said by wifi4milez :

.. and thats precisely why the caps are being implemented. ..

said by nasadude :

caps are being implemented for the sole reason of sucking more money out of existing customers. stopping p2p and illegal downloading is a red herring.

said by RR206 :

I guess an AppleTV would be a bad idea.

said by wifi4milez :

Thats your opinion, however my statement that most sites cant be accessed any faster (on a 50Mbps connection) is an irrefutable fact. Each time DSLR reports about faster internet speeds there is inevitably an avalanche of "now I can reach the cap faster" posts. I am simply looking to point out that with the exception of piracy, most "normal" websites will behave in the same manor, and thus your caps wont be reached any quicker.

said by wifi4milez :

Thats your opinion, however my statement that most sites cant be accessed any faster (on a 50Mbps connection) is an irrefutable fact. Each time DSLR reports about faster internet speeds there is inevitably an avalanche of "now I can reach the cap faster" posts. I am simply looking to point out that with the exception of piracy, most "normal" websites will behave in the same manor, and thus your caps wont be reached any quicker.

said by nasadude :

caps are being implemented for the sole reason of sucking more money out of existing customers. stopping p2p and illegal downloading is a red herring.

said by bentman78 :

Actually that's false.

More and more website are pushing multimedia through their websites. Sites like hulu, netflix, joost and others are letting people watch full movies on the internet.

Games are more bandwidth intensive as well. Let's not forget things like xbox live marketplace where you can also purchase and download movies and shows and watch them in high def.

So no, high bandwidth usage isn't for only stealing content.

said by bentman78 :

Actually that's false.

More and more website are pushing multimedia through their websites. Sites like hulu, netflix, joost and others are letting people watch full movies on the internet.

Games are more bandwidth intensive as well. Let's not forget things like xbox live marketplace where you can also purchase and download movies and shows and watch them in high def.

So no, high bandwidth usage isn't for only stealing content.

said by wifi4milez :

Well, you raise an interesting argument. First let me say that when it comes to streaming content, you can only watch that content as fast as it is meant to be displayed. This means that even if you have a 10Gbps pipe the movie wont play any faster, so there will be no difference between between 3Mbps end user or a 50Mbps end user. Yes, sites are pushing more media content from their websites but unless you want to watch/listen to it in "fast forward mode" the extra bandwidth wont do anything for you. Neflix, Joost, and Hulu will provide exactly the same end user experience whether you have a 50Mbps connection or a 3Mbps connection (aside from the content loading slightly quicker).

Contrary to popular belief, online games hardly use any bandwidth. In fact, most dont use much more than a few VoIP calls worth at a given time (if that). Again, an online player with a 50Mbps connection wont notice any difference over that of a 768k player. With online games, its latency that matters and bandwidth has absolutely nothing to do with it.

As for purchasing/downloading HD movies from places like Xbox live, that too is irrelevant. To begin with, you need to pay for that content so its not like you are going to be downloading 24/7. Secondly, you plan on watching those movies at some point, right? The fact remains that a 2 hour HD movie will still take 2 hours to watch, regardless of how long it takes you to download it. Also, the Xbox site (and the Xbox itself) might not even be able to properly manage a 100Mbps request at this point in time (since nobody has them yet), so the who argument is moot.

Dont get me wrong, having more bandwidth is a good thing. My point is that other than people who are pirating (fill in the blank), the vast majority of end users wont be reaching their caps any quicker than they are now. The infrastructure of most sites simply wont allow it.

said by Frank If you think 1080p is big, wait until the new hd resolutions come out which are even larger.

said by Sturm :

I can download video content at that speed from LEGAL pay sites.

Your comment is ignorant.

said by wifi4milez :

Yes you can, but you will need to pay for it so you wont leave you connection running 24/7 like people do with Bit Torrent. Also, unless you are unemployed you can only watch so many movies in a given period of time. There comes a point that the number of movies you can download exceeds the amount of free time you have to watch them. This effectively negates any "benefit" you gain from downloading them quicker.

said by MattE :

Actually, no it does not. Being able to download them faster allows things like instant start to watch the movie while it's downloading, or gives you the ability to start watching the movie faster if you have to download the whole thing ... if I can download a movie in 20-30 minutes, rather than 24 hours, that's a better product to me. A higher speed allows this.

said by wifi4milez :

Incorrect. The "instant start" thing that Netlfix offers has nothing to do with your bandwidth. They basically have a (very limited) selection of movies queued up on the head end of their network of servers. When you select instant start, they stream that particular title directly to you instead of waiting for it to download. As long as you have enough bandwidth to support a video stream (anything much above 1.5Mbps will work fine) you are in good shape.

said by BosstonesOwn :

Ah no. Netflix uses clusters not "head ends" to stream video to you , And They are working on HD streaming , soon that would blow the 1.5 mbit idea out of the water.

said by wifi4milez :

Thats almost irrelevant. You will be hard pressed to find a site on the internet that can serve data at that rate. In fact, one of the only things you can do "full throttle" is steal content, and thats precisely why the caps are being implemented. Email and websurfing wont be any faster on a 50Mbps connection than they will be on a 3Mbps connection in most cases.

said by jmn1207 :

Doesn't anyone have a family or perhaps a roommate or two? This does not have to be just one computer utilizing this bandwidth. Geez, it only takes a couple of teenagers to bog down a network. This increased bandwidth may not be necessary for a single user, but anyone with a home network and multiple users might find the increases to be a godsend.

said by jmn1207 :

Geez, it only takes a couple of teenagers to bog down a network.

said by wifi4milez :

In fact, one of the only things you can do "full throttle" is steal copy content, and thats precisely why the caps are being implemented.

said by Amr :

50Mbps with a cap of 250GB...horrible.

said by Cabal :

Comcast doesn't have caps.

said by nasadude :

they are trial running caps as we speak, in VA and PA.

said by Amr :

50Mbps with a cap of 250GB...horrible.

said by BF69 :

Just because you have 50 Mbps does that mean you have to download 24/7 at that speed? Isn't the benefit of having that speed is to download FASTER not MORE?

Sorry but you could download 8 GB a day and still not go over your cap. Exactly how many GB a day do you intend to downloading LEGALLY? At least half their customers don't even download that in a month. What maybe 10-15% at best download that much in a week?

said by fatmanskinny :

Wow. I am excited.

/Sarcasm