Onlivefans recently had an interesting interview with onlive Founder and CEO Steve Perlman. In it, Perlman sounds like he believes that bandwidth caps are just fine print, and not a problem that could have a potentially crippling impact on the content industry:
quote:"I think that the ISPs have these bandwidth caps, number 1, and they enforce them; some of them enforce them more strictly than others, but also I think some of them don’t enforce them if they see it not happening," says Perlman. "They don’t feel like the person is really abusing their network. If they see that it’s a normal user, they are going to have normal patterns of usage, they don’t want to lose you as a customer. I think it just hasn’t come up," he says.
Except that it has. This was proven when Andre Vrignaud was kicked from Comcast for a year for what can be described as not an everyday customer -- but not a network abuser either. His choice to upload in RAW format images and listen to music at "lossless quality" shows he is more tech savvy then some -- but by no means beyond the ISP's ability to provide him service.
We also understand that Mr Perlman has to be reserved about his feelings regarding Internet providers as he is trying to work with them to provide the best gaming experience (AT&T is an OnLive funder). You'll recall Netflix also initially downplayed usage caps -- but started having a more critical tone once they launched streaming service in Canada and ran face-first into some of the worst caps and overages anywhere.
Another part of the article however makes it appear that Perlman thinks we live in a Utopia, where carriers really will scale caps accordingly (Comcast's cap hasn't moved since 2008):
quote:"…ISP bandwidth keeps going up, and bandwidth caps will keep going up. In the long term, it’s not going to be something anyone even thinks about."
While companies are switching/have switched to metered systems (with most of them having overage costs) Onlive wants you to believe that it's already getting better! Except it's not clear usage caps will scale. Comcast's hasn't moved since 2008. AT&T, meanwhile, isn't the type of company who'll be able to resist tightening the usage noose.
In addition to their existing platform, Onlive is trying to adopt an ability to play games via an Ipad app as well. Currently the app can’t play games but it can access uploaded videos of games and even real time video of game play. Onlive is also reportedly considering getting into the video business. You can be certain OnLive's cavalier tone concerning caps will change.
Just think about signing up for Onlive’s subscription service and then paying overages or being throttled on your home internet and wireless provider. I for one can’t wait!
Yeah, there's a couple of interviews with this guy, he's now claiming that he's going to be able to deliver 4k resolution video with uncompressed 7.1 sound at 240 frames per second... (240, not 24)
I don't believe him... but if something like that was true, why even talk about caps?
Would you care to point to these interviews? Your claims seem a bit silly because there's no reason to do uncompressed 7.1 audio (lossless makes more sense), and there's no reason to do 240 FPS (no television can display a 240FPS signal, not even 240Hz televisions). But for the hell of it, let's examine the rough bandwidth requirements. Some of these will be guesstimates, and I'll replace "uncompressed" with "lossless". There is a certain amount of pulling-out-of-ass going on here.
First, the easiest thing, the audio. Independent channel lossless audio is normally roughly 2:1 compression, and 7.1 is typically 96kHz/24-bit, which gives us roughly 9 Mbps.
Next, video. I think you misunderstood 240 FPS (since no such consumer display exists), but we'll do it anyhow. I'll base this off OnLive's existing 720p60 bandwidth usage, and estimate for 2304p240 (4k).
First, OnLive's current typical bitrate. There's no one figure (it's variable bitrate), but my own testing showed 5Mbps is probably a decent enough estimate. Now, I'll use the rule of thumb that a 4x increase in resolution (doubling the horizontal/vertical) requires a doubling of the bitrate (the higher the resolution, the lower the detail for any given macroblock since all the details are bigger), and that doubling the framerate requires 1.5x the bitrate (shorter time between frames means less motion to encode). That gives us about 5x for resolution, and 2.25x for framerate, if I'm doing that right, for a total of ~56 Mbps. That gives us a total of ~65 Mbps. That's not completely impossible with some modern connections. Videotron's 60 meg cable isn't enough (although scale down video quality and it is), but Shaw has some connections that are fast enough...
But this is all pointless, because as I said, the device to display this does not exist, and even lossless audio is pointless. In fact, there's little need for anything more than 1080p60, as compared to the current 720p60. I doubt OnLive, which is at roughly 5Mbps now, needs any more than 10-20 Mbps any time soon.
Would you care to point to these interviews? Your claims seem a bit silly because ...
Not my claims... i even said i don't believe the guy. And no, i didn't miss understand, he said 240 FPS, 4k resolution, (and he might have said loss-less audio, not uncompressed, that would be me putting words on his mouth and not looking at what i type before i hit enter) ******EDIT******* Nevermind! i didn't put words in his mouth afterall, he did say uncompressed, just listened to the interview again. ******EDIT******* But anyway, i don't need to debunk you, since i'm not the one claiming this... here's a link to the interview:
God this interviewer is so stupid. Sounds like a mindless college dropout. "Is this technology gonna run through LTE?" *facepalm*
He did ask a really important question though- when will the new wireless technology will be rolled out? And Perlman actually answered (!) with next year. Holy cow I want to see a demonstration of it ASAP. But the kid faltered with his last question. He was on the right track, "Will this technology only be used for OnLive?" but he didn't push hard enough! He needed to hammer the point that this technology would serve general internet needs far and above what is required by OnLive.
I really, really, REALLY hope Perlman and his technology incubator can come through.
Very few people seem to be excited about this, but jeezus this could be huge.
Holy cow I want to see a demonstration of it ASAP.
And that's the key right there, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until we at least see a working demo of this, all this talk means nothing.
I am -extremely- excited about DIDO. Seeing is believing for a lot of people. Until they can use it or hold it in their hands or observe it to some extent the idea isn't comprehensible. Personally, I am rather obsessed over the idea. I have dreamed of a mesh network countless times. The problem that has always been was the range of signal. I mean, before 802.11g, you'd be lucky to get much of a signal outside of your home. Even a very nice omni-directional antenna outside of the home has a pretty limited range (maybe a mile in very ideal conditions).
Claims of 30 miles (this is their minimum!) is intense. I mean, there wouldn't be need for more than 8 primary towers across the entire US that connect to a backbone, probably only two really if you need to connect to the fiber backbone that is on each coast (assuming enough people are using DIDO, and I am betting plenty would be). Basically this would make the need for ISPs vanish. Of course, there would need to be some serious security standards implemented, imagine having your WPA2 handshake accessed by the entire state you live in.
Generally, radio signals travel at the speed of light. Using some rounding, one might guess that the highest ping from coast to coast in the US would be around 40 ms (4000 miles, 20 ms each way).
To say I am eager to see a demo or get much more information is an understatement. Everyone would have the internet, everyone would have amazing speed, nobody could be kept from the internet.
I've heard the kid asking him questions on other videos, he does sound like a dunce.
Even if the device for DIDO itself cost 500 dollars I'd still gladly pay. Considering what I and I am sure many pay for the internet a year and at what speeds, DIDO would look like an amazing bargain.
I have read many articles recently on this website and similar, often the response or answer I would have is DIDO or at least a similar mesh network. Bandwidth, privacy, reliability, portability, cost, efficiency and freedom. DIDO sounds like it offers everything the internet could ever hope to be.
It all serves one purpose - to make the rich even richer at everyone else's expense - "the cloud" and any provider in-between is just complacent in what they want - to take more of your $$
Vote with your wallet and cancel Netflix, cancel OnLive and all this other non-sense that makes you "dependent" on the Internet...
Music on my own PC, doesn't need the Internet to play, doesn't need "service"
Games on my own PC, doesn't need the Internet to run, doesn't need "service"
Apps running on my phone shouldn't need "service" to work, they should just run locally - this "app store" nonsense everyone is buying into is just the fleecing of the consumer under the cover of "improved technology"
Are you part of the solution, or are you exacerbating the problem?
Cloud based services want you, and your ISP to pay the costs for their network distribution. This is why there is such a big push to change the Internet model of network payment to where ONLY the receiver/"requester of traffic" pays the network costs. CDNs, Netflix, etc all expect the network piece to be free for them (they will pay for the servers). They don't want to pay for their 1/2 of sending traffic over the network.
· 2011-Jul-27 4:50 pm: ·
LightS Premium Member join:2005-12-17 Greenville, TX
Do you have any clue what the hell you are talking about? I am going to venture a guess based on your entire statement here that the answer to that question is a resounding NO.
Hint for the Clueless (How ironic your name is). You pay the distribution cost of every single product you buy. This includes Pepsi, Panasonic, Apple, HP, Texaco, Kmart, and every other freaking business in existence that is there to make a profit.
so the hundreds of thousands a dollars a month netflix probably pays for bandwidth is only half of what they should be paying? or are you saying netflix has free internet and pushing these movies congesting ISPs bandwidth for $0?
i really need to call my colo sites and demand my money back. all this time i was actually PAYING for my servers to have available bandwidth.
· 2011-Jul-27 5:32 pm: ·
BHNtechXpert BHN Staff VIP join:2006-02-16 Saint Petersburg, FL kudos:182
Cloud based services want you, and your ISP to pay the costs for their network distribution. This is why there is such a big push to change the Internet model of network payment to where ONLY the receiver/"requester of traffic" pays the network costs. CDNs, Netflix, etc all expect the network piece to be free for them (they will pay for the servers). They don't want to pay for their 1/2 of sending traffic over the network.
When someone calls you, do you get a bill from their phone company?
If a friend sends you a package through the mail, does the post office ask you for half the postage?
· 2011-Jul-28 9:05 am: ·
MerinX Crunching for Cures Premium Member join:2011-02-03 kudos:1
Onlive and Netflix aren't the only ones that will get crunched by caps. Porn, online games will as well. Granted games don't use as much band width as a HD movie, but it could help hit the cap faster.
Interesting how the porn industry hasn't really weighed in on ISP and purposed caps. Have they complained about the caps in Canada?
Onlive is online games, onlive is as online a game can get. Onlive is a internet gaming idea, it works purely through the internet. Although you can play single player and multiplayer games through onlive, they both require and use the internet and bandwidth.
Interesting as it may be to some, Perlman just wrote out a fairly long explanation of DIDO. DIDO is supposed to be basically a version of mega wifi with incredible ranges for signal and outstanding bandwidth. Think 30-250 mile ranges at bandwidth and latency you've always wanted. »www.pcmag.com/article2/0 ··· 4,00.asp You can read an article on it here. »www.rearden.com/DIDO/DID ··· 0727.pdf Here is a PDF containing a lot of information concerning it.
It's like the best fiber optic connection to your house and to everyone else's house without the need for wires.
· 2011-Jul-29 11:24 am: ·
TCub Premium Member join:2008-09-03 Olmsted Falls, OH kudos:4
Interestingly I was reading that Comcast was upset as it's losing revenue from it's adult programs. They mentioned more people are (obviously) getting it for free online.
So if anything they would want to impose strict caps to encourage people to get their porn through them. Bastards..
Really I find it ballsy these ISPs are being so reckless. People iPhone, Android, tablets, Netflix, free porn, and gaming. These are forces to be reckoned with and yet they just keep pushing.
I'd like to think that if things get bad enough, people will revolt - but with most areas only having one or two ISPs offering service, that's unlikely.
·
·
