dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
25

ProdctionGuy
@teksavvy.com

ProdctionGuy to davegravy

Anon

to davegravy

Re: New speeds Rogers cable - Teksavvy watch out

To further Gravy's point, I work in the Film Industry and upload mostly from home back to our office. Increased uploads would GREATLY increase my workflow efficiencies. If anyone would like to investigate the file sizes generated by an ARRI ALEXA camera for 1 minute of footage at 24/fps with a colourspace 4:4:4:4 they would easily deduce that upload speed is where it is at for people to actually utilize the internet for work instead of porn and so on. Feel free to investigate the RAW files generated by the RED EPIC camera at 5K res for 1 minute of footage a 24/fps. Upload speeds need to be increased PERIOD! When I deal with production types such as myself in the U.S they are horrified by the speeds I xfer to them at. A lot of the time I have to XFER footage to an external and drive to the office to upload so I can take advantage of the outrageously priced fiber connection which has upload limits even though it costs 1300/month. Get off the torrent train, there are people here that need to upload to make themselves viable to employers, contractors and so on.

Grow UP STEVEY!
stevey_frac
join:2009-12-09
Cambridge, ON

stevey_frac

Member

So, not only is your workflow here incredibly atypical to that of the average consumer, I can just as easily argue that I need way faster downloads to do something equally work related. I need to download 500 GB VHD's full of code, and builds, but instead I end up taking home physical drives. But when I upload, I only upload tiny changesets. So your argument doesn't really hold any water. Just like that other guy who wants to upload 4 TB files to the cloud, coming up with a few examples of something that requires a lot of upload doesn't mean the average consumer wants or needs that upload. Plus people can trivially come up with special case scenarios where they need way more download. In the end, it's a wash.

But don't worry! Good News! Rogers and Bell both offer consumer fibre packages now! Both feature 100 mbit+ speeds that are syncronous. You just have to convince Rogers or Bell to run fibre to your home!
NBomb
join:2007-01-23
Etobicoke, ON

NBomb

Member

Why the hell are you even arguing against having as fast a speed as we can get? Who cares what the average user does? Do you think that if you request something reasonable from Lord Rogers that you'll be more likely to get a crumb from him, thank you for the pittance sire? How beaten down is this kind of thinking?

The fact is that xfer and storage CONTINUALLY fall in price every year to the providers. The fact is that these savings are NOT being passed on to us.

Your attitude is defeatist, and just plain wrong, stevey. There's NO REASON why our internet connections should be any slower than anyone else's in the world. NONE.

Demand more, get more.

davegravy
@iasl.com

davegravy to stevey_frac

Anon

to stevey_frac
You can dismiss each individual's need for hi-speed upstream as a niche requirement (business or otherwise), but that doesn't mean that the collection of niche requirements isn't a significant one. In a world where more and more people are working from home, where more and more individuals are becoming content CREATORS (rather than just consumers) I'd say that growing demand for upstream is expected and reasonable. Whether it is growing FASTER than downstream requirements is of course an important consideration.

And once again, there's the "build it and they will come" argument that I think most market research overlooks. If you make affordable hi-speed upstream available, technologies and uses will emerge from that availability.

E.g. cloud services weren't viable until affordable upstream speeds reached a critical point. Prior to this you could have said there was no demand for cloud services, but that would have been an illusion due to the fact cloud services and the required upstream bandwidth didn't yet exist.

BACONATOR26
Premium Member
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON

BACONATOR26 to NBomb

Premium Member

to NBomb
said by NBomb:

Your attitude is defeatist, and just plain wrong, stevey. There's NO REASON why our internet connections should be any slower than anyone else's in the world. NONE.

This thread is getting a little out of hand because everyone wants to make assumptions about each others usage and demand perfection.

Let me just make one large and detailed point here though, ISPs are commercial businesses who choose the pipes and what plans to offer based on demand and what the customer will pay. This is the same for every industry.

Should Canada have better options? Maybe. But we keep going back to the big ISPs should all of a sudden cave in and drop their profit margins because we demand it when there are roughly 4-6 million Bell and Rogers customers who pay for it willingly and a Government who for all intents and purposes support the business model with preference given on retail vs wholesale services (might change with a new CRTC but time will tell).

This may sound a little negative but here we have a minority and dedicated group made up mostly of us on this forum who choose flexibility yet aren't doing anything to blow up the market and change it.

The one major thing we can do is actually stop attacking each other, making excuses and assumptions and work together to create something to put these big ISPs out of business. If we all did this, we could actually change the market for good.

How? We've talked about peer to peer wireless networks, community fiber projects, maybe even generating funding for a co-op ISP to build infrastructure. But no one is working together to do it.

Let's think about this before we continue on a pointless discussion of usage and who to blame.
stevey_frac
join:2009-12-09
Cambridge, ON

stevey_frac to NBomb

Member

to NBomb
I'm not against fast download or upload speeds. I'm arguing against the ridiculous statement that 100mbit synchronous should be the minimum. Most people don't need such a thing, and have no desire to pay for such a beast.
daeron
join:2012-05-11
Ottawa

daeron

Member

said by stevey_frac:

I'm not against fast download or upload speeds. I'm arguing against the ridiculous statement that 100mbit synchronous should be the minimum. Most people don't need such a thing, and have no desire to pay for such a beast.

The cost isn't that huge...look at google doing it in the US for 80 bucks a month with a minimal install fee. It can be done.
Arcturus
join:2008-04-18
London, ON

Arcturus

Member

Nothing matters now speed upgrades for existing TSI customers all denied.

This thread can die too I guess now...
Gami00
join:2010-03-11
Mississauga, ON

Gami00 to daeron

Member

to daeron
said by daeron:

The cost isn't that huge...look at google doing it in the US for 80 bucks a month with a minimal install fee. It can be done.

lols.. google's example is for a totally different reason then what you're thinking.. the price point they're using is because they can make up the difference in loss of profit/revenue with their AD services/data mining, as well as beta testing their new fully integrated TV/remote/AD/quick buy system that the whole thing is setup for.

TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium Member
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON

TwiztedZero to Arcturus

Premium Member

to Arcturus
said by Arcturus:

Nothing matters now speed upgrades for existing TSI customers all denied.

This thread can die too I guess now...

Nah, its not as gloomy as it appeared, go and read what TSI Marc posted

TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON

TypeS to daeron

Member

to daeron
Does anyone know exactly how Google is offering its fiber internet services in Kansas city? The situation there regarding ISPs is no different then here, there's only a handful of incumbents that own either the PSTN wiring or the coax cabling that reaches homes. It seems doublful they'd want to use either like TPIAs here are.

Has google actually built it's own fiber network straight from peering ISPs to homes? Thats a HUGE cost, and at their current pricing on plans, if this is what they did, they are eating the costs and losing money on every subscription.