up at the time, Hulu would work fine over their 1.5 Mbps tier.

I can definitely find things to do with a 50-100 Mbps connection, however I've yet to find out what more than 1% of the population needs this connection for, right now. Of that 1%, most people aren't actually on that connection. Some can't get it, some can. Those who can say it's too expensive. Well then, you obviously don't need the connection enough...getting 50 Mbps here would require a dedicated fiber circuit and several thousand dollars per month. if you thought that $100 with cable TV was expensive, think again.

As for all websites not being under 500K, that's absolutely correct. Some websites aren't terribly well-designed or wee made specifically for high-speed connections. However a 1 MB web page can be pulled down in a couple of seconds on a 3 Mbps connection, which is acceptable considering that at that point you're looking more at latency and browser rendering speed than connection speed. At least for now. Anything bigger than 1MB or so and you're dealing with streaming meia or large images, which by default take a fair amount of time to load. Not that you can't set a goal that a 12 megapixel low-compressio JPEG load instantly, but we've got to talk about priorities.

As for YouTube, you can run that on a high-quality 384 connection. I believe HD can be run on a few Mbps, 5 Mbps at most. Probably more like 3 Mbps. If you want to find a bandwidth-hungry site Hulu, YouTube, Vmeo, Crackle etc. won't do it; they're optimized for people's current connections.

As for the multiple users bit, see my first point. Also, right now I'm sitting on a 512k conection. If the quality of the connection itself didn't suck so badly and my router had decent QoS the family would have no problem sharing it around. Hopefully we'll be able to get 1 Mbps Verizon DSL in (fingers crossed) and the problem will go away. Two simultaneous YouTube videos plus some background downloads and everything should be just peachy.


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to CylonRed

said by CylonRed:

No - they have no problems and they do not limit. I have yet to find anything I can't do on 1.5 meg. Large downloads can be done over night without issue. Streaming has zero issues as well.

I won't and don;t (and neither do my friends) watch tv or movies online but streaming a TV has (the few times I have done it) has never been an issue. We do not watch movies on the PC - we have TV we do that on and prefer to watch on.

I would bet teh majority of folks in the US would use the internet connection to download files - and for that you do nto need a uber fast 50 meg download.
My God, people are not all the same as you. Their preferences and habits are quite often different.

Waiting `all night` for something to complete deters people from using it. Make something easy and accessible, and the people will come.

Your attitude is incredibly narrow.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to iansltx

said by iansltx:

My apartment complex is shared with about twenty other colege students. Most of them (everyone except myself and, some of the time, my roommates) are sharing a Qwest connection that's about 4.2 Mbps down and 700 kbps up. It's not blazing fast (the university connection next door is as long as you plug into Ethernet) but I'm the only one paying for my own internet connection. I have friends on 7M 9really 6M) Qwest and they're fine too. I personally like my 22/5 Comcast but realize that most people don't use the internet as much as I do, and the only benefits I see with the speed are faster downloads and uploads of large files (I could still do them over a slow connection, but it would take longer). Assumiing Qwest's network wasn't jacked up at the time, Hulu would work fine over their 1.5 Mbps tier.

I can definitely find things to do with a 50-100 Mbps connection, however I've yet to find out what more than 1% of the population needs this connection for, right now. Of that 1%, most people aren't actually on that connection. Some can't get it, some can. Those who can say it's too expensive. Well then, you obviously don't need the connection enough...getting 50 Mbps here would require a dedicated fiber circuit and several thousand dollars per month. if you thought that $100 with cable TV was expensive, think again.

As for all websites not being under 500K, that's absolutely correct. Some websites aren't terribly well-designed or wee made specifically for high-speed connections. However a 1 MB web page can be pulled down in a couple of seconds on a 3 Mbps connection, which is acceptable considering that at that point you're looking more at latency and browser rendering speed than connection speed. At least for now. Anything bigger than 1MB or so and you're dealing with streaming meia or large images, which by default take a fair amount of time to load. Not that you can't set a goal that a 12 megapixel low-compressio JPEG load instantly, but we've got to talk about priorities.

As for YouTube, you can run that on a high-quality 384 connection. I believe HD can be run on a few Mbps, 5 Mbps at most. Probably more like 3 Mbps. If you want to find a bandwidth-hungry site Hulu, YouTube, Vmeo, Crackle etc. won't do it; they're optimized for people's current connections.

As for the multiple users bit, see my first point. Also, right now I'm sitting on a 512k conection. If the quality of the connection itself didn't suck so badly and my router had decent QoS the family would have no problem sharing it around. Hopefully we'll be able to get 1 Mbps Verizon DSL in (fingers crossed) and the problem will go away. Two simultaneous YouTube videos plus some background downloads and everything should be just peachy.
Your arguments are silly and irrelevant. You`ve basically taken a `race to the bottom` approach.

Regardless of what your personal judgment or opinion of the current situation entails, the history of infrastructure construction has demonstrated that use of that infrastructure only truly becomes a necessity after the infrastructure is already built.

If you build it, they will come. Just because you can`t imagine something now, or perhaps simply refuse to, doesn`t mean we should all lower our expectations to satisfy your view of the world.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET

said by sonicmerlin:

Your arguments are silly and irrelevant. You`ve basically taken a `race to the bottom` approach.
They are neither. Not that I wouldn't mind 100 Mb/s symmetrical. But if you can't profitably deliver it for less than $40 a month, I don't want it.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
reply to sonicmerlin

Ya got me all wrong.

Companies should be able to offer high-quality service and such, including 50 or 100 Mbps symmetric if they feel like it. If I had money to deploy a fiber optic system in my town right now I'd START with TWC's current tiers, up them by a few megabits, make them symmetric and charge the same price as TWC is right now. So 20 Mbps symmetric for $50, 10 Mbps symmetric for $40. I'd probably add 50 Mbps symmetric around $80, and would subscribe to that tier if I were a customer.

However we're talking about a baseline here (or at least I am). Let's get everyone who wants to walk speedwalking before sending a select few to the moon "just because." I'd rather get 3/768 to ten customers who couldn't get it before than 50/50 to a single customer who can currently get 15/2. Don't get me wrong, technology will benefit from higher broadband speeds, but our big issue is getting the speeds we do have out to everyone.

FWIW the average speed of the top country in the world right now, according to speedtest.net, is "only" about 21 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up. So if we had percentile-based billing with 30/15 Mbps (down and up) as the fixed speed and heavy customers paying more (and lighter customers paying less) that would actually put us on top of the heap...assuming we could bring that to everyone. Which would cost a dozen or two times what the current broadband plan calls for.

Though with Ubiquiti equipment (yay »ubnt.com) I'm guessing you could push out a 10/2 or so service (maybe even 10 Mbps symmetric) to a lot of places for relatively cheap. You just have to have a decent middle mile. Which we might be getting around here...pretty excited about that...



CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to sonicmerlin

My god - I never said anything about everybody are all not the same - hence the MAJORITY (ie: Not ALL as you suggest). Most people use the web to surf, read emails, and do some streaming radio\tv 1.5 can EASILY deal with that and 3 meg could still do that easily. Gaming online can be dine with 1.5 meg as well - effortlessly. The MINORITY could use uber fast connections to download movies. It makes ZERO sense to give uber fast connections to the majority when teh price point will be wayyyyy to high for the majority who use it as described above. It makes more common and financial sense to roll out basic service first with plans for advanced services that cost more - but I think the amount of folks doing the faster speed for a lot more money (speed is no where near free) will be the minority.

I do not remember the last time I had to wait all night for anything to download - probably the last item was the full install of Americas Army 3 and that only took 4 or so hours.

I found the reading comprehension to be narrow and incomplete.
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

said by CylonRed:

My god - I never said anything about everybody are all not the same - hence the MAJORITY (ie: Not ALL as you suggest). Most people use the web to surf, read emails, and do some streaming radio\tv 1.5 can EASILY deal with that and 3 meg could still do that easily. Gaming online can be dine with 1.5 meg as well - effortlessly. The MINORITY could use uber fast connections to download movies. It makes ZERO sense to give uber fast connections to the majority when teh price point will be wayyyyy to high for the majority who use it as described above. It makes more common and financial sense to roll out basic service first with plans for advanced services that cost more - but I think the amount of folks doing the faster speed for a lot more money (speed is no where near free) will be the minority.

I do not remember the last time I had to wait all night for anything to download - probably the last item was the full install of Americas Army 3 and that only took 4 or so hours.

I found the reading comprehension to be narrow and incomplete.
Why would the price point be too high? It isn`t at all high in the countries with faster speeds than us. I don`t think you fully comprehend just how much price gouging occurs among US ISPs.

Laying out fiber to the rural area isn`t significantly more expensive than laying out fiber to urban dwellers, in large part because the vast majority of rural houses are situated along a road. So the fiber can be strung along poles all the way to their house, and only has to be buried at the very end.

Rural carriers` estimates for cost per household has been less than $1500. That`s not too much more than Verizon`s estimates of cost per household for their deployment of FIOS.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to iansltx

said by iansltx:

Ya got me all wrong.

Companies should be able to offer high-quality service and such, including 50 or 100 Mbps symmetric if they feel like it. If I had money to deploy a fiber optic system in my town right now I'd START with TWC's current tiers, up them by a few megabits, make them symmetric and charge the same price as TWC is right now. So 20 Mbps symmetric for $50, 10 Mbps symmetric for $40. I'd probably add 50 Mbps symmetric around $80, and would subscribe to that tier if I were a customer.

However we're talking about a baseline here (or at least I am). Let's get everyone who wants to walk speedwalking before sending a select few to the moon "just because." I'd rather get 3/768 to ten customers who couldn't get it before than 50/50 to a single customer who can currently get 15/2. Don't get me wrong, technology will benefit from higher broadband speeds, but our big issue is getting the speeds we do have out to everyone.

FWIW the average speed of the top country in the world right now, according to speedtest.net, is "only" about 21 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up. So if we had percentile-based billing with 30/15 Mbps (down and up) as the fixed speed and heavy customers paying more (and lighter customers paying less) that would actually put us on top of the heap...assuming we could bring that to everyone. Which would cost a dozen or two times what the current broadband plan calls for.

Though with Ubiquiti equipment (yay »ubnt.com) I'm guessing you could push out a 10/2 or so service (maybe even 10 Mbps symmetric) to a lot of places for relatively cheap. You just have to have a decent middle mile. Which we might be getting around here...pretty excited about that...
The capacity of the internet actually grows approximately according to Moore`s law. We should set a goal to string fiber to 95% of the population in the US. Once the fiber is laid, we won`t have any more significant capital expense issues.

This is our *national broadband plan* and we are the *friggin` United States of America* darn it! We do not let anyone in the world better us.


CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

1 edit
reply to sonicmerlin

And yet those other countries are easier to lay fiber in because of population densities. When there are hugh population density in large cities it is EASY to get the majority of the population with high speeds as less fiber needs to be run and more people per run = higher percentage of the population that has high speeds. This is NOT the case in the US and the cost WILL be far higher than in other countries to get the same % of people on fiber as in say most of Asia.

Verizon is spending 20+ billion to lay fiber in niche pockets and not even coming CLOSE to laying fiber in all of their markets in cities much less rural markets. To wire 99% of our population - a conservative cost I would give is around a half trillion dollars. In a lot of Asian countries they could probably do it for around half of that and get 99% of their population on fiber. Huge, huge, huge difference in cost.

In the US the companies that lay the fiber have to make money - it is demanded by the shareholders. Therefore - as more rural areas are wired with fiber and more and more fiber is laid down with less and less customers per mile - the cost gets exponentially higher and those have to be paid for by the end user.

It is going to be many years before a rural person can have a 20\10 connection for $40 - this is simply a pipedream and so unrealistic it is not funny.

EDIT - Wiki population density maps:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America - approx 33.x per km2 for NA.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia - most Asian countries that have uber fast connections and a large population with fast internet connections (like Japan): Japan - 331.x per km2, Singapore - 6547.x per km2. South Korea - 490.x per km2. Looking at this info - to me it looks like most Asian countries have large population densities. Much larger than the US which makes it easier and cheaper to get fast internet to large swaths of the population.

From this map »maps.howstuffworks.com/united-st···-map.htm we CAN see that there are a number of large population centers with lots of people. This is the reason why large cities generally get the faster internet speeds. It IS the reason why Verizon wired a swath of the East Coast first. But the issue is the larger area that have low population densities (midwest to Washington State - even Northern CA has low population density) - those will be exponentially more expensive due to less people per line while the cost of the wire and deployment stays the same. In reality the cost would not remain the same but go up as more RTs and repeaters\amps would likely be needed. And I am not taking geography into the mixture yet.

quote:
and the innovator of new IP services.
This can still happen even with what we have today - it will just be very expensive for a good while unless you want to dismantle the economic system and make the US govt an ISP.
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
reply to sonicmerlin

It would on average take maybe $2000-$2500 per house to string fiber to it at this point. Multiply that by the number of houses that don't have fiber yet and you're looking at a LOT of money. A lot of your (and my) tax money. No thanks.

Out of curiosity, what kind of connection are you on now, and what's the fastest connection that you've been on? I've been on everything from dialup to a 100M-port gigabit-to-internet university network and the biggest consumer of bandwidth on-campus is our twelve-rack supercomputer. Second-largest is probably BitTorrent. Third-largest is probably YouTube. Then again we're looking at college students here. They couldn't possibly be showing what everyone will do in the future on the Internet of tomorrow...it's too low-bandwidth and similar to what the ydo today!

Well, seeding a public-tracker torrent of the latest movie in BlueRay-Rip format isn't quite low-bandwidth...



skuv

@rr.com
reply to Cheese

said by Cheese:

No, no it can not handle 95 percent of everything. Maybe 5-10 years ago.
3m/768k can't do 95% of everything needed on the Internet?

If you believe that, name some things it can't do then.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
reply to Cheese

said by Cheese:

No, no it can not handle 95 percent of everything. Maybe 5-10 years ago.
My 3M/512k connection is quite capable of handling 1000% of everything I do on the Internet. Even YouTube and Veoh. I suppose it would be a PITA if I were trying to push streaming video to other people; but I am not.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum