GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  reply to StumpMan
Re: Clue Truck coming down the road...
said by StumpMan  :Information age, meet AT&T.. AT&T, meet the information age. Connection speeds have been getting faster and faster for a long time now. More cars on the road? Add more lanes. And as some posters here are always claiming, lighting up dark fiber doesn't cost anything. So AT&T is just being evil for not doing that.
But it does cost something to light up more bandwidth, and AT&T will just have to raise their rates to all the providers that use their backbone. And those providers will have to either raise rates or throttle bandwidth use by blocking all the illegal P2P copyright infringers sucking up bandwidth.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Honestly, I'm not sure they'd have to raise rates. More people using the networks means more subscribers, means more profit. Given that most customers aren't the oft-quoted 5% "hogging it all", they are effectively pure profit which should be able to offset any such "light up" cost would incur.
If not, then obviously they'll have to raise rates, however. But, that's business as usual.
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | But the article was not talking about new subscribers, it was talking about new data types like video and multimedia that eat up a tremendous amount resources not used before.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| True, but the new subs are, nonetheless, still coming in.
Either way, the use is due to progress (for all), rather than a specific scapegoatted minority. Cost of business and all that.
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury. |
|
scrummie02
Bentley
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Agreed, altough I don't think p2p is sucking up the bandwidth. On-line gaming is a huge bandwidth hog. I am not saying throttle that (I play BF2, DoD: source, Counterstrike Source and Enemy Territory all the time). But I find it hard to believe p2p is behind that. I download TV shows I miss via bit-torrent and haven't had issues. My wife trying to surf the internet while I blast another n00b into oblivion on BF2 is a different story....
--
Liberalism is a religion, behind which liberals hide and expect that their political correctness gives them immunity from criticism. |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| said by scrummie02 :Agreed, altough I don't think p2p is sucking up the bandwidth. On-line gaming is a huge bandwidth hog. And take away all the Pr0n and binary newsgroups, and bandwidth usage will also drop. Newsgroups were never originally designed for binary downloads. Someone decided to take a good thing and bastardize it for their purposes.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| reply to scrummie02
Gaming more than likely doesn't account for as much as P@P traffic. You should see how much you suck down during an average gaming session for an example.
Most games are still built to be run on slower 'net connections, so that means using as little traffic as possible (in the neighborhood of a 256 line, tops).
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | reply to tsu9
Was not AT&T the one that said if you want to serve his customers, you will have to pay extra? Or was that another telco?
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| reply to scrummie02
said by scrummie02 :Agreed, altough I don't think p2p is sucking up the bandwidth. On-line gaming is a huge bandwidth hog. Hahaha, you made me spit coke on my keyboard.
WRONG. Online games take up VERY LITTLE bandwidth. We're talking the most bandwidth intensive games run 1/10th of a mbit on average. (FPS type, ie BF2)
Common misconception. |
|
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
1 edit | reply to RayW
said by RayW :Was not AT&T the one that said if you want to serve his customers, you will have to pay extra? Or was that another telco? So AT&T wants to be paid for the following:
1) The DSL users who pay AT&T.
2) The Data Center or Content Provider who buys OC-VeryFast from AT&T.
3) The Content Provider who pays AT&T for prioritization to the DSL customer.
4) The people AT&T has peering agreements with because more data is moving across their network.
Wow. I wish mine were that big. |
|
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC | reply to Jerm
WoW uses about .5KB/sec, or ~4Kbps in and out. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to tsu9
said by tsu9 :Gaming more than likely doesn't account for as much as P@P traffic. Really? You know how many gamers are on line right? Take Guild Wars alone... there was a patch the other day that was 350mb. Times that by the thousands and thousands of people that had to download the patch.
When you speak of gamers, there's more to it than just playing the game itself. To play the actual game, no, not alot of BW is used. Hell, a 56k modem is fine for alot of typical play... patches!! lots of data travels as people log in and have to update.
Basically, what I am getting at is don't forget that.
But... people talk lie p2p is a bad thing. NOT ALL of the p2p is bad traffic. Illegal file trading? Sure.. but if you want to be picky and technical about it, email is p2p traffic as well... people email files all the time.. so it goes through an SMTP and POP server to do it.. take a 5mb file, it's actually 10mb by the time it's transferred.
They really need to stop 'controlling' what's used on the internet. It's going to get used period! That's why people bought "internet ACCESS".... they need to increase capacity.. and, at the same time, they need to increase the price.
Oddly enough, maybe they need to put the price of DSL back to where it should be, stop discounting the hell out of it to $12 and $19 and stop bitching that they need more money.
What phone has done is undercut the price of DSL to take customers away from cable and in order to maintain their bidget they want to go after the providers. Pretty cool if you ask me. Undercut cable modem costs, gain customers, charge the 3rd party providers more and price them out of the business so they can push their OWN crap on to those $14 DSL customers they got. Pretty AOL of them if you ask me!
Raise the price of DSL back to where it should/needs to be and upgrade the damn networks already.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Jerm
said by Jerm :said by scrummie02 :Agreed, altough I don't think p2p is sucking up the bandwidth. On-line gaming is a huge bandwidth hog. Hahaha, you made me spit coke on my keyboard.WRONG. Online games take up VERY LITTLE bandwidth. We're talking the most bandwidth intensive games run 1/10th of a mbit on average. (FPS type, ie BF2) Common misconception. See my post above and remember that the next time a million users are downlaoding the 100+ mb patches, ok?
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
pcnetworx1
join:2005-09-21
Bethel Park, PA | reply to Matt
No you don't. If you had ATT's, you couldn't walk!  |
|
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to fiberguy
I have to disagree.
Patches don't amount to much in the grand scheme of things. They're the bursty and infrequent traffic ISPs love. Online gaming is not a huge bandwidth hog at all. If all that was going on was gaming and YouTube and game demos, we wouldn't be hearing anything of it.
--
Think outside the fox...Seamonkey |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Disagree if you want.. that's your choice. But, you have the right to be incorrect as well.
World of Warcraft alone had about 5 million users. Take these large patches x 5mil and what's the bandwidth? Utube videos can be only 10mg per video max and then they are compressed when updoaded.
Besides, you are trying to turn this into a comparative scale issue and that's the wrong path - period. This isn't a competition over who is using the most, rank them, then attack. The post was bout 'gaming doesn't take alot of bandwidth' which is plain flat wrong. It uses it fair chunk of bandwidth. You can't look at only the smaller amounts of data used to play the game.. you look at EVERYTHING that makes up the game which includes the patches which can be very large. Again, the one that just came down the other day here was 300mb.. times 5 computers, that's alot for just this one home, for this one game. This house is playing 5 game titles too.
I could care less what other apps are using.. in the end, the entire useage adds up to what the total contribution to the internet load is.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| I doubt there are nearly as many gamers as P2P users.
Sure, gaming patches probably use a lot of bandwidth, but nowhere NEAR the exponential amount that P2P does. Gaming patches are all downstream which modern broadband connections are supposedly 'designed' for. WoW is now using bittorrent to distribute their patches, so they are the exception, but Steam and such don't, everything comes down one fat pipe from the content provider. |
|
techjoe
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Schererville, IN
| reply to scrummie02
As posted somewhere else in this thread, gaming uses hardly any bandwidth compared to p2p or other usage. CS:S uses up to 20kbyte a second inbound to clients and 5kbyte out max with 32-ish players. That's udp too, so less overhead (most games).
In-game voip is starting to edge gaming bandwidth upwards as the masses start streaming audio back and forth, but it's rarely a high quality codec and is usually well optimized to make that bandwidth requirement as low as possible.
Yeah, patches are huge. Steam and other content delivery methods are gaining ... well, Steam I guess you could say, and that's adding a bit to it, but such issues could be easily solved by a local caching server or the ISP actually *gasp* offering a mirror within their network for common huge downloads!! Speakeasy I think did this for some time, might still...They got into the server rental market and such. That's a non-issue though because as mentioned, any ISP could plug up that bandwidth leak very easily and possibly even increase the users' satisfaction with greater speeds or instant start high-speed downloads for subscribers.
In closing, I think you're off your rocker with the assumption that on-line gaming is a bandwidth hog compared to p2p traffic. 
--
www.clanc.cc |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :So AT&T wants to be paid for the following: 1) The DSL users who pay AT&T. 2) The Data Center or Content Provider who buys OC-VeryFast from AT&T. 3) The Content Provider who pays AT&T for prioritization to the DSL customer. 4) The people AT&T has peering agreements with because more data is moving across their network. I think you could just summarize it like this:
So AT&T wants to be paid by the following:
1) Every single human being on earth
.... unless they are AT&T Management.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
