dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17
share rss forum feed

sonicmerlin

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

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

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:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
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
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...

sonicmerlin

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

iansltx

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