dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
33
share rss forum feed


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to Razoul

Re: If people like

Most people dont need Gbps, thats a fact jack. When theres widespread, and popular applications for such speeds, let me know. Thanks for the honorable mention.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

2 recommendations

So do you think the network should be built first or the applications?

You, being against fast networks for some unknown reason, would say the applications, right? Which I personally think is ass backwards as would probably 95+% of anyone involved in technology.

In technology you dont wait until the limits are reached to figure out how to create new limits. You constantly push the limits and make things as fast and as efficient as you can at all times and let the rest fall into place. It is the way the PC and technology has been since the very day it was created and it has brought much innovation.

Using the ignorance of your method we would progress much slower because no one would want to create apps that a vast majority of the world cant use and the network owners certainly wouldnt invest in improving their networks unless we (the consumers) are pushing them to do so by taking their networks to the limits.

I bet you dont still use a 56k modem so unless you are willing to do that, stop with your BS that we dont need higher speeds.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
.... and you think the incumbents should spend a massive amount of money for others to innovate and profit? Makes perfect business sense. I guess they should do it for the sake of "progress".

Im not against fast networks, Google Gbps is complete overkill, at the moment. We'll see if they invent something to utilize the bandwidth. If I had a choice to pay $70 a month for 20/5 , or $80 for symmetrical 1Gbps, guess which one I choose. Guess which one MOST people would choose.

damacu

join:2012-07-18
The data above (and in the study) shows that the uptake rate counters your "guess which one MOST people would choose" argument. Last I checked, 60% is a majority (that's a synonym with the word most).

It's the same reason the iPhone penetrates the smartphone market so well. Under your logic, everyone would own a Nexus4 or less, and not a more expensive product, such as the iPhone.

It's why the median car price in America is $30,000, and not $17,000. Most people can see the value in a nicer car with more features. Do both drive down the same roads? Yep. So why pay more for something? Because the not everyone (or even most people) operates under a purely utilitarian rationale.

A cost-benefit analysis dictates that marginally better products and services can overwhelm a market, even at a higher price, because of features that are seldom used--yet potentially offer greater comfort, or peace of mind, etc.

The rest of the world is driving a $70,000 car, and only paying for the $15,000 model. The question is, "why are we so inefficient?" Not, "do we really need this?"


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
60% "interested" doesnt mean a 60% adoption and penetration rate.

damacu

join:2012-07-18
Why do we have TVs of 120Hz, when movies max at 30fps? Let me guess, you don't have a home-built computer with high-end components, either?


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Well , since youre the expert, please explain how Hz applies to HDTV's. Because there is a huge obvious difference between 60 Hz and 120Hz, both of which would be higher than 30Hz.

Do cycles per sec equate to frames per sec? Hmm?

damacu

join:2012-07-18
I'd like to let this thread speak for me: »fps converted to hz. 120fps = 120hz?


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Not really a help, but 60Hz Vs 120Hz+ is totally noticeable, both of which are higher than 30fps

Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:

Most people dont need Gbps, thats a fact jack. When theres widespread, and popular applications for such speeds, let me know. Thanks for the honorable mention.

Who cares about what most people "need" we WANT this.

People don't need sports cars, and yet people buy them. Do you really need me to explain why?

damacu

join:2012-07-18
reply to ITALIAN926
Only in regards to Interlace vs. Progressive.

The point is that 120Hz Refresh exists where no product can yet fulfill. 60Hz would be fine for a 30fps 1080p video, which is what every BlueRay is. Why the overkill with 120Hz? Because new content is being created that can tap into it.

Infrastructure has to be there before the consumer can take advantage of emerging technologies. Anyone who has built their own computer knows this. Will a Core 2Duo work fine for most things? Absolutely. Is the Quad-Core i7 paired with a GTX690 overkill? Absolutely. Is one future-proofed, and therefore justify the build-costs? Only you can be the judge of that.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
This is off topic, but according to your info, 120Hz DOES accommodate 1080i, which is the best that stations broadcast at. 60Hz looks like crap compared to 120Hz.


Joey1973

@verizon.net
reply to damacu
Because 120 is evenly divisible by both 24 and 30--nothing dropped, nothing inserted. (You do know what makes the numbers '24' and '30' significant, right?)


NCC1700

@161.107.18.x
reply to ITALIAN926
Early on in the history of photography still images were all that existed. Someone, somewhere, invented a high-speed shutter mechanism. What was the point? Certainly no one needed such a fast shutter!

Except that until such a shutter was invented, no one truly envisioned the possibility of motion pictures as we know them today. Sure - there were techniques that "faked it" - "Magic Lanterns" and such, but no true motion pictures.

The point being that it's difficult to envision a future state without enabling technology which, at the time of its invention, was useless.
Who, after all, needed the Internet in 1970?


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926
120 is the lowest common multiple of 60, 30 and 24, all of which are common framerates used to display content on HDTVs.

If you try to display 24 FPS content on a 60Hz display, it's not possible to display each frame for a consistent amount of time. Some frames will have to be shown twice, some will have to be shown three time, and as a result the movement will be less smooth (it will jitter a bit).

If you only ever displayed 30 and 60 FPS content (broadcast TV), it wouldn't matter, 24 FPS content (movies) is what throws the wrench in the works.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Wow Guspaz, thanks for explaining that, I actually learned something here today


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926
Most people don't need a gigabit per second to their home, but it's a chicken-and-egg problem. ISPs won't provide that kind of speed because no applications take advantage of it, and applications don't take advantage of it because no ISP provides that kind of speed. At some point, somebody has to break that paradox on one side of that, and it makes more sense for the ISP to do so.

If you release an application that only works well on a very fast connection (say, it needs hundreds of megabits), nobody will use it at all, because nobody can. But if you as an ISP provide people with more speed than they need (like a gigabit), people can still use that connection, even if it's more than they need.

There are lots of things that you can do on a very fast connection (like a gigabit per second) that aren't practical or possible on a slower connection (like 5 or 10 or 20 megabits per second). Some of these we could think of right now, but other things somebody might not have even thought of yet. There are also classes of service that work better on a faster connection.

For example, imagine a virtual external hard disk. Right now, while there are services like dropbox or skydrive, you don't typically use these like an external hard disk; you wouldn't put things on it and run them entirely over the network. But if you've got a gigabit connection, and low latency to the server, that's fast enough to treat such a service as a network disk instead of a download service. That is to say that you can leave the data entirely on the remote server and access it read-by-read over the internet. Suddenly, you could provide a virtual hard disk service that would have a pretty different experience from dropbox (which stores everything locally and syncs to the server).

Another might be really low latency video streaming. Think something like OnLive, but with much lower latency and much higher quality, to the extent where you couldn't tell the difference between a game running on your local computer and a game running in the cloud. That's an example of something that works today, but could work much much better if we had really fast connections.

I'm sure there are many more kinds of things that people haven't invented or discovered yet that would also be enabled by very fast connectivity, but if I knew what they were, I'd be rich
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:

.... and you think the incumbents should spend a massive amount of money for others to innovate and profit?

Not at all. I think they should spend a massive amount of money to continually update their networks to fulfill the demands of their customers because they charge us a massive amount of money and are capable of doing so and they for the most part are a duopoly or monopoly in a vast majority of every market in the US.

Others will continue to innovate and profit on their own. It is the American way.

You can argue until you are blue in the face if you want, but one FACT will remain: Your stance on this would be considered wrong by virtually everyone in technology and would only be supported by those that have a direct financial interest in NOT innovating and upgrading.

siouxmoux

join:2007-09-25
reply to ITALIAN926
So You Must be the Same person who said. No one would ever need more than 640K of Ram Memory!


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
Ive never said never. I hope they come out with popular applications to utilize Gbps speeds. I just dont see it happening anytime soon, not when you need 7Mbps to stream netflix "superHD" , whatever that means.

If something is created for such speeds, we'll see what Google comes up with in KC. We'll see if its applications that dont erode their very own TV service revenues. If something occurs, other providers will follow.


PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:

Most people dont need Gbps, thats a fact jack. When theres widespread, and popular applications for such speeds, let me know. Thanks for the honorable mention.

It used to be said that no one had a need for dsl. What use was there? Then they got dsl...


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926
So, what you're saying is don't build the pipeline until the applications that need the speed are in place.

Clue: The applications that would use this technology can't be built and deployed UNTIL the infrastructure is in place to support them.

The simple fact is, these speeds are already useful to most families. They provide the ability to do concurrent tasks in short time without negatively impacting the other tasks. We're just used to the limits currently imposed and so therefore limit our usage and expectations to fit.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
.. and we'll see what happens in KC

tanzam75

join:2012-07-19
reply to NCC1700
said by NCC1700 :

Early on in the history of photography still images were all that existed. Someone, somewhere, invented a high-speed shutter mechanism. What was the point? Certainly no one needed such a fast shutter!

Except that until such a shutter was invented, no one truly envisioned the possibility of motion pictures as we know them today.

Certainly not.

The high-speed spring-loaded mechanical shutter was developed for *still* photography -- not for motion pictures.

In motion picture cameras, the shutter is a simple disc that rotates once per frame, mechanically synchronized to the intermittent gear. The disc has a cutout in it. The "standard" shutter in the motion picture industry is a 180-degree shutter -- i.e., a semicircular disc. At 24 frames/second, this is equivalent to a shutter speed of 1/48 second.

The reason we didn't get motion pictures until the late 19th century is that there was no film until the late 19th century. You can shoot still photos on glass plates, but not movies!

But film wasn't developed in a "build it and they will come" manner, either. It had direct applications to still photography.


Xioden
Premium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1
reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:

Most people dont need Gbps, thats a fact jack. When theres widespread, and popular applications for such speeds, let me know. Thanks for the honorable mention.

Might not need it, but when your average Joe buys that nice new download game on Steam or Xbox 360 or PS3, they sure as hell won't mind having it done in seconds or minutes rather than the better part of an hour or day(s) for those of us still stuck on DSL or slower cable.


Xioden
Premium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1
reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:

Ive never said never. I hope they come out with popular applications to utilize Gbps speeds. I just dont see it happening anytime soon, not when you need 7Mbps to stream netflix "superHD" , whatever that means.

If something is created for such speeds, we'll see what Google comes up with in KC. We'll see if its applications that dont erode their very own TV service revenues. If something occurs, other providers will follow.

The problem in the case of Netflix is most people simply don't have the connection speeds as it is to watch above 480p without tons of buffering and/or pissing off anyone else trying to use the internet in the house at the same time. An Average of 5.3Mb/s doesn't go that far.


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:

.... and you think the incumbents should spend a massive amount of money for others to innovate and profit? Makes perfect business sense. I guess they should do it for the sake of "progress".

Im not against fast networks, Google Gbps is complete overkill, at the moment. We'll see if they invent something to utilize the bandwidth. If I had a choice to pay $70 a month for 20/5 , or $80 for symmetrical 1Gbps, guess which one I choose. Guess which one MOST people would choose.

The incumbents that spend billions of dollars to make sure that current non-incumbents don't build population backed networks that are faster than what incumbents offer? Or are there some other cheap, friendly, local, non-corporate.. incumbents that I've missed somewhere.

How about the non-incumbents get to do whatever the hell they want without interference like the interference in my state where PUBLIC network providers CANNOT sell internet to the PUBLIC!

A bunch of stupid pathetic industry shills and and the people that believe they're just concerned consumers is the downfall of broadband in the united states. Go freedom! (as long as it doesn't interfere with decades old corporate monopolies)
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:

Ive never said never. I hope they come out with popular applications to utilize Gbps speeds. I just dont see it happening anytime soon, not when you need 7Mbps to stream netflix "superHD" , whatever that means.

If something is created for such speeds, we'll see what Google comes up with in KC. We'll see if its applications that dont erode their very own TV service revenues. If something occurs, other providers will follow.

You're just throwing out misleading nothings hoping people believe it.

Most people can take more pictures in day on a single camera they own than they could possibly upload in a year because the damn internet upload for most people sucks. One photo here averages about 3 MiB. 30 Minutes of video 4 gigs.. on a non-profeesional 2 year old device. We've had the real world popular real things for years and no internet to deal with it for even a large minority of the population. Quit making out like there's no use today for super fast internet because it's not true, it's here, it's been here and the internet in the United States has been lagging behind the technology creating data for a decade!
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
reply to ITALIAN926
You could clearly learn a LOT MORE here today if you were willing to listen instead of buying into cablecorps' propaganda nonsense...
Expand your moderator at work