how-to block ads
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
edit:
July 12th, @10:47AM
| that's his mantra and he's sticking to it
I guess Mark is going to have to keep repeating "Broadband is Old News" if he is throwing his lot in with the cablecos.
As far as the internet not being capable, maybe in the U.S. with our crappy download and upload speeds, but other countries have broadband that is more than capable of distributing HD content.
Mark just wants to be in on the internet as the incumbents see it: just another pipe they control to shove their crap down our throats.
You know, the TV is on a fair amount at our house (in the evening), but there is not always someone watching it. When I watch video on the internet, it's because I have chosen to watch it and I watch it intently because of that. There are very few shows on TV that I really pay attention to, but a lot that I "watch". | |
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC
·Charter Pipeline
 ·Windstream
·Speakeasy
 ·Vonage
edit:
July 12th, @11:14AM
| My personal opinion is that IPTV of any kind isn't going to take off until more ISP's provide a bigger pipe to our homes, plain and simple. At least cable is at an advantage to roll out faster speeds, but most won't exceed 768Kbps upload. The Bells don't want to spend the money to do that, so instead they want to choose which packets they can degrade to push their own content and deprioritize others, thus providing a bad user experience.
Granted, I understand that these companies are in business to make money, as all businesses are but the Bells pissed away Millions of dollars given to them by the Gov't to get fiber to our homes (I know this has nothing to do with cable, sorry for leaning OT) and Verizon is the only one really doing anything about it. Will I ever see Verizon fiber? No, because I live in a market where the Bells do not compete with one another.
Also, in my opinion Mark Cuban is a technological idiot. The same can also be said for 95% of Congress though...afterall with all of these "internets" that are being passed around here at BBR are more than enough to bring down the whole "internet".
*edit* added more text
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.
»www.ind-music.com | |
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by King P  :My personal opinion is that IPTV of any kind isn't going to take off until more ISP's provide a bigger pipe to our homes, plain and simple. Yes, and since these same broadband ISP's have (or will soon have) TV businesses they'll want to protect, those bigger pipes won't happen. Oh, the pipe might be there, but most of it will be used to deliver "TV service", and only a small portion will be use to deliver "internet access". That's exactly what the cable MSO's have been doing all along, and is what Verizon is rolling out with FIOS.
Now Internet Protocol may be used to deliver that TV over that "private" portion of the pipe, but that doesn't mean it will be available for generic internet access. And with this viewpoint, Cuban is right. Maybe if the concept of "net neutrality" gets defeated, and the ISP's are allowed to charge content providers extra for high QoS, then the ISP's would increase the speed of the "internet access" portion of their pipes. But if "net neutrality" holds sway, they'll simply respond by keeping the 'net slow. | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
|
The IPTV is what will, in the end, pay for the fiber being laid. It is the driving force behind it. There is simply not enough demand for more upload speed or we would have it by now. The incumbents learned their lessons well from the "good old days" of people running servers on their residential connections. Which is why many of the original small ISP's were gobbled up after they had financial troubles. The one Comcast gobbled up comes to mind. It sure is profitable for them now, isn't it? After they ditched the servers and leeches.
And, the good old days will NEVER return. IF they EVER offer higher uploads, you WILL pay for it, either in cash, or, restrictions that WILL be enforced, or, BOTH (most likely).
I'm not interested in paying more for a connection I dont need/use so a relative few can have more upload speed and, as far as download goes, you hit a practical limit of what you can use at one time.
This current speed marketing scheme being used by the cable companies, etc is EXACTLY the same marketing gimmick Intel, etc, used to drive computer sales and it will, inevitably, stall just like computer speeds have. And, the prices will come down, just like they have with computers.
The only reason many want ever faster speeds in the first place is that they want instant gratification and are to impatient to wait a second or two. I'm not impatient. I dont mind waiting a second or two as I suspect most people aren't. Cost talks and other crap walks. | |
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| Horsepuckies.
I find it hard to believe that the only reason we don't have more upload speed is because the demand is not there. Maybe 'the demand' needs a qualifier. Going through this site, there certainly IS demand, but perhaps it's just not at the critical level where ISPs are essentially forced to listen.
The smaller ISPs were gobbled-up because they allowed people to run servers on their broadband connections? That's a pretty big leap. Any evidence to convince me? I'd think it would be either the ISP happily cashing out or the ISP not being able to get cash-flow positive...of which folks running servers is surely a tiny component.
I've had broadband (DSL) since it was offered here and my upload has never been over 768k, and that's just recent. In the past, it was never over 384k, and I've been with three different DSL providers (Rhythms, DSL Extreme, SpeakEasy).
ISPs offer tiers now. Why would they not continue? Why would you have to pay more for a connection you don't need/use so others can. Stick with your slower connection...why does that negate ISPs able to offer faster ones to those who want them?
The only reason many want faster speeds is the need for instant gratification? Mmmm, maybe in some cases. In mine, I do a lot of multimedia work and constantly need to up and download large files to clients.
Just because your habits don't demand large files being up/downloaded in minutes instead of hours does not mean everyone elses' habits are somehow whacked...
Have some perspective.
KM
--
War is a test of power, not a search for truth or justice. Can the violation of the primacy of love, destruction of life, and tearing of society truly be the will of God? | |
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by KoolMoe :Horsepuckies. I find it hard to believe that the only reason we don't have more upload speed is because the demand is not there. Maybe 'the demand' needs a qualifier. The real reason is that providers dont want to lose their lucrative overpriced BUSINESS packages. there would be churn there if 3mbit or more was offered on residential packages.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
edit:
July 12th, @07:49PM
| reply to KoolMoe
"Horsepuckies.
I find it hard to believe that the only reason we don't have more upload speed is because the demand is not there. Maybe 'the demand' needs a qualifier. Going through this site, there certainly IS demand, but perhaps it's just not at the critical level where ISPs are essentially forced to listen.
The smaller ISPs were gobbled-up because they allowed people to run servers on their broadband connections? That's a pretty big leap. Any evidence to convince me? I'd think it would be either the ISP happily cashing out or the ISP not being able to get cash-flow positive...of which folks running servers is surely a tiny component.
I've had broadband (DSL) since it was offered here and my upload has never been over 768k, and that's just recent. In the past, it was never over 384k, and I've been with three different DSL providers (Rhythms, DSL Extreme, SpeakEasy).
ISPs offer tiers now. Why would they not continue? Why would you have to pay more for a connection you don't need/use so others can. Stick with your slower connection...why does that negate ISPs able to offer faster ones to those who want them?
The only reason many want faster speeds is the need for instant gratification? Mmmm, maybe in some cases. In mine, I do a lot of multimedia work and constantly need to up and download large files to clients.
Just because your habits don't demand large files being up/downloaded in minutes instead of hours does not mean everyone elses' habits are somehow whacked...
Have some perspective."
KM
============================================================
There simply is not the demand for upstream speed from Joe box of rocks, who is the majority of users on the internet. The demand is seen on boards like this where a lot of such users hang out and are in the majority, therefore presenting a distorted viewpoint.
Many of the smaller ISP's early on ran into financial trouble because they were offering true unlimited service for a monthly fee and users took advantage by running servers and commercial sites on their connections. That is why upload speed is restricted now, so such people would have to pay more for business service.
Sure, they offer tiers and they will continue to do so. I'm also sure that, as time goes on, the price of those tiers will go up and up, once the flood of dialup users switching is over. The telcos will find a way. They allways have.
And, ESPECIALLY if Ma Bell gets back together.
I didn't say that it would "Negate" anything. I simply stated I'm not interested in paying more for a connection I dont need/use
For that matter, from what I've seen here and around the net, the only people who are willing to paty for uber connections are gamers, those running servers and those having business needs for one. Once again we run into the distorted viewpoint here on this topic because most who hang here want such connections for whatever reason, it doesn't matter, really, why they want them.
And, as far as it goes, perhaps it's you that should have some perspective. | |
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| There simply is not the demand for upstream speed from Joe box of rocks, who is the majority of users on the internet. The demand is seen on boards like this where a lot of such users hang out and are in the majority, therefore presenting a distorted viewpoint. Agreed, that's why I suggested 'the demand' needs a qualifier. There surely IS demand, it's just not at critical mass yet (apparently?).
Many of the smaller ISP's early on ran into financial trouble because they were offering true unlimited service for a monthly fee and users took advantage by running servers and commercial sites on their connections. That is why upload speed is restricted now, so such people would have to pay more for business service.
I have a hard time believing this. I did not read about any such widescale abuses. I guess it could be a factor but I think a minute factor if any. The traffic of 5 years ago is nothing compared to today, though increased broadband access/subscription surely has a big role. I just never saw that as an issue in any forums, news, etc.
Did you?
I didn't say that it would "Negate" anything. I simply stated I'm not interested in paying more for a connection I dont need/use
Why would you have to?
For that matter, from what I've seen here and around the net, the only people who are willing to paty for uber connections are gamers, those running servers and those having business needs for one. Once again we run into the distorted viewpoint here on this topic because most who hang here want such connections for whatever reason, it doesn't matter, really, why they want them.
But that was my point. You said,
The only reason many want ever faster speeds in the first place is that they want instant gratification and are to impatient to wait a second or two.
And I countered that was likely not true.
Now your saying the reason doesn't matter...but that reason was the basis for your premise that faster speeds are unnecessary.
So if the reason people want faster connections is irrelevent, then why are faster connections not needed?
Because you don't want to pay for it? I don't see why you would need to - cheaper/slower tiers exist and will continue to.
Because people don't need it? Well, if you discount any reason people give for wanting a faster connection, then all that's left is a matter of perspective...right?
KM
--
War is a test of power, not a search for truth or justice. Can the violation of the primacy of love, destruction of life, and tearing of society truly be the will of God? | |
Vodka
join:2005-12-20
Sacramento, CA
| reply to nasadude
And the Europeans laugh at our third-world-connectivity again.
We don't have really have broadband here in the States. It's been documented, reviewed, ranked and debated. If we had real broadband here, this opinion WOULD have taken a different turn. If Cuban is sane. | |
|
