how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | reply to Ben
Re: They're not asking the right question. said by Ben:Instead of asking what the current speeds are, they should ask what's available. For example, a user may have a package of say, 25/3 available to him, but he may decide that 8/1 is good enough for him at this moment in time. Exactly. My ISP has a few speed tiers available, but 99% of customers could care less about a faster speed if a slower one is available. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of these areas have faster speeds available and nobody cares about them.
Who needs 4 megs, 20 megs, 50 megs for that matter? Not very many people. Most people don't need more than 1.5 megs.. In fact, a recent study (which might have even been reported by Karl on this site) determined that most users couldn't tell a difference once the speed was faster than 1.2 megs.
Streaming video is changing the requirement, but why 20 or 50 megs? 5 to 10megs is still way more than adequate for the time being. In 2015, yeah, I'm sure things will need to be faster yet again, but we're still a few years away, so it isn't worth getting upset that it isn't available now in 2010.
Another point, I'm sick of people "ranking" countries. I can't even begin to express how tired I am of people comparing the US to countries with the population density of South Korea or Japan. Anyone who does and tries to make the US look bad is an idiot. It truly is an apples to oranges comparison. | |
 BenPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL | said by jcremin:Who needs 4 megs, 20 megs, 50 megs for that matter? Not very many people. Most people don't need more than 1.5 megs.. In fact, a recent study (which might have even been reported by Karl on this site) determined that most users couldn't tell a difference once the speed was faster than 1.2 megs.
Where did you see that study? Who conducted it? I'd be curious to see it myself.
I say this mainly because I can tell the difference between 1.5 and 16 (or even 10). Then again, I'm probably not a typical user. Even so, it still surprises me since Internet video is becoming more popular, and YouTube has had 720p or even 1080p video for a little while now.
I do agree that most people don't have a need for the absolute fastest tier available to them, but 1.5Mbps does sound a little low. | | |
|
 IowaManPremium
join:2008-08-21
Grinnell, IA | You are correct. I subscribe to 3Mbps/256 for $29.95 because that is what I can afford. Even though I can get 20Mbps from Mediacom. | |
morph69
join:2001-09-03
Penetanguishene, ON | reply to jcremin
I am a heavy data user. Live near the central office. have instead decided to use a third party reseller of bell dsl services at a simple 3 meg connection with no limits as opposed to bells faster speeds and capped service. | |
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | reply to Ben
said by Ben:said by jcremin:Who needs 4 megs, 20 megs, 50 megs for that matter? Not very many people. Most people don't need more than 1.5 megs.. In fact, a recent study (which might have even been reported by Karl on this site) determined that most users couldn't tell a difference once the speed was faster than 1.2 megs.
Where did you see that study? Who conducted it? I'd be curious to see it myself. I say this mainly because I can tell the difference between 1.5 and 16 (or even 10). Then again, I'm probably not a typical user. Even so, it still surprises me since Internet video is becoming more popular, and YouTube has had 720p or even 1080p video for a little while now. I do agree that most people don't have a need for the absolute fastest tier available to them, but 1.5Mbps does sound a little low. I did a really quick search but didn't find the study I was thinking of. It was from probably 6 months ago or so. I did find this page, which didn't seem to be as in depth of a study (I just skimmed it quick and didn't read the whole thing) but appeared to have a similar conclusion: »gigaom.com/2005/12/20/need-for-speed/
Anyway, Yes, I'm sure you can tell a difference between 1.5 megs and 16 if you do video streaming or are are a power user. And if I remember right, the test wasn't focused so much on streaming video as it was on average surfing. But either way, I do you think you would notice much of a difference between 1.5 and 3 or 5 megs? Yes, I would think so.... Now how about between 5 megs and 16? I'm guessing most of the easily identifiable differences quickly disappear.
Either way, my point is simply that the story cries "the sky is falling" because 1) we can't play the speed game on the same level as other countries, most of which are either very small or have insane population densities, and 2) we don't have 50 megs available today, even though nobody really needs it, and it is still 4 years from 2015. | |
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | reply to morph69
said by morph69:I am a heavy data user. Live near the central office. have instead decided to use a third party reseller of bell dsl services at a simple 3 meg connection with no limits as opposed to bells faster speeds and capped service.
And I think that could very well be the way of the future... Slower unlimited speeds, or faster capped speeds. That way those who want stuff really fast right now can get it, but they can't do it all the time. And those who want to use their connection a lot, but don't need to download in faster than real-time can do that too.
The next few years will be interesting. | |
BenPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL | reply to jcremin
said by jcremin:I did a really quick search but didn't find the study I was thinking of. It was from probably 6 months ago or so. I did find this page, which didn't seem to be as in depth of a study (I just skimmed it quick and didn't read the whole thing) but appeared to have a similar conclusion: »gigaom.com/2005/12/20/need-for-speed/
Thank you for sharing that link. The information in that link is quite old. YouTube was almost brand new, and Netflix wasn't streaming video back then as far as I know.
Although, some of the concepts posed in it are still relevant today. Comparing the Internet to the road system (a wonderful analogy that helps explain many Internet-related things), I suppose it's like saying that faster speed limits won't mean that people would drive more miles.
Another thing mentioned in the article is still true today as far as I know. That many web servers limit the throughput to each individual user. I got my information from a forum for forum admins that I used to frequent, though it wouldn't surprise me if other web administrators do similar things.
said by jcremin:Anyway, Yes, I'm sure you can tell a difference between 1.5 megs and 16 if you do video streaming or are are a power user. And if I remember right, the test wasn't focused so much on streaming video as it was on average surfing. But either way, I do you think you would notice much of a difference between 1.5 and 3 or 5 megs? Yes, I would think so.... Now how about between 5 megs and 16? I'm guessing most of the easily identifiable differences quickly disappear.
Good point. Basically, you're referring to the concept of diminishing returns. I used to have a 10Mbps download speed. Later, it was upgraded to 16Mbps for no extra charge to me. While that extra speed does come in handy, the difference isn't as significant as when I switched from 1.5Mbps to 10.
I actually posed this very question to some people, on this site. It was along the lines of "What do you ever need 20Mbps for? Isn't 16Mbps enough, since many web sites throttle the speed anyway?" The answers I got were basically along the lines of how the faster speeds can help in larger households, such as a family of four. It wasn't something I considered, since I live alone.
said by jcremin:Either way, my point is simply that the story cries "the sky is falling" because 1) we can't play the speed game on the same level as other countries, most of which are either very small or have insane population densities, and 2) we don't have 50 megs available today, even though nobody really needs it, and it is still 4 years from 2015.
For the most part, I've agreed with what you said so far, except that I think 3Mbps or 5Mbps is a more appropriate value than 1.5Mbps. However, anytime someone uses the population density argument, I always have to disagree with them. If it was population density, then nearly every metro area would have broadband speeds that rival those numbers, since some of these places have densities that are similar to some of these countries. There's more to it than population density. | |
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | said by Ben:Thank you for sharing that link. The information in that link is quite old. Sorry didn't look at the date, but as you mentioned, some of the concepts still apply.
said by Ben:For the most part, I've agreed with what you said so far, except that I think 3Mbps or 5Mbps is a more appropriate value than 1.5Mbps. Yeah, more speed is always nice, but the US also has a lot of rural areas, and I can tell you from running my own rural ISP that it is very hard to push that much speed to everyone. You can't afford put a tower or DSLAM every mile for a dozen homes, so you have to rely on making technology focus on distance rather than speeds. In my area, it is quite expensive to deliver 1.5 megs throughout the area, and 5+ megs is impossible until technologies become affordable enough to deploy more often or can push the speeds farther from the hubs/towers/etc.
said by Ben:However, anytime someone uses the population density argument, I always have to disagree with them. If it was population density, then nearly every metro area would have broadband speeds that rival those numbers, since some of these places have densities that are similar to some of these countries. There's more to it than population density. That may be somewhat true, but many providers that serve metro areas also serve more rural areas, so you have to take the overall density of the entire area they serve. Rather than charging really low prices in the city and higher prices in the rural area, they quite often charge one flat rate for their tiers so they can make national advertising and promotional materials easier. Because of this, the people in the city pay more than they would otherwise, but it causes the people in rural areas to pay a bit less.
In the same way that many cell companies lose huge buckets of money on rural towers considering how little use they get, but they count on the money they make in the metro areas to make up for it because those people sometimes travel through rural areas and they want a carrier that can cover huge areas.
But yes, there are a LOT more factors than just population density. Someone else (maybe in a different thread) points out that many countries heavily subsidize their infrastructure. Labor rates play a part. The list goes on and on.... | |
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to jcremin
said by jcremin:Exactly. My ISP has a few speed tiers available, but 99% of customers could care less about a faster speed if a slower one is available. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of these areas have faster speeds available and nobody cares about them.
Or want them but are not willing to buy them due to their being over priced (or having an excessive installation fee attached). As an example, my ISP Cablevision/OptOnline has 3 tiers - 15/2, 30/5, and 101/15 (for $40, $55, and $99). They will sell you either of the first 2 for a $35 install fee. To get the third tier, there is an extra $300 nonrefundable fee for them to decide if they can supply it to you and do the setup at the head end. This $300 fee acts more as an disincentive to ordering it than a real cost fee to handle the actual work to install.
I have also seen cases where the cost of higher tiers are in the $150-200 range for speeds lower than other ISPs offer at under $100. Thus the tier is overpriced. | |
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | said by RARPSL:Or want them but are not willing to buy them due to their being over priced (or having an excessive installation fee attached). Not always true. A local DSL provider near me has the following packages available: 768k for $30/mo, 1.5m for $40/mo, and 10m for $50/mo. As a competing ISP, I have a fairly good handle on what percentages of people have which packages. And as a computer repair tech in the area, I am able to do some non-biased speed tests and ask questions without being a salesman.
While I don't have hard numbers from doing a big study, I can offer my "estimates" which are close enough for the sake of argument. About 85% have the 768k based on the fact that it is cheapest. Many realize they can get twice the speed for only a little bit more, but just don't care. About 14% have the 1.5 meg service because they know that it helps for streaming videos and saw that it was twice the speed for only a little bit more. Most of them realize that they can get many times the speed for only a little bit more, but just don't care. They aren't willing to spend any more and don't really have any need for it. 1% are on the 10 meg package because of one of two reasons: 1) they are a very large business and need the bandwidth, and 2) they just wanted the fastest they could get and didn't care about price, even though they didn't need it.
You have to admit, that based on the starting price of $30 for 768k, the other two plans are pretty reasonably priced.
said by RARPSL:As an example, my ISP Cablevision/OptOnline has 3 tiers - 15/2, 30/5, and 101/15 (for $40, $55, and $99). They will sell you either of the first 2 for a $35 install fee. To get the third tier, there is an extra $300 nonrefundable fee for them to decide if they can supply it to you and do the setup at the head end. This $300 fee acts more as an disincentive to ordering it than a real cost fee to handle the actual work to install.
And you are certain that neither the equipment or technologies used for the faster service add any additional hardware or labor costs? | |
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Google Voice
 ·Comcast
·ooma
·Future Nine Corp..
1 edit | reply to jcremin
said by jcremin:That may be somewhat true, but many providers that serve metro areas also serve more rural areas, so you have to take the overall density of the entire area they serve. Rather than charging really low prices in the city and higher prices in the rural area, they quite often charge one flat rate for their tiers so they can make national advertising and promotional materials easier. B
Imagine what would happen if Comcast, Verizon or AT&T charged less to people in high population density areas vs low population density areas.
The FCC, state and local regulators wouldn't allow it, citizens would be screaming, and Karl would be leading the band marching against it.
This is a no win situation. The U.S. counts internet access differently than some parts of Europe, some countries only count people as not having internet IF they CAN have internet but choose not to. These would be houses passed by a U.S. ISP, it wouldn't measure actual broadband penetration or access by ALL citizens of the OECD nation. This means those that have no access to internet aren't counted at all in some countries outside the U.S. The result makes internet penetration look a lot better than it is. Karl doesn't like to look into those shenanigans.
In the U.S. we have many low population density counties, and serving them is costly. Large utilities who are forced to serve them must cover their costs from the higher profit urban and high density suburban areas.
Our government generally at the federal, state and local levels likes to enforce a duopoly between cable and iLEC for the last mile to customer homes. That enforced duopoly precludes competition. I don't see the FCC, states or local governments changing their belief in a duopoly anytime soon. If AT&T knew back when cable was starting that it would compete directly at all levels of service with them one day, it is doubtful we'd even have the duopoly we do today.
There is no magic in other countries, they have different cultures, and count things differently than we do. The very first thing that needs to be done is to compare apples to apples, all users in each country should be counted and considered as having or not having internet. Actual speed should be considered, not rated speed. I regularly pull down 4x my rated speed on speed tests.
I read a post by nitzan  once where he indicated great speeds in Japan, for JAPAN only traffic. Once he started to point his browser to the U.S. speeds became very slow. Gee, great speeds in country, or in region, but very slow out of the nation? Sounds more like a fast LAN with slow WAN, but Karl will ring that up every time as far superior service than we get in the U.S.
Karl read nitzan 's post here - »Re: US broadband service is costly and constipated. 100 MB/sec in Japan, even 1,000 MB/sec, but once he goes out of country, 2 MB/sec. Wow, I am so jealous (NOT).
Next caps should be considered. Is it really better to have "up to 25 MB/sec down" in France on DSL if you are in Paris and next to the CO but are capped at 5 GB, or if you live 8 blocks away and get 2 MB/sec down, does that still count if it's on the "up to 25 MB/sec down" plan?
Karl, you love to write about this stuff, but please look deeper into the basis for many of the stats you love to cite, sometimes I think you enjoy regurgitating government broadband propaganda (from every country but the U.S.). Why does the rest of the world get a free pass? How about give the same scrutiny to stats from every country that you give to the U.S.? If you were equally skeptical about all the stats you cite, I think the U.S. wouldn't look quite so bad. Though that is just a guess.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." | |
| reply to jcremin
said by jcremin:said by morph69:I am a heavy data user. Live near the central office. have instead decided to use a third party reseller of bell dsl services at a simple 3 meg connection with no limits as opposed to bells faster speeds and capped service.
And I think that could very well be the way of the future... Slower unlimited speeds, or faster capped speeds. That way those who want stuff really fast right now can get it, but they can't do it all the time. And those who want to use their connection a lot, but don't need to download in faster than real-time can do that too. The next few years will be interesting. Yeah, sure. While now we have slower and faster speeds all CAPPED. I am sure we will see an improvement "real soon now" (TM). | |
| reply to jcremin
"99% of customers could care less about a faster speed if a slower one is available."
*GASP* Blasphemy! You mean to tell me that the average user does not need that 1Gb connection with unlimited transfers of those rare Linux ISOs for only $19.95 per month? That can't be true! Every DSLR reader knows that slower speed tiers are unacceptable. There is no way my grandmother can survive on that pitiful 3Mb connection. | |
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | said by battleop:"99% of customers could care less about a faster speed if a slower one is available."
*GASP* Blasphemy! You mean to tell me that the average user does not need that 1Gb connection with unlimited transfers of those rare Linux ISOs for only $19.95 per month? That can't be true! Every DSLR reader knows that slower speed tiers are unacceptable. There is no way my grandmother can survive on that pitiful 3Mb connection.
Lol.  | |
bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY | reply to Ben
Youtube buffers on my 10 mbit cable so Youtbe has its own issues. And its not just me - there is a song out there called "Buffer Buffer Buffer" | |
bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to battleop
I don't due Linux but have you seen the full service pack sizes for XPS3 and Vista SP2 and Windows 7 patches? And Exchange and those install ISOs are a bugger.
Yes I could keep them locally and yes Microsoft download center is throttled but there are time I download an ISO at home on cable instead of in the office on the WAN.
But, I'm not an average user - i fix 10-15 computers a month at home so my patch needs are different. Yes I could run WSUS but its easier to let it hit Windows update. | |
Reviews:
 ·EPB Fiber Optics
| reply to battleop
said by battleop:"99% of customers could care less about a faster speed if a slower one is available."
*GASP* Blasphemy! You mean to tell me that the average user does not need that 1Gb connection with unlimited transfers of those rare Linux ISOs for only $19.95 per month? That can't be true! Every DSLR reader knows that slower speed tiers are unacceptable. There is no way my grandmother can survive on that pitiful 3Mb connection.
What ISP do you use? | |
| One of the locals in Chattanooga. | |
|
