dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2824
share rss forum feed


SimplePanda

join:2003-09-22
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to 34764170

Re: Why is Rogers Ultimate Fibre "only" 350Mbps

said by 34764170:

said by wayner92:

I rarely say this, but I am somewhat impressed as they didn't charge a premium this time for the new technology as they didn't up the price compared to their 150/10 250 Mbps service and you are getting approximately twice the speed and four times the data.

They adjust the rates after the bump.. just wait a few months.

Not so sure about this...

Ultimate, when it was 50/2, was $99. Then 75/2 was a "free upgrade" at $99.

When $150/10 was released it was immediately priced at $125 as I recall.

Obviously Rogers's trend is to price up over time but all things considered there generally isn't a hard and fast introduction of a new tier at the old price followed by a repricing of that same tier shortly thereafter.


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to 34764170

said by 34764170:

said by HiVolt:

Because they can upgrade the speeds over the next couple years to 500, 700, 900, 1gbps without doing much else, and charge a premium every time for "new technology".

Depends on whose definition of "without doing much else". Doing node splits isn't my idea of not doing much never mind the channel additions and other cable plant adjustments to deal with that.

This is fibre... they dont have to do node splits. I'm of course assuming the built their fibre network with the future in mind.
--



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

As strange as it seems, as I understand it, they are doing nothing more than running cable over fibre, so there are indeed virtual nodes.


cepnot4me

join:2013-10-29
Severn Bridge, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to wayner92

Realizing that 2% of the customers are using 97% of the bandwidth is part of everything. If Rogers offered 1gbps, only 2% of the customers would use it, and the bandwidth they would use would cost a fortune, so the other 98% of customers would need to foot the bill for that 2. Usage. That's why Rogers will only ever offer a little more than Bell. Only offer what you need to, in order to claim and Market yourself as the "fastest".

There is a lot of excitement around "Fibre" everyone wants a fiber line. However the joke about it all is that most people can't even properly utilize the capability of fiber. I can't tell you how many hundreds of houses I've gone out to on service orders for "slow speeds" and the issue is almost always the restrictions of the customers equipment, their OS on their computer, their LAN card, etc.

Interestingly enough, I think I read an article that showed the current Docsis 3 HFC network is potentially capable of delivering 500 mbps. People want fiber cause it sounds better, cooler. But they don't "need" it. The reason Rogers never went to fiber to the home sooner was it was just an unnecessary liability.

If or when your feed line is cut, coax is repaired for about $75. This is $74 to send a guy, $1 worth of materials to repair it. Worst case, $150 to run a new line to the house.

Now you dig a garden, you cut your fiber line. That's expensive. I don't know how much, but ive heard different costs, $500 being the lowest, $15000+ being the highest. That is why Rogers never wanted fiber straight to the house. Imagine the cost. Ontario ice storm brought down 10,000+ feed lines. Regular construction and yard work cuts 25,000 lines/year. Since one way or another YOU the customer are paying for that, would you prefer to pay $75? Or $500?

Fiber is cool, but the more lines run, the more will get damaged by regular seasonal activities, then the higher everyone's bill gets.

Now also think of the average customer.

Just because you can order 350mbps, or even 50mbps, doesn't mean your hardware can use it. To even utilize 1gbps you need the latest technology.

It's like filling your Dodge Neon with Jet fuel, then complaining it's not as fast as an indy car.

All of that being said, Bell has made fiber popular. So Rogers need to respond to compete in the market. In my opinion the big reason behind the Fiber Internet plans, is not for Internet speeds or services, cause they can do those speeds on the existing platform. It's because the Fiber internet is the groundwork for the Rogers IPTV product in development. Customers who order the tier, are just unknowingly agreeing to be the guinea pigs for IPTV. You are only testing the backbone for them.


zamarac

join:2008-11-29

2 edits

said by cepnot4me:

Realizing that 2% of the customers are using 97% of the bandwidth is part of everything.

That seems to be a purposely introduced misconception in Rogers battle for preserving Usage Caps by its network contractors, which is long incorrect given fast grows of IPTV & traditional torrent downloads & growing video/audio content resolution. Usage caps block technology innovations from becoming broadly available to mass consumers, thus slowing down economy, new 4K TV sales etc.

wayner92

join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON
reply to cepnot4me

said by cepnot4me:

Just because you can order 350mbps, or even 50mbps, doesn't mean your hardware can use it. To even utilize 1gbps you need the latest technology.

Very true but, as I have stated a few times in this thread, it is not just the speed - it is the data cap. Getting a bump up in speed was nice but the real benefit to me is the new higher cap of 1TB vs 250GB as I was regularly paying overages. Effectively 1TB is almost like no cap, and I may have unlimited as that is what it says when I go to the Usage Checker on Rogers.com. I can't remember the details of my call but perhaps they are giving me a 12 month lure of unlimited.

The bigger problem now is that the service is flaky out about every other day and it seems like this happens to many folks using the Gateway in bridge mode.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:12
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to wayner92

There's the long standing argument that usage caps have next to nothing to do with congestion nor the need for the bandwidth. It is only something to monetize to pay for the thousands of grannies that download a couple pictures at peak times. It's based on the idea that heavy users contribute more to network congestion than they probably actually do.


wayner92

join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON

I agree with a slight twist- I think that the caps are to quash the competition from OTT video like Netflix more than other types of heavy users. But these caps have increased so much over the last couple of years, from 200->250->1TB, that they no longer are a binding constraint for customers on the Ultimate plan.


cepnot4me

join:2013-10-29
Severn Bridge, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to wayner92

The data caps are the result of Rogers realizing 2% of the users used 98% of the bandwidth. The caps are set to force customers to pick and choose the movies they download. (Let's face it, pirating movies was the catalyst for the caps.) as I was one of those, I must say it made sense. I downloading everything, watched half of it. Deleted the rest a few months later.

However, now a days. With legit providers like Netflix, AppleTV, and even all the broadcasters putting their shows online for free VIA their website.
The purpose behind caps has changed, and should also reform in Rogers.

Which I believe is why Rogers and Bell are back to offering unlimited.

If only they'd do so with cellular plans.

The industry pushes forward with faster speeds, however the industry should be pushing Caps into retirement. They are only stifling the growth of legal media services and their own growth into Internet content. (Rogers anyplace tv.)


aereolis

join:2003-06-12
Brampton, ON
reply to wayner92

I think some people are neglecting to realize that normal hard drives in 99.9% of computers can only write at 30-50 megabytes a second for sustained writes. Why offer a speedy service that very few people can actually use? There are other reasons but this is the biggest of all.

350/8 is about 43 megabytes a second.
--
Hello


wayner92

join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON

But 99.9% of computers don't have hard drives. What percentage of today's PCs have SSDs? Has to be pretty high - I only have hard drives in my servers and SSDs in all other PCs.

But your point is well taken.


65194623

join:2014-01-14

said by wayner92:

But 99.9% of computers don't have hard drives.

That is not even close to being true. More like 90% of computers do have hard drives.

said by wayner92:

What percentage of today's PCs have SSDs? Has to be pretty high - I only have hard drives in my servers and SSDs in all other PCs.

More like fairly low. Most PCs don't ship with SSDs by default and most consumers aren't willing to pay the very high premium for such a small amount of storage.

You don't represent the majority of consumers.

65194623

join:2014-01-14
reply to cepnot4me

said by cepnot4me:

The data caps are the result of Rogers realizing 2% of the users used 98% of the bandwidth.

Some people keep saying this and yet it doesn't even make sense. 2% of the user base cannot use 98% of the bandwidth. Even if these 2% all had 350 Mbps connections they still couldn't use up all of the bandwidth. The bandwidth on tap far far exceeds what 2% could consume.

said by cepnot4me:

The caps are set to force customers to pick and choose the movies they download. (Let's face it, pirating movies was the catalyst for the caps.) as I was one of those, I must say it made sense. I downloading everything, watched half of it. Deleted the rest a few months later.

The caps are to discourage people actually using their connections and thus OTT video services and such and for the Canadian providers in Ontario in created an additional revenue stream. The comment in the brackets is nonsense. It didn't make sense but then again you don't know what you're talking about.

said by cepnot4me:

However, now a days. With legit providers like Netflix, AppleTV, and even all the broadcasters putting their shows online for free VIA their website.
The purpose behind caps has changed, and should also reform in Rogers.

Actually the purpose hasn't changed at all. That won't happen. Keep dreaming.

said by cepnot4me:

Which I believe is why Rogers and Bell are back to offering unlimited.

No, they're back to offering unlimited because they're losing customers to independent ISPs in fairly large numbers. It's called competition. Without the independent ISPs they wouldn't be offering unlimited options, but even then they do so with strings and gotchas.

said by cepnot4me:

If only they'd do so with cellular plans.

From their perspective it doesn't make sense to do so. They want more money. Wireless networks are their massive cash cow.

said by cepnot4me:

They are only stifling the growth of legal media services.

That's what they want.

65194623

join:2014-01-14
reply to cepnot4me

said by cepnot4me:

Realizing that 2% of the customers are using 97% of the bandwidth is part of everything.

Except it isn't and the fallacy isn't true. It's not even possible.

said by cepnot4me:

If Rogers offered 1gbps, only 2% of the customers would use it, and the bandwidth they would use would cost a fortune, so the other 98% of customers would need to foot the bill for that 2. Usage. That's why Rogers will only ever offer a little more than Bell. Only offer what you need to, in order to claim and Market yourself as the "fastest".

It would cost a fortune because they choose to charge a fortune not because it costs them a fortune, it doesn't at all.

The only reason they're offering any options for additional traffic allowances is because of independent ISPs offering competition. Without competition there is no incentive to change anything, but that's painfully obvious.

said by cepnot4me:

There is a lot of excitement around "Fibre" everyone wants a fiber line. However the joke about it all is that most people can't even properly utilize the capability of fiber. I can't tell you how many hundreds of houses I've gone out to on service orders for "slow speeds" and the issue is almost always the restrictions of the customers equipment, their OS on their computer, their LAN card, etc.

Fiber has various short term and long term benefits. Such as being able to offer speeds DOCSIS even with 3.1 cannot match and long term is easier to maintain at the cable plant level and reduces truck rolls for issues.

said by cepnot4me:

Interestingly enough, I think I read an article that showed the current Docsis 3 HFC network is potentially capable of delivering 500 mbps. People want fiber cause it sounds better, cooler. But they don't "need" it. The reason Rogers never went to fiber to the home sooner was it was just an unnecessary liability.

That 500 Mbps is shared over the node, not per user. No they haven't moved to fiber sooner because they didn't want to spend the money, this is pretty straightforward.

said by cepnot4me:

If or when your feed line is cut, coax is repaired for about $75. This is $74 to send a guy, $1 worth of materials to repair it. Worst case, $150 to run a new line to the house.

Now you dig a garden, you cut your fiber line. That's expensive. I don't know how much, but ive heard different costs, $500 being the lowest, $15000+ being the highest. That is why Rogers never wanted fiber straight to the house. Imagine the cost. Ontario ice storm brought down 10,000+ feed lines. Regular construction and yard work cuts 25,000 lines/year. Since one way or another YOU the customer are paying for that, would you prefer to pay $75? Or $500?

$15,000? So much nonsense. Either way the relative exception not the norm is a very weak excuse not to move forward. No, they are not using fiber to the home because it costs a lot of money to replace the cable plant with fibre.

said by cepnot4me:

Fiber is cool, but the more lines run, the more will get damaged by regular seasonal activities, then the higher everyone's bill gets.

Except it doesn't work like that.

said by cepnot4me:

Just because you can order 350mbps, or even 50mbps, doesn't mean your hardware can use it. To even utilize 1gbps you need the latest technology.

Any system relatively modern could take advantage of and benefit from the faster speeds.

said by cepnot4me:

It's like filling your Dodge Neon with Jet fuel, then complaining it's not as fast as an indy car.

Awful analogy that doesn't make sense.

said by cepnot4me:

All of that being said, Bell has made fiber popular. So Rogers need to respond to compete in the market. In my opinion the big reason behind the Fiber Internet plans, is not for Internet speeds or services, cause they can do those speeds on the existing platform. It's because the Fiber internet is the groundwork for the Rogers IPTV product in development. Customers who order the tier, are just unknowingly agreeing to be the guinea pigs for IPTV. You are only testing the backbone for them.

The existing platform can't compete. The existing infrastructure is just fine for their IPTV roll out and most of their IPTV customers will be over DOCSIS.

aereolis

join:2003-06-12
Brampton, ON

said by 65194623:

said by cepnot4me:

Realizing that 2% of the customers are using 97% of the bandwidth is part of everything.

Except it isn't and the fallacy isn't true. It's not even possible.

said by cepnot4me:

If Rogers offered 1gbps, only 2% of the customers would use it, and the bandwidth they would use would cost a fortune, so the other 98% of customers would need to foot the bill for that 2. Usage. That's why Rogers will only ever offer a little more than Bell. Only offer what you need to, in order to claim and Market yourself as the "fastest".

It would cost a fortune because they choose to charge a fortune not because it costs them a fortune, it doesn't at all.

The only reason they're offering any options for additional traffic allowances is because of independent ISPs offering competition. Without competition there is no incentive to change anything, but that's painfully obvious.

said by cepnot4me:

There is a lot of excitement around "Fibre" everyone wants a fiber line. However the joke about it all is that most people can't even properly utilize the capability of fiber. I can't tell you how many hundreds of houses I've gone out to on service orders for "slow speeds" and the issue is almost always the restrictions of the customers equipment, their OS on their computer, their LAN card, etc.

Fiber has various short term and long term benefits. Such as being able to offer speeds DOCSIS even with 3.1 cannot match and long term is easier to maintain at the cable plant level and reduces truck rolls for issues.

said by cepnot4me:

Interestingly enough, I think I read an article that showed the current Docsis 3 HFC network is potentially capable of delivering 500 mbps. People want fiber cause it sounds better, cooler. But they don't "need" it. The reason Rogers never went to fiber to the home sooner was it was just an unnecessary liability.

That 500 Mbps is shared over the node, not per user. No they haven't moved to fiber sooner because they didn't want to spend the money, this is pretty straightforward.

said by cepnot4me:

If or when your feed line is cut, coax is repaired for about $75. This is $74 to send a guy, $1 worth of materials to repair it. Worst case, $150 to run a new line to the house.

Now you dig a garden, you cut your fiber line. That's expensive. I don't know how much, but ive heard different costs, $500 being the lowest, $15000+ being the highest. That is why Rogers never wanted fiber straight to the house. Imagine the cost. Ontario ice storm brought down 10,000+ feed lines. Regular construction and yard work cuts 25,000 lines/year. Since one way or another YOU the customer are paying for that, would you prefer to pay $75? Or $500?

$15,000? So much nonsense. Either way the relative exception not the norm is a very weak excuse not to move forward. No, they are not using fiber to the home because it costs a lot of money to replace the cable plant with fibre.

said by cepnot4me:

Fiber is cool, but the more lines run, the more will get damaged by regular seasonal activities, then the higher everyone's bill gets.

Except it doesn't work like that.

said by cepnot4me:

Just because you can order 350mbps, or even 50mbps, doesn't mean your hardware can use it. To even utilize 1gbps you need the latest technology.

Any system relatively modern could take advantage of and benefit from the faster speeds.

said by cepnot4me:

It's like filling your Dodge Neon with Jet fuel, then complaining it's not as fast as an indy car.

Awful analogy that doesn't make sense.

said by cepnot4me:

All of that being said, Bell has made fiber popular. So Rogers need to respond to compete in the market. In my opinion the big reason behind the Fiber Internet plans, is not for Internet speeds or services, cause they can do those speeds on the existing platform. It's because the Fiber internet is the groundwork for the Rogers IPTV product in development. Customers who order the tier, are just unknowingly agreeing to be the guinea pigs for IPTV. You are only testing the backbone for them.

The existing platform can't compete. The existing infrastructure is just fine for their IPTV roll out and most of their IPTV customers will be over DOCSIS.

Some studies need to be done about this 1% 2%. I believe with the advent of netflix those numbers have changed a bit to 3% and 90%.

Rogers doesn't need FTTH for iptv. They just need multicast and lots of bandwidth to each customer on the internet side. Bell is doing just fine with FTTN in toronto providing 25mbit to houses over dsl. Rogers was caught with it's pants down when bell announced the iptv service, and then again with the wireless tv. Rogers' only saving grace thus far has been bell can't keep up with network upgrades necessary to support the customers and many converts switch back to rogers.

Rogers has had the lionshare of internet customers for years and has spent millions on their network upgrades to ensure they have fast speeds even during peak hours. They just need to get their ducks in a row in regards to the switch to iptv and their plans regarding that (they should provide a similar route as bell ensuring data downloaded for iptv doesn't count towards their usage cap) and they will be fine. FTTH has been at the forefront because it introduces new things to the equation such as more reliable service (you can pretty much say good bye to intermittent problems related to the rogers network), faster upload speeds, and bragging rights to TRUE fiber to the house. None of this bell rhetoric sales tactics "we bring fiber to your house" when it's clearly a telephone line.
--
Hello

zamarac

join:2008-11-29

2 edits

said by aereolis:

Rogers has had the lionshare of internet customers for years and has spent millions on their network upgrades to ensure they have fast speeds even during peak hours.

Speed required to fast browse the web is quite low. Higher speeds are needed for HD streaming and torrent downloads, while browsing the web. People fail to realize, advertised speeds can't be considered separately from bandwidth caps. The reason is, at advertised speeds customers usually can download only about 2 days in each month until their bandwidth cap is exhausted. Then they're back to hunger internet diet, only able to lightly browse web sites, and its done at pretty low speeds given slow Rogers DNS servers.

The rest of the month a subscriber pays the money as per his speed plan, but unable to use the network at these speeds due to exorbitant over-usage penalties. That allows his neighbor to use his 2 days swiftly. And soon...so force... So actual bandwidth capacity of a network segment can be kept very low compare to cumulative speeds based capacity Rogers charges their customers for. This looks like false advertising, where subscribers are encouraged to pay for a tier of monthly service that in fact is delivered only 2 days in each month, and then replaced by the service below the lowest advertised tier for the rest of the month.

Viper359
Premium
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON
Reviews:
·voip.ms
reply to wayner92

I have 250/20 package. Do I need the speed? No, I don't need it, but, it sure is nice when I download something large. Would I prefer 150/20 with better routing? In a heartbeat! Much of my high volume traffic is from overseas.

1Gbps speeds....This is very subjective, I think. First, even my fastest HDD drives would start having issues, once you count overhead, other background applications, users etc. 1 Gbps is what, 128 MB/s, give or take? I have seen my drives peak at much faster, but, not for long. Even transferring from my SSD to HDD doesn't hold above 130-140 MB/s for long. Many of my friends are confused between peak and sustained, when it comes to HDD performance. This is of course all done on my PC, not over a network.

1 Gbps over a network. I think people would start seeing serious performance issues real fast. Most consumer grade routers would start shitting the bed at those speeds. Don't even think about using 50% of that speed, plus having other devices trying to send normal, slower traffic. I just don't think they can handle it. I have seen several "1 Gbps" consumer routers start struggling just pushing 200+ Mbps. Heck, openvpn on my Asus RT-N66U had trouble pushing more than 30 Mbps I had to build a custom box, (went a little overboard) using pfsense to actually maximize my full 150 Mbps connection at the time over openvpn. That is using a AMD A4-5300 CPU and 8 gigs of ram! Told you I went overboard. Consumer routers don't even come in the ball park of that sort of power.

My household now peaks at traffic speeds around 50 Mbps. Between Netflix, Hulu Plus, local streaming, downloading stuff, surfing the web, work remote, VOIP, etc. A year or two ago, it was most likely, half that. In a year or two, I can see this doubling. If IPTV was available to anyone with a internet connection, I could see that doubling, well, the day I signed up for it.

To say we don't need 1 Gbps is simply wrong. If everyone had 150 Mbps connections at their home, I wouldn't be subjected to horrible Netflix PQ, and might actually get closer to blu ray quality. (I am an HD snob, sorry) As the average speed at the home gets faster, companies will innovate. Netflix is a classic example. They want to offer better PQ, on their streaming, they are restricted by speed. I am sure the same can be said for many more companies, and even start-up's that have not materialized yet.

Just my opinion.


zamarac

join:2008-11-29

said by Viper359:

using pfsense to actually maximize my full 150 Mbps connection at the time over openvpn

How pfsense contributes to higher connection speed? Did you mean compare to a router hardware firewall?

Viper359
Premium
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON

Using OpenVPN with full encryption, on my Asus RT-N66U, I could never get close to using my full internet connection with my provider. Once I built my own router/firewall, (pfsense) I was able to fully maximize, and then some.


wayner92

join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON
reply to zamarac

said by zamarac:

at advertised speeds customers usually can download only about 2 days in each month until their bandwidth cap is exhausted.

Actually it is far less than that. - it is a matter of hours. By my calculation here is how long you can run full out before reaching your cap:

Fiber (350Mbps w 3TB) - 19 hours
Ultimate (250Mbps w 1TB) - 8.9 hours
Ultimate (150Mbps w 250GB) - 3.7 hours
Ext Plus (45 Mbps w 150GB) - 7.4 hours
Extreme (35Mbps w 120GB) - 7.6 hours
Express (25 Mbps w 80GB) - 7.1 hours

Here is my sample calculation - with Ultimate 250 you get 250 Mbps. Divide by 8 (bits/byte) to get 31.25 MBps. Mulitply by 3600 (seconds/hour) to get 112,500 MBperHour. Divide by 1000 to get 112.5 GB/hour. 1000 Gigabytes/112.5(Gigabytes/hour) = 8.9 hours.

In practice the constraint is not as binding as you generally can't use your full speed. The most that I am able to use is about 9.5MBps (or about 75 Mbps) when doing multi-segment downloads. So I could likely saturate Extreme Plus or less, but not any of the Ultimate tiers or Fiber, at least not yet.

Or are my calculations wrong? (I realize that I may be slightly off due to 1GB = 1.07x10^9 bytes, etc)

zamarac

join:2008-11-29

So on 250 mbps plan you get on average 75 mbps file download speed from an HTTP server? Did you ask Rogers why? I wonder what's your max torrent download speed? Mine never goes above 3.6 MBps total regardless of a chosen sub plan and number of torrents in simultaneous download. But some people say, ISPs don't throttle anymore?!


wayner92

join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON

This isn't torrents - I very rarely torrent on my home PC. These speeds are for mulitsegment FTP downloads of files using Bitkenix coming from a server in the Netherlands. I think the limiting factor is peering or interconnects or whatever it is called. Bitkenix divides the file up into 50 segments and downloads those 50 segments at once. For really large files you will have multiple tranches of 50 files downloading.

On single segment FTPs my transfers seem to max out at about 2.2 MBps. Apparently your FTP speeds can be somewhat determined by the latency on the network, something that I don't totally understand.


wayner92

join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON

Here is an article on maximum WAN speeds and latency. Essentially you need to increase the TCP window size to get faster speeds according to the article: »bradhedlund.com/2008/12/19/how-t···e-links/

An example they give is that with a 1Gbps line between Chicago and NY with latency of 30ms will give you a maximum transfer speed of 17.4Mbps with the standard TCP windows size of 64kB.


sincero

join:2014-01-20
reply to wayner92

I get different behavior, my LAN won't work either. Windows devices report at 169.xx address -- it seems like DHCP fails.


wayner92

join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON

said by sincero:

I get different behavior, my LAN won't work either. Windows devices report at 169.xx address -- it seems like DHCP fails.

I think you posted this to the wrong thread.

65194623

join:2014-01-14
reply to aereolis

said by aereolis:

Some studies need to be done about this 1% 2%. I believe with the advent of netflix those numbers have changed a bit to 3% and 90%.

When I poke and prod people about these arguments it is because they don't use the word bandwidth properly. Frequently they say bandwidth when they really mean traffic. Their argument doesn't even make sense. What equates to no more than 200 odd users on 25Mbps connections cannot use up all of the bandwidth no matter how much they try and same goes even if they were on 250Mbps connections. The issue isn't the amount of traffic transferred it is the capacity AKA bandwidth consumed. It's the 98% that are consuming almost all of the bandwidth AKA capacity.

said by aereolis:

Bell is doing just fine with FTTN in toronto providing 25mbit to houses over dsl.

25Mbps would be fine if it was ONLY IPTV but it is shared with an Internet connection so it is pretty weak in reality. With the use of PVRs having only 3 HD channels is very weak. Contrary to the delusion of a lot of people on here not everyone is a single TV household. So Bell very much has issues competing with Rogers infrastructure and service wise.

said by aereolis:

Rogers has had the lionshare of internet customers for years and has spent millions on their network upgrades to ensure they have fast speeds even during peak hours.

But the way in which Rogers does their upgrade cycles and manages their network results in them having congestion at the nodes way too often. It's great that they're offering the fastest speed tiers but it doesn't mean as much when there is congestion on their network. It would mean a lot more if they were ahead of the game and being proactive instead of reactive with upgrades so congestion did NOT exist.

65194623

join:2014-01-14
reply to Viper359

said by Viper359:

I wouldn't be subjected to horrible Netflix PQ

With their SuperHD encoding the Netflix PQ is far from horrible.

wayner92

join:2006-01-17
Toronto, ON

And Netflix will soon over 4K content which means that it will be pretty much the only way to get 4K to your TV and will (should?) be better PQ then anything else you can get, including BluRay.



SimplePanda

join:2003-09-22
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

said by wayner92:

And Netflix will soon over 4K content which means that it will be pretty much the only way to get 4K to your TV and will (should?) be better PQ then anything else you can get, including BluRay.

Few things:

- I'd still probably rather watch a Blu-ray disc than streamed 4k, quality wise.

- Of course, there is really no comparison, quality wise, between BD and streaming 1080p. Even Netflix Super HD. Completely different worlds in terms of detail, artifacts, sound quality, etc.

- 4k Blu-ray is coming: »www.tomshardware.com/news/blu-ra···744.html

That said, I'd still argue caps need to go up.

65194623

join:2014-01-14

2 edits

said by SimplePanda:

Few things:

- I'd still probably rather watch a Blu-ray disc than streamed 4k, quality wise.

- Of course, there is really no comparison, quality wise, between BD and streaming 1080p. Even Netflix Super HD. Completely different worlds in terms of detail, artifacts, sound quality, etc.

- 4k Blu-ray is coming: »www.tomshardware.com/news/blu-ra···744.html

That said, I'd still argue caps need to go up.

I wouldn't. I have no interest in having expensive pieces of plastic around for marginal quality gain.

Most people couldn't care less. The people that keep parroting this stuff are stuck on things like it has to be encoded at 30Mbps or it has to be an exact rip from the BD but for no good reason and no rationalization. BD's are encoded at a much higher bitrate than what is required to attain the same PQ with a re-encoding using a good H.264 encoder.

The audio codec used is the same with the same encoding. So mentioning sound quality is nonsense. The capacity required for the audio side of things has never been an issue when it comes to streaming. 1.7Mbps is not a showstopper for any broadband connection.