dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5599
share rss forum feed


Fergless
Premium
join:2008-04-19
Toronto, ON
kudos:1
reply to Samgee

.

cow tipping lol



Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:20
reply to InvalidError

Re: Do we really need unlimited monthly usage?

said by InvalidError:

It will take many more years than that for 4k to be common in households. Full HD took over a decade from commercial introduction on analog to mainstream on digital.

It may never happen. Look at Audio. By the '70s it was possible to create truly life-like audio reproduction. The Absolute Sound, so to speak. Look where we are now...
--
electronicsguru.ca

DSL_Ricer
Premium
join:2007-07-22
kudos:3
reply to Guspaz

said by Guspaz:

I don't think that means the transition will be instant, by any means, just that it will happen faster than the migration to HD did, because the cost of implementation is lower.

For the availability of content, sure. For the purchase of displays? I don't think so. Few people will see increased quality from 4K simply because of display sizes. 720P 32" TVs are still being sold (I think).

A better and more realistic use of large amounts of bandwidth is video conferencing. For that, you need a larger bit rate simply because of real time requirements.
Think of a team of 8 developers each at different locations streaming 1080p without multicast: at netflix rates, that's 70+mbit both for up and down. A half an hour of that every business day gives you 300GB+. You could then have long term use for paired programming.
I believe Google has noted that they're one of the largest users of video conferencing.

On the residential side, you could start having some form of "remote" families.


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

720p 32" TVs are available, sure, although larger televisions are rather common. 50+" 1080p displays seem to start at $730ish (probably less in the US). Compare that to when HDTVs first launched, selling for about $8000. There's also not that much of a technology barrier either, since 4K TVs are generally extremely low DPI; Sony's 56" 4K model is only 80 DPI (the retina macbook 15" is 220 DPI), so existing LCD panels can be used (just cut larger chunks from existing LCD sheets at the desired DPI).

There's also the advent of high-resolution computer monitors. These are typically between 2.5K and 3K, but that's still enough to get a benefit from it (and to sell consumers on the content). The macbooks airs and chromebook pixels out there. If desktop computer monitors follow (and you can imagine Apple has their sites on a retina iMac), they'd likely be higher resolution than the laptops. How long before all iMacs ship with 4K displays?
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



Boo_Guy

@rogers.com
reply to tom_tom

Do we need unlimited? Probably not. But having caps that I could blow through in days if I tried, isnt the solution either. Neither is charging up to $4 per extra per extra GB when it costs them pennies, theyre making tones of profit from these overages, more money from less service.

I just want a monthly bill that stays the same every month and not have to worry about going over some arbitrary low limit.

I think theyre really doing this to limit competition from internet based services. Im really surprised Netflix or VOIP companies havent started suing ISPs since their traffic counts against the cap but their own online offerings in the same areas dont.

Theres no real reason for caps, other than greed.


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to Fergless

Re: .

said by Fergless:

cow tipping lol

People actually film that?

I know my sister & her friends did that extensively (you get bored easily in the middle of nowhere with no internet, so stupid things will keep you amused a long time), but people actually film it?
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2

said by resa1983:

said by Fergless:

cow tipping lol

People actually film that?

I know my sister & her friends did that extensively (you get bored easily in the middle of nowhere with no internet, so stupid things will keep you amused a long time), but people actually film it?

It was a farcical substitute for what people did to entertain themselves before the internet.

shepd

join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
reply to Samgee

Re: Do we really need unlimited monthly usage?

said by Samgee:

said by shepd:

No need for unlimited monthly usage if ISPs would just bill customers by base rate for line maintenance + 95th percentile, which is how your ISP pays for their bandwidth.

95th percentile was what TPIA ISP's requested, but I don't believe that's how they are currently billed.

That's true, although I'm referring to the ISP's Tier 1 links.

shepd

join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
reply to tom_tom

Now, if we are going to discuss heavy usage (and that is a VERY separate thing from billing methodology--most companies who are seriously heavy users have links to Tier 1 providers which means they are probably not getting "unlimited") suggesting nobody deserves to use the internet heavily is a sad argument.

There's a LOT of things that would be excellent for heavy usage if you had a link with enough capacity. Imagine no longer having to have a hard drive in your PC, it boots through the internet. At the 250 mbits service you can get today, that's actually not unreasonable. You could stream all your security video at 1080p to save remotely, you could offer everything on your drive to everyone else (well, assuming we didn't have copyright law) and so on. These are all excellent usages of the internet and we shouldn't be suggesting nobody is worthy of it.



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to sbrook

said by sbrook:

But that's the WHOLE POINT and NOTHING BUT THE POINT. They [the incumbent providers] want to monetize EVERYTHING they think they can get away with and find some seemingly plausible cover story....

....they want to find as many ways as they can to gouge out as many dollars per customer as they can. The bean counters have a term for it ... ARPU ... Average Revenue Per (Customer) Unit. They want to maximize that number to create shareholder profits and golden parachutes for themselves.

Running a company is not for the benefit of the public at all any more, it's for the benefit of the stakeholders ... vis a vis the shareholders and the executives. We the public are just a source for their income.

 
You did not mention (in the same post) that at the same time as they do all of this gouging, that the incumbent providers are gambling that nobody will be able to successfully take them to task on it, and given that our national regulatory body is ineffective and/or corrupt, they are prob'ly correct - between that and all of the Sheeple who will bend over and not even bother to try, and they are correct about their statistical analyses of that group too.

We simply cannot have everything at once, and if we are not prepared to fight (to the death, as it were), and if we want to get on with living our lives in some predictable and reasonable fashion, then we must prioritize.

Soooooo, if we have to play the cards which we are dealt, and in the short to medium term (jokingly called an 'interim') we always do, my position is to accept some intelligent version of throttling if we expect to have unlimited packages.

OR forego the unlimited packages in favour of no throttling.

--

We have only 2 things about which to worry :
(1) That things may never get back to normal
(2) That they already HAVE !
-
START Forum »Start Communications
Or you can still use Canadian Broadband.



sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable

1 recommendation

reply to shepd

said by shepd:

Imagine no longer having to have a hard drive in your PC, it boots through the internet. At the 250 mbits service you can get today, that's actually not unreasonable. You could stream all your security video at 1080p to save remotely, you could offer everything on your drive to everyone else (well, assuming we didn't have copyright law) and so on. These are all excellent usages of the internet and we shouldn't be suggesting nobody is worthy of it.

No thank you ... my machine, my data, my operating system, etc. etc. etc. I don't use any form of cloud computing now, and apart from some very special circumstances, never will in what's left of my lifetime. I don't want my system unusable solely because I don't have internet connectivity. My apps, my data on my machine.

Fortunately many companies are now realizing the frailty of cloud computing, so we'll knock that one on the head fairly soon!


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to Samgee

said by Samgee:

said by shepd:

No need for unlimited monthly usage if ISPs would just bill customers by base rate for line maintenance + 95th percentile, which is how your ISP pays for their bandwidth.

95th percentile was what TPIA ISP's requested, but I don't believe that's how they are currently billed.

 
....and if they WERE billed by 95th percentile for the CBB, that would go a long way towards solving the precarious balance between bandwidth demand and monthly usage.

Whose fault is it that this model was not adopted ?


BliZZardX
Premium
join:2002-08-18
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
reply to sbrook

One benefit of the cloud is that you're always protected from physical theft and loss of data.

Sent from my $1449 Chromebook
--
Fiber Optics are the future of high-speed internet access. Stop by the BBR »Fiber Optic Forum.



sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13

Physical theft is far less likely than virtual theft.

Loss of data is a huge problem. Server disks failing for example. Loss of access to data is even greater.



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

Yikes... To follow up on my post about 4K, Sony has announced their 4K movie streaming service, to be compatible with the PS4...

Total size of a streamed movie? 100GB+. For a two hour movie, that equates to 113 Mbps, which is crazy overkill for a streaming service. They should be able to do good streaming-quality 4K video at under 20 Mbps no problem...

Even for bluray, it'd be excessive. Bluray video currently tops out at 40 Mbps, and audio bitrates have no need to increase over current, which if you're using 40 Mbps for video, is capped at 8Mbps (way more than DTS needs, way less than DTS-HD requires)... Therefore I can't see even a 4K bluray needing more than 88 Mbps of bandwidth... And of course no bluray is actually encoding 40 Mbps video!

It's not even practical from a storage standpoint. Current shipping bluray discs hold up to 128GB (presumably the PS4 is compatible with all shipping BDXL variants). If you set a definition of wanting to fit a 3-hour movie on a single-sided disc (let's say the bonus features could be on the other side), you have a maximum possible average bitrate of 97 Mbps for audio and video. That's more than sufficient for 4K, but not with Sony's crazy streaming specs of "100GB or more".
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


MichelR

join:2011-07-03
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·voip.ms
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to Nitra

said by Nitra:

said by MichelR:

I'm alone, so I don't need unlimited, but I do like having a high-enough cap that I don't have to monitor my usage (unlike what I had with Rogers). I have 350Gb right now - I don't need that, but I wanted the higher upload speed. I can probably do OK with 150-200, even assuming quite a bit of Netflix streaming.

See, this is exactly what the big providers want.
They're training you into submission.
Also keep in mind, as more streaming becomes the norm, bandwidth will go up, as quality increases, bandwidth will go up. All the while, you'll be trained to be locked into a cap that has nothing to do with actual costs.

lol "Training into submission." That's rich. The thread asks whether we really need unlimited, and I said *I* don't. I can't consume much more than what I currently consume - there are only so many hours in a day. If I can get an unlimited plan without getting a second mortgage, sure, I'll go for it. In the meantime, as long as I have a high-enough cap that I don't need to think about it, it might as well just be unlimited for me.
--
Start Communications Forum


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to Guspaz

4K/Ultra HD wide adoption is years away, I estimate at least half a decade to a decade. Even know Full HD 1080p still doesn't have the same market adoption as DVD and SD TV broadcasting saw.

I know lots of family and friends that ask why I bother watching HD off blurays or streams when according to them they see no different between DVD quality and HD or Full HD. Some people just don't care.

And when Ultra HD streaming arrives, they will not be a monstrous increase in bandwith. 7~12Mbps is enough for the vast majority of 1080p films (films with lots of CGI, action or dark scenes would be at the high end) in h264/AVC. Netflix currently caps out at 5.8Mbps, people don't seem to have issues there with quality.

H.265 is around the corner as well, although adoption on that will take its time as well. Ultra HD will be that big of bog on bandwidth anymore than HD was when it came out against SD/DVD resolutions. I personally won't care for an Ultra HD TV until 80-100" TVs are common place and reasonably priced, 1080p is fine right now for 32-60" TVs.


Nitra

join:2011-09-15
Montreal
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX

There is a lot more technology that people that are limited bandwidth wise cannot really consider.

There's been streaming gaming for a while, but it's never really taken off, party because of limits imposed.
There's IPTV from providers that don't have access to local VLANS.

Consider this.
You have a 100Mbps unlimited connection.
You get an IPTV provider from Vancouver, you have a PS4, most of your library is online, not local. You have 3 STB's in your house, and 2 kids and your wife/husband.
If you live in say, Montreal, your son can stream all of his game library on his PS4 direct from Sony, your wife/husband can watch their favorite shows all the while your other 2 STB's are in use elsewhere in the house, all in HD, all not saturating the connection.

And guess what... You won't have to worry about going over your paltry limit imposed by the big providers.
You will have a choice of where/when you and your family consume content, you are not bound by what the big provider dictate.
All of this technology is here, NOW.
The reason it's not available, or that everyone can use/access it, is because the big providers don't want you to, they will lose money if you have a choice.

We've been beaten for years to believe that the big providers are the better choice, most of us have come to accept that as the norm.
Just look at what happened when TPIA started, all of a sudden, more providers popped up, the big providers got scared and started lobbying. There's no difference here, there's no change.
There is no reasonable argument at this day in age to limit any connection. Cost of delivery is $1-$4, they charge us $30-$90, or more, there's no reason for this, but for the money, think of Kevin O'Leary running the big providers in his voice saying "it's all about the money", because in reality, that's all it's about.



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

2 edits
reply to dillyhammer

said by dillyhammer:

....We never stop to ask "do we really need it".

I just switched from a 16/1 connection to a 30/2 connection. You know how much difference it makes to me? Nada. I don't notice the difference. I work. I play. I download iso's. Netflix. Youtube. Yada yada. Same same. It's all crazy fast.

I have a 400GB allowance. 400gb. And I swore I'd never give up my grandfathered 400gb because I would DIE without it. DIE I SAY!!! And here I sit, on the last day of the month, with 55gb on the meter.

So you know what? I don't need no stinking unlimited. If the government wants to allow these companies to stagnate and retard the telecommunications of this country, hey, who the fuck am I?

I'm going to drop my grandfathered 30/2 package with 400GB for $60 to 30/2 package with 250GB for $50, pocket the $120 I save this year and spend it on vodka to ease my "bigger faster better" blues....

 
I recently dropped from my grandfathered START 20/2 package with 300GB for $50 net net, down to their more recently intro'd 20/2 package with 150GB for $40 net net.

The $120 which I will save per year might buy me 2 or 3 nice bottles of single-malt Scotch on which to sip while I still run up the same monthly usage of about 60 or 70 GB per month I always have with START, at the same speed which I already have with them, and I was oblivious to my transition from 30/2 (briefly with Cogeco) down to now 20/2 because I had not that long prior gone from a poorly working 5/800 DSL to the 30/2, and that DSL was still fresh enough in my mind.

In reality, that $120 will slightly more than pay for my VoIP, as I have been BHell Voice Landline-Free since Summer of 2008.

DSL_Ricer
Premium
join:2007-07-22
kudos:3
reply to TypeS

said by TypeS:

Netflix currently caps out at 5.8Mbps, people don't seem to have issues there with quality.

For most of everything it's good enough. There's still some occasional points where it's noticeable but not distracting... and then there's some points where it godawful (like in Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure when there's the blue pixie dust explosion the whole screen has blocks for several seconds).

morisato

join:2008-03-16
Oshawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX

said by DSL_Ricer:

said by TypeS:

Netflix currently caps out at 5.8Mbps, people don't seem to have issues there with quality.

For most of everything it's good enough. There's still some occasional points where it's noticeable but not distracting... and then there's some points where it godawful (like in Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure when there's the blue pixie dust explosion the whole screen has blocks for several seconds).

I hope you have Kids the example you cited Requires it P:)
--
Every time Someone leaves Sympatico an Angel gets its wings.


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

said by DSL_Ricer:

For most of everything it's good enough. There's still some occasional points where it's noticeable but not distracting... and then there's some points where it godawful (like in Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure when there's the blue pixie dust explosion the whole screen has blocks for several seconds).

That sounds more like a VBR failure than an overall bitrate failure. Netflix videos are encoded off-line and can take advantage of decently high VBR bitrates for bursts since they can buffer ahead (unlike a live stream). Perhaps that scene required even more than they could afford to burst above the average bitrate, in which case, perhaps h.265 will help
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

shepd

join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
reply to sbrook

said by sbrook:

No thank you ... my machine, my data, my operating system, etc. etc. etc. I don't use any form of cloud computing now, and apart from some very special circumstances, never will in what's left of my lifetime. I don't want my system unusable solely because I don't have internet connectivity. My apps, my data on my machine.

Fortunately many companies are now realizing the frailty of cloud computing, so we'll knock that one on the head fairly soon!

I'm thinking more that you'll centralize your own information on your own remotely located servers. Didn't even think about the cloud aspect, but hey... there are people who think that's great (I'm not one of them). It's tiring to realize I left whatever stuff I was working on on my home PC and then having to figure out how I'll get that data to wherever I am. I would love if my computer (well, my data as in the entire OS and everything on it) literally followed me wherever I went. Unix and Windows Server does an OK job with that concept but still would require the computing power be remote. I'm sure there's other attempts at it, but it will only be more likely when you have the bandwidth to support it.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable

That's what my thumb drive is for I am very reluctant to use remote servers. e.g. I refuse to use IMAP for email ... and would never use Exchange Server/Outlook configs. email stays on my remote host as short a time as possible, even though I have a lot more control over that than anything like a dropbox.



TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
reply to Nitra

said by Nitra:

Just look at what happened when TPIA started, all of a sudden, more providers popped up, the big providers got scared and started lobbying. There's no difference here, there's no change.
There is no reasonable argument at this day in age to limit any connection. Cost of delivery is $1-$4, they charge us $30-$90, or more, there's no reason for this, but for the money, think of Kevin O'Leary running the big providers in his voice saying "it's all about the money", because in reality, that's all it's about.

I hate that man, and just how many are like him out there that only care about how much they can squeeze from your wallet just because money hoarding is the end all be all.
--
----|- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted Zero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca

TampaVoIP

join:2002-05-10
Tampa, FL
reply to tom_tom

In a word, yes.

I'm approaching this more as a business internet customer rather than consumer. With my Level3 contracts, we basically pay for an internet connection at a set speed. End of story.

Same goes for our voice services for both the office & mobile phones.

Why are all the US mobile carriers going to unlimited voice calls and billing data? Simple, profitability. When SMS (texting) first came out, they were free. Then some carrier realised they could charge for it.

I also don't care for how the cable co's measure data transfer. I've never seen them give a clear answer and DSLreports is full of reports of metering discrepancies. Should I get billed for all of the script kiddies and bots trying to break into my network that the cable co doesn't bother to prevent? It then becomes much like SMS spam when SMS were metered. The mobile carriers had a strong financial incentive NOT to help fix the problem as they were making money off every single spam SMS delivered.



d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to tom_tom

You're approaching it wrong...Their costs have nothing to do with usage per say, but capacity. Simple example, if I download a 100GB file on TSI @ 2am, let say it costs them $5.

The same file downloaded @ 8pm on a weekday costs them double....Think of it like financial leveraging at a bank...What if everyone wanted to withdraw their money all on the same day? Not a 100% matched example but I hope you're getting the concept of capacity...

--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting


Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2

said by d4m1r:

You're approaching it wrong...Their costs have nothing to do with usage per say, but capacity. Simple example, if I download a 100GB file on TSI @ 2am, let say it costs them $5.

Any bandwidth used off peak costs the provider nothing. I see where you're example is headed, just wanted to make sure you understood where the costs are. Peak capacity, that's it.


d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by Samgee:

said by d4m1r:

You're approaching it wrong...Their costs have nothing to do with usage per say, but capacity. Simple example, if I download a 100GB file on TSI @ 2am, let say it costs them $5.

Any bandwidth used off peak costs the provider nothing. I see where you're example is headed, just wanted to make sure you understood where the costs are. Peak capacity, that's it.

No, it doesn't cost them nothing....They still have to pay, just a lot less (ex: transit costs). But yes, it is not 2:1...
--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting


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

With transit costs for quality transit to the other side of the planet under a buck a meg, and cable CBB costs at roughly twenty bucks a meg, off-peak is almost free. Not quite, but almost.

EDIT: Actually, transit costs would also be subject to peak/off-peak, so I guess it actually would be free.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org