 
Jason
Col. Panic
Premium
join:2001-01-24
38.2967 Lat
clubs:
1 edit | Heh.. Im sorry, im wrong.. Comcast, please tell me again what I want?
-Jason
--
The artist formerly known as sane. | |
|
 | 
heaphus
Geaux Tigers
Premium
join:2003-04-12
Franklinton, LA
clubs: | Re: Heh.. Is there some major technological hurdle to providing faster upstream speeds?
--
Proud member of the Cajun Crunch Team | |
|
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | Re: Heh.. no | |
|
| | | 
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
1 edit | Re: Heh.. said by nasadude  :
no
That's somewhat an un-educated statement.
True, there isn't totally a tech-problem preventing any feasible Upstream upgrade, but there are still firm hurdles that need to be overcome.
I'd like to see an upstream speed upgrade, but from what I understand about the limitations of QPSK modulation (which can handle 2.3-4.6 Megabits of upstream depending on the width of the channel), the available upstream bandwidth seems to be the limiting technological factor regarding any upstream cap increase. 16QAM upstream modulation could be used, but it still doesn't provide a large upgrade in upstream bandwidth per channel, and it requires considerably cleaner signal.
As such, any upstream upgrade might possibly require an infrastructure upgrade. I'm not sure if Comcast is willing to spend the money just to deliver more upstream. I'd be willing to bet that's because they don't want to encourage:
• P2P usage
• Running Servers
• Making users more attractive as spam-boxes
I've been saying this for almost an entire year, we'd have more chance of finding a three-legged-ballerina than an upstream upgrade in the next year.
--
Touch a thistle timidly, and it pricks you; grasp it boldly, and its spines crumble. -William S. Halsey | |
|
| | | | 
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
| Re: Heh.. said by Nerdtalker :
16QAM upstream modulation could be used, but it still doesn't provide a large upgrade in upstream bandwidth per channel, and it requires considerably cleaner signal.
DOCSIS 2.0 adds QAM64 modulation and almost doubles the channel bandwidth to provide up to 30Mbps. The dirtiness of the upstream channel frequencies are taken care of by using new encodings and ECC schemes.
quote:
As such, any upstream upgrade might possibly require an infrastructure upgrade.
Cable companies including Comcast has done the upgrades already. The infrastructure is ready... | |
|
| | | | |
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
| Re: Heh.. said by DrTCP :
said by Nerdtalker :
16QAM upstream modulation could be used, but it still doesn't provide a large upgrade in upstream bandwidth per channel, and it requires considerably cleaner signal.
DOCSIS 2.0 adds QAM64 modulation and almost doubles the channel bandwidth to provide up to 30Mbps. The dirtiness of the upstream channel frequencies are taken care of by using new encodings and ECC schemes.
quote:
As such, any upstream upgrade might possibly require an infrastructure upgrade.
Cable companies including Comcast has done the upgrades already. The infrastructure is ready...
DOCSIS 2.0 is a viable solution, but its still too far off.
Comcast for one has only just begun upgrading to DOCSIS 1.1, and the majority of modems and linecards are still DOCSIS 1.x. My point still stands, they'd need to replace all of that, and what'd the only benefit be, so that the 5% of power users can P2P, host files/webpages, and use a webcam? From a business point of view, its simply not worth the time or money at this point.
--
Touch a thistle timidly, and it pricks you; grasp it boldly, and its spines crumble. -William S. Halsey | |
|
| | | | | | 
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
| Re: Heh.. said by Nerdtalker :
DOCSIS 2.0 is a viable solution, but its still too far off.
Comcast for one has only just begun upgrading to DOCSIS 1.1, and the majority of modems and linecards are still DOCSIS 1.x. My point still stands, they'd need to replace all of that, and what'd the only benefit be, so that the 5% of power users can P2P, host files/webpages, and use a webcam? From a business point of view, its simply not worth the time or money at this point.
There are ways to use multiple upstream and downstream channels on a cable segment. DOCSIS 2.0 allows a more efficient upstream modulation using only slighly more bandwidth to get the maximum 30mb upstream data rate it provides. This also allows them to better manage node saturation with multiple upstreams. Here is somewhat of an analogy(?) or at least something to explain. Imagine the T1 being one of a few lo-speed upload channels (only one can be used at a time) and the T3 being just one hi-speed upload channel. It also can be somewhat informative to certain people from the example I purposely have chosen. The ISP in the example has a topology that does not connect any T1s together and uses one of it's T1s for a certain group of customers.
A T1 can do 1.54Mbps and that's it. A small ISP can sell 6 256/256kbps connections and never fully saturate the connection. Since BBR people are cheap ba$tard$ and refuse to pay the $100+ price for a measly 256/256, the ISPs decide to oversell the connection and hope that the customers don't notice this. This means that the ISP cannot continue to sell 256/256 to new customers using the same T1. They would start to call in and complain about how stupid it was to have your oversell ratio all fsked up.
So instead of having a few T1s that have to be managed so each segment's bandwidth is sufficient, a T3 is used and usually can be oversold using a slightly higher ratio than a lower speed connection. If one T1 was quiet with nobody using it and another one was saturated, the bandwidth could not be taken away from the other T1 to make up for the saturated one. This can be very inefficient for bandwith and money, and the ISP could get upset subscribers.
Since when were 'power users' the only people who use webcams? The Moto SB5100 is DOCSIS 2.0
--
The Intel Prescott. One step closer to 50,000 watts of clear channel power! | |
|
| | | | | | |
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
| Re: Heh.. said by pcscdma :
said by Nerdtalker :
DOCSIS 2.0 is a viable solution, but its still too far off.
Comcast for one has only just begun upgrading to DOCSIS 1.1, and the majority of modems and linecards are still DOCSIS 1.x. My point still stands, they'd need to replace all of that, and what'd the only benefit be, so that the 5% of power users can P2P, host files/webpages, and use a webcam? From a business point of view, its simply not worth the time or money at this point.
Since when were 'power users' the only people who use webcams? The Moto SB5100 is DOCSIS 2.0
Since most of the non power users are just beginning to understand how to even connect the webcam...
You fail to understand why we aren't seeing DOCSIS 2.0 being phased in. Modems are available, but linecards and new CMTS equipment is costly.
Think about it from a business point of view, why would increasing upstream make your service more appealing to average Joe? He doesn't share files, run a webpage, or use a webcam, he only "surfs the net".
--
Touch a thistle timidly, and it pricks you; grasp it boldly, and its spines crumble. -William S. Halsey | |
|
| | | | | | | |
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
| Re: Heh.. said by Nerdtalker :
You fail to understand why we aren't seeing DOCSIS 2.0 being phased in. Modems are available, but linecards and new CMTS equipment is costly.
First of all, most CMTS manufacturers now have DOCSIS 2.0 line card upgrades. ISP does not need to upgrade to DOCSIS 2.0 everywhere. Cisco is the dominant player in CMTS business and they started selling DOCSIS 2.0 CMTS last year.
Secondly, you only need to upgrade those systems where total upstream utilization at any one instant is likely to exceed 10Mbps (DOCSIS 1.0/1.1). But there are other solutions you can choose before DOCSIS 2.0 path. DOCSIS 1.0/1.1 systems can allocate multiple upstreams per one downstream channel (typically a CMTS card is 4up:1down). So, CMTS can loadbalance modems to one of the 4 upstream channels even though they all use the same downstream channel (beauty of DOCSIS scalable design).
If the modems are capped to T1 this is not going to cause any problems to the user.
The advantage of DOCSIS 2.0 is that it allows better upstream frequency usage (efficient use of spectrum) for the Cable ISP. It is not really a problem for the user. DOCSIS 2.0 and DOCSIS 1.1 use the same MAC code so the difference is basically on the physical layer. | |
|
| | | | 
Yeahwhatever
@66.20.x.x
| That is true, but more so than that, a common problem is still affecting cable. With the increase of just plain ol' use of the current upstream has jumped the proc usage on the routers in the OTNs to 70-90% usage! Making a split on the upstream a must just to maintain current standards. There ofcourse are plenty of ways around this; but a hurdle non the least! The problem with high % you ask? with all the load on the proc from upstream causes it to drop downstream packets just to keep up. This is just one problem that I have come accross while working for comcast.
But I too would rather have slower downstreams than current in replace of higher upstreams! | |
|
| | Alphy
join:2001-12-31
Troy, MI
| The survey is incredibly skewed. Saying that BBR users represent the average Cable/DSL subscriber is just plain wrong. I am in no way defending the major ISP's (who wouldn't mind more bandwidth?) but a 1.5Mbit connection will keep the AVERAGE user appeased for quite some time. | |
|
| | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: Heh.. said by Alphy :
The survey is incredibly skewed. Saying that BBR users represent the average Cable/DSL subscriber is just plain wrong.
I agree. I would say that the most BBR users represent "the people who want more upstream bandwidth but are too cheap to pay for it so they whine" category. LOL
--
9/11 was the best thing to happen to Michael Moore
Win another one for the Gipper! Bush/Cheney 2004 | |
|
| | | |
| | | | 
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil
| Re: Heh.. said by tiger72 :
Even the "average" user will want to videoconference in the near future like they've said we could for years.
LOL!!!! The average users I know couldn't define the term videoconference if their lives depended on it. | |
|
| | | | | 
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | Re: Heh.. $20 webcam + nothing better to do + broadband = video conference
wait it's being done allready, it's the new pr0n craze now, but it can't be done ? | |
|
| | | | | | 
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | Re: Heh.. not in quality. 352x240 isn't quality. 640x480+ is. | |
|
| | | | | | | 
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
1 edit | Re: Heh.. said by tiger72 :
not in quality. 352x240 isn't quality. 640x480+ is.
Bull sheite... 640x480 is decidedly not quality video. Quality video is 1280x1024(+)x65536(or better). That is good enough.
Once, a long time ago I managed a couple of va.us college campuses. We had 45 MBit connections to the Internet. We thought that full screen video plus audio was what we had to have.... but then my IT manager thought she had to also have access to the Dean's audio/video channel (a bug in other words)....
Broadband... broadband is currently little more than a toy for idiots... and dishonest IT managers.
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| Re: Heh.. Actually your suggestion that one could see rain drops on a window 50 feet away is decidedly beyone reason.
Lets look at it like this? What is the angle subtended by a pixel on a 17" monitor if it is driven at a 1280x1024 resolution.
Lets us presume the monitor is viewed at 24". A pixel is approximately (17.0/1280)=.01328" by (17.0/1024)=.01660".
We can average (and round) this for our purposes ((.01328+.01660)/2)=.015"x.015"
Now we need to figure the subtended angle. Since the tangent of an angle is equal to the opposite side over the adjacent side, and we know the opposite side is .015" and the adjacent side is 24", we can use the arctangent function to compute the subtended angle of a pixel as (atan(.015/24.0)) ~= .036 degrees
If we project this resolution to 50 feet we get 25 (50'/2') * .015" ~= .375" ... Now I have seen raindrops which were 3/8" inch in diameter, in West BFG Texas during a thunderstorm, but I've never seen one that was that big clinging to a window.
I stand by what I said... My experience demonstrates that we don't currently have the killer apps that need broadband, that when IT managers are given those toys they exploit them for their personal career advancement, and that said toys do not actually contribute the the growth or well functioning of those institutions besotted with the technology...
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
| And now something completely different... Here is some more math for those that understood that (or to confuse you even more).
([resolution] Width * Height) * Bits per pixel * Frames per second = raw bitrate in bits/second
raw bitrate in bits/second * compression codec factor = data rate in bits/second
line data rate in bits/second * protocol overhead factor = line data rate in bits/second
if webcam's line data rate in bits/second > provider's actual real-world thoroughput = trouble
else = good
--
The Intel Prescott. One step closer to 50,000 watts of clear channel power! | |
|
| | | | | | | 
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL | PAL TV isn't much better. You just want more frames per second, at least 24.
--
Un-farenheit 9/11 »slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ | |
|
| | | | | | 
cao1964
join:2000-08-09
Danville, PA
| Real computer + iSight + real fast upstream = equal things you have not even dreamed off.
What is interesting is how easy people just take what ever comes, not realizing that if they don't really care about speed hey why don't you go back to 2800 baud modems, same reason that I hate slow DSL and Cable speed.
Can't do what I really like doing. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| said by Alphy :
The survey is incredibly skewed. Saying that BBR users represent the average Cable/DSL subscriber is just plain wrong. I am in no way defending the major ISP's (who wouldn't mind more bandwidth?) but a 1.5Mbit connection will keep the AVERAGE user appeased for quite some time.
I agree 100%
The BBR community are techies. For the most part, we love bandwidth and the internet. Not only do we want fiber speeds, but we want dialup prices. That isn't the way things work, but hey, we can dream can't we?
Sorry, but the BBR community is nowhere NEAR where the average user is today. Some of these users do like the content. However, they aren't looking for faster speeds. For instance, I have a friend who had Comcast HSI and I coaxed him into getting SBC DSL. He saves about $17 a month now and he doesn't notice the difference in speeds at all! Of course, he is just a common user.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
|
| | | |
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
| Re: Heh.. said by Nightfall :
said by Alphy :
The survey is incredibly skewed. Saying that BBR users represent the average Cable/DSL subscriber is just plain wrong. I am in no way defending the major ISP's (who wouldn't mind more bandwidth?) but a 1.5Mbit connection will keep the AVERAGE user appeased for quite some time.
I agree 100%
The BBR community are techies. For the most part, we love bandwidth and the internet. Not only do we want fiber speeds, but we want dialup prices. That isn't the way things work, but hey, we can dream can't we?
Sorry, but the BBR community is nowhere NEAR where the average user is today. Some of these users do like the content. However, they aren't looking for faster speeds. For instance, I have a friend who had Comcast HSI and I coaxed him into getting SBC DSL. He saves about $17 a month now and he doesn't notice the difference in speeds at all! Of course, he is just a common user.
You've hit the nail on the head...
BBR is comprised mainly of power users who know what they're doing, and how to do it. If they don't, they know who to ask.
Average Joe's benchmark of "internet speed" is simply raw page load times, how snappy the internet feels for him. Heck, even I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between 1.5 megabits down and 3.3 megabits down just viewing the CNN webpage or something. DNS server times are something ISP's should spend time making fast. That or giving us more webspace.
--
Touch a thistle timidly, and it pricks you; grasp it boldly, and its spines crumble. -William S. Halsey | |
|
| | |
| | | BizFinancing
Premium
join:2003-01-10
Port Orchard, WA | Re: Heh.. That is primarily the fault of the cable providers who have been too cheap to build their networks properly and to provide sufficient, high quality IP access. | |
|
| | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Heh.. said by BizFinancing :
That is primarily the fault of the cable providers who have been too cheap to build their networks properly and to provide sufficient, high quality IP access.
Even the cable companies' half-@$$ed buildout of broadband easily puts to shame the lack of deployments by the telegraph companies.
--
9/11 was the best thing to happen to Michael Moore
Win another one for the Gipper! Bush/Cheney 2004 | |
|
| | | |
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil
| said by BizFinancing :
That is primarily the fault of the cable providers who have been too cheap to build their networks properly and to provide sufficient, high quality IP access.
Wrong. Unlike telephone systems, cable companies built their fiber networks to be a one-way street; the provider sends data to your cable box, period. | |
|
| | | | |
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
1 edit | Re: Heh.. said by LordMalak :
Wrong. Unlike telephone systems, cable companies built their fiber networks to be a one-way street; the provider sends data to your cable box, period.
That was 20 years ago and in some isolated remote arease are only 1 way. Now, HFC systems (which makes up over 90% of cable systems in the US) are bidirectional. | |
|
| | |
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | tell that to my 1Mb upload | |
|
| | | | 
Speedy8
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH
clubs:
| Re: Heh.. said by BonezX :
tell that to my 1Mb upload
And i bet your upload is one tenth your download speed, your point? | |
|
| | 
LBDSL
Lightning Bolt
VIP
join:2002-01-07
Auburn Hills, MI
| said by heaphus :
Is there some major technological hurdle to providing faster upstream speeds?
With ADSL, as the technology stands now in the US, the MAX you can do on the upload side is 1m, under perfect conditions. Real world 768, or slightly higher is the best you will get.
SDSL can go up to 2.3m, but you have a distance, and cost issue.
--
Lightning Bolt Technologies | |
|
| | |
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
| Re: Heh.. said by LBDSL :
said by heaphus :
Is there some major technological hurdle to providing faster upstream speeds?
With ADSL, as the technology stands now in the US, the MAX you can do on the upload side is 1m, under perfect conditions. Real world 768, or slightly higher is the best you will get.
SDSL can go up to 2.3m, but you have a distance, and cost issue.
Actually cable can deliver up to 30Mbps using DOCSIS 2.0 equipment (10Mbps using DOCSIS 1.0/1.1). Thus, technically a cable customer can easily push 1.5-2Mbps easily upstream in real life.
OK, you can say that cable is shared and not all customers can be handled but the same problem exists with DSL in that while each of 500 DSL customer gets its own 786kbps to the DSLAM from the DSLAM to the ISP router the connection is usually a T3 (45Mbps) so it does not really matter. Bandwidth is shared somewhere.
Provided provisioned so, a DSL customer can burst to 786kbps max while a cable customer can burst up to 30Mbps (typically up to 10Mbps due to 10BaseT ethernet found in a typical cable modem) ethernet interface is 10BaseT) | |
|
| | | |
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | Re: Heh.. there's 10mb+ cable modems, their just expensive | |
|
| | | | |
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
| Re: Heh.. said by BonezX :
there's 10mb+ cable modems, their just expensive
Motorola 5100 is a DOCSIS 2.0 CM with 10/100 Lan interface and it is not very expensive ($79-20MIR at BestBuy) I am not sure if it really can deliver 30Mbps (enough CPU power, efficient code?) but it should be easily able to provide 10Mbps upstream provided the cable company has provisioned it that way. | |
|
| | | | 
Sean
join:2004-01-23
Ottawa
·Bell Sympatico
| said by DrTCP :
said by LBDSL :
said by heaphus :
Is there some major technological hurdle to providing faster upstream speeds?
With ADSL, as the technology stands now in the US, the MAX you can do on the upload side is 1m, under perfect conditions. Real world 768, or slightly higher is the best you will get.
SDSL can go up to 2.3m, but you have a distance, and cost issue.
Actually cable can deliver up to 30Mbps using DOCSIS 2.0 equipment (10Mbps using DOCSIS 1.0/1.1). Thus, technically a cable customer can easily push 1.5-2Mbps easily upstream in real life.
OK, you can say that cable is shared and not all customers can be handled but the same problem exists with DSL in that while each of 500 DSL customer gets its own 786kbps to the DSLAM from the DSLAM to the ISP router the connection is usually a T3 (45Mbps) so it does not really matter. Bandwidth is shared somewhere.
Provided provisioned so, a DSL customer can burst to 786kbps max while a cable customer can burst up to 30Mbps (typically up to 10Mbps due to 10BaseT ethernet found in a typical cable modem) ethernet interface is 10BaseT)
While this is technically true, real life shows up otherwise. The farther up the bandwidth is split, the less of a difference individuals see. | |
|
| | | |
| |
YoMan99
@68.34.x.x | Yes there is. comcast would have to upgrade most of their hardware, and clean up the lines to acheive faster uploads. comcast can prob do it. but alot of work has to be done | |
|
| 
bmupton
join:2001-08-19
Saskatoon, SK
| Isn't Disney the world's largest mind control corporation?
I mean come on.........
Hey, who are you? What are you doing to me?
Hey!
Someone HELP m.........................................
--
psychowolfman, webmaster
»www.saskmetal.com | |
|
| |
rubber_ducky6
join:2004-05-02 | re psycho Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. | |
|
|
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | Re: re psycho resistance is fitile ?
can't assimilate me when you don't have feet, or arms | |
|
spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA | I want it... I lay prostrate before the almighty D! | |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | Government needs to act It should make it illegal to call anything broadband, unless its download and uploud is 1.5m or above. They should make the term smallband for those that keep dicking us around with 768K download and 128K upload. | |
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil
| They're Giving Them What They Want Guys, there's more to broadband's users than the geeks/nerds/dweebs that hang out at BBR and Slashdot.
I want more speed up and down as much as you do, but the majority of users out there are moms and dads who want their online shopping to be more convenient. Just ask AOL.
Think outside the box here! Only a very small percentage of users are technically-inclined speed freaks. | |
|
|
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
| Re: They're Giving Them What They Want said by LordMalak :
I want more speed up and down as much as you do, but the majority of users out there are moms and dads who want their online shopping to be more convenient. Just ask AOL.
i notice the refrence with online shopping, what about if the "dad" or "mom" actually plays games ? | |
|
| | 
Sholnay
My Name Is In My Profile
Premium
join:2000-12-08
Dallas, TX
clubs:
| Re: They're Giving Them What They Want said by BonezX :
i notice the refrence with online shopping, what about if the "dad" or "mom" actually plays games ?
Then they cease to be the average mom and dad and they probably post here, making them a DSLR nut.. and thus part of the minority. I agree - the average user does not care what their upstream connection is... in fact, they probably dont even know what that is other than its the direction bass swim.
--
||Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.||
||Go see Napoleon Dynamite... NOW|| | |
|
| | | 
Cobra9777
Pain Is Just Weakness Leaving The Body
join:2002-09-28
Denton, TX | Re: They're Giving Them What They Want I agree as well. I would only add... don't blame companies for doing what the majority of customers want. It's good business. | |
|
gtrw44
@attbi.com
| How about a Newsserver! with full 5 days retention and the ability to add new groups? I don't need portals,content,mickey mouse or Dating services with included VD screenings. I would like speed,Low prices and a good NEWSSERVER! My $57.95 a month isn't buying me much these days! | |
|
dgtech
join:2003-08-20 | The Bottom Line.... The bottom line is we the American People are being ripped off. Countries like Japan have isp's that offer 100mbps fiber internet for the practically the same price that we pay for our 3mbps connections. | |
|
| ced06
join:2004-03-12
Towanda, PA
| Re: The Bottom Line.... said by dgtech :
The bottom line is we the American People are being ripped off. Countries like Japan have isp's that offer 100mbps fiber internet for the practically the same price that we pay for our 3mbps connections.
Not to mention most of Japan is covered with broadband. | |
|
| | stridr69
join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA
| Re: The Bottom Line.... Not to mention Japan is the size of what U.S.State(Puerto Rico dosen't count!).
Not to mention Japan's ISP's are funded either whole or partially by their Government.
Same with South Korea-slightly bigger than Puerto Rico by the way.
Just my 3 Mbs worth.. | |
|
| | |
Sholnay
My Name Is In My Profile
Premium
join:2000-12-08
Dallas, TX
clubs: | Re: The Bottom Line.... not to mention the companies offering these services have yet to show a profit and probably wont.
--
||Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.||
||Go see Napoleon Dynamite... NOW|| | |
|
| | | | 
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| Re: The Bottom Line....
And just as GDP leaves much to be desired as a measure of a healthy populous or economy (what is paid -- if it even is -- to cleanup toxic waste, for example), so too is the "bottom line."
The longer we're mired in a 'bottom line' think-box, the sooner we will win the race to the bottom. We are better than halfway there now -- look at how our media is beholden and our sinking opinion with the rest of the world.
| |
|
ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN | xbox live? Doesnt xbox live depend on the users connection to run/play the games? given more upload people could host alot more players.. | |
|
Owaen2
@bostream.se
| Prices/Bandwidth in other countries ? I dont know the prices in US but i think i have a pretty good bandwidth for what i pay.
VDSL 26 Mbit up AND down, static IP. 
The cost is aprox. 53$/month.
I live in Malmo / SWEDEN | |
|
phr0ze
join:2002-12-06
Columbia, MD
| Hey... You guys mention the average moms and dads don't need anything more than what they have... you are right. But that also means those average people probably aren't making any requests for new features to the companies. So all the majority of the requests come from us BBR users. And we request more upload speeds. I'm not saying the companies need to change it for everyone but offer a broader range of speeds for users to pick from. Most averange people would settle for 768/128 or less to save some bucks but you don't see the companies offering that. And people like us would pay extra for more speed. These companies should be more than willing to let us minority pay them more money to give us more speed which would have minimal impact on the infrastructure. I know Comcast has started a $10 upgrade and I have already signed up (I even had pro before that) But there should be even more choices. The real injustice is where these companies hold the average users hostage. The price difference between basic cable and expanded cable is around $35 and there is no in between. And the bare price of comcast HSI is $55 to a non subscriber. Comcast is ultimately scared to offer trimmed services for $25-$35 because the majority (average users) would take them up on it. | |
|
jasqid
Fiber In Your Diet?
join:2002-04-02
East Palestine, OH
| Yeah, this is no service I really dont see this as a service. And it's definely something I dont need nor want. If I want to watch the news I turn my TV on that I am currently paying comcast to get.
Instead of paying Disney that money for this "service" why not put it in your pockets and give us another speed bump. I'm looking in to VoIP and 512 up would be nice. | |
|
| kingshat
join:2004-07-19
Cleveland, TN | Re: Yeah, this is no service So then why when you get an upgrade to a business broadband connection the upload and download speed are the same? | |
|
bertant
join:2002-12-03
Smyrna, GA
|  Upstreams faster in Europe
»adsl.siol.net if you want to see what they offer. I find it odd with so much technology here we are outpaced by the new EU countries such as Slovenia but they probaly understand their customers better and give them what they want. | |
|
TheFerret
The Chesse Stands Alone
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Sarnia, ON
clubs:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Good Speed Why don't all the people with low upload bandwidth move to Ontario, I have Sympatico with 3000 Kbps down and 860 (I think, it is over 800 though it might be 806) Kbps upload for only $50 CAD ($38 USD)... In case you don't know, I have DSL...
--
Run Dog, Run... | |
|
fartness
Computersoc Dot Com
Premium
join:2003-03-25
Look Outside
clubs: | Church I thought church taught me not to want. | |
|
|
|
|
Give Them What They Want
·
·
·
·
