 
Swingerhead
Premium
join:2004-04-06
Richmond, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
| Not going to be on the "internet" All of the TV data is going to be on the local network of the internet provider. Meaning if you have Verizon Fiber, you have Verizon TV. I highly doubt that anyone is going to be able to convince their investors that they can provide the QOS to provide HD over the internet. | |
|
 | disc
join:2005-12-31
Raleigh, NC
| Re: Not going to be on the "internet" The article still begs the question on what is meant by HD over Internet. For instance, I could see a model where an Internet Portal places a video server co-located next to the head-end of a service provider. If there's a direct link (e.g. OC12 or above) between the portal's co-located video server and the service provider, then the Internet backbone (e.g. MCI/Verizon) is bypassed, in which case, those types of charges are no longer relevant.
Not to say that the service providers would allow such a configuration. | |
|
|
| Jonbo298
join:2004-01-12
Council Bluffs, IA | Re: wow.... idiots! They should take a page from Japan and Korea on how they do their inanely quick internet speeds and keep up with demand  | |
|
| | 
33591094
join:2002-11-19
Canada | Re: wow.... idiots! What? Shrink the large countries down to their size? | |
|
| | | |
| | | | 
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
| Re: wow.... idiots! Ahhh pardon me Mister DaSneaky..... New York City currently is fiscally very healthy with a budget surplus..... this city is run very well considering it's size and population. if you mean private corporations that are headquartered here then that's another thing totally independent of New York.... | |
|
| | | | | 
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | Re: wow.... idiots! I meant the population density of NYC compared to Asian countries, not the city itself.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: | |
|
| | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Japanese and Korean lawmakers are more agreeable when it comes to telecom laws. If you told Bell they didn't have to worry about being penalized for any network outlay then you'd see more outlays. | |
|
| | | | | 
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| Re: wow.... idiots! said by bogey780  :Japanese and Korean lawmakers are more agreeable when it comes to telecom laws. If you told Bell they didn't have to worry about being penalized for any network outlay then you'd see more outlays. penalized by... | |
|
| | | | | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| Re: wow.... idiots! said by garagerock :penalized by... ...government regulation when competitors are not. | |
|
| | | | | | |
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY | Re: wow.... idiots! oh boo hoo. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| Re: wow.... idiots! said by garagerock :oh boo hoo. Real mature. It was an answer to a previous posters question. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| Re: wow.... idiots! said by Cod :said by garagerock :oh boo hoo. Real mature. It was an answer to a previous posters question. and your point is, Headmaster? gov't regulation is part of doing business. | |
|
| | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | What competitors? | |
|
| | | | | | | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| Re: wow.... idiots! said by Ahrenl :What competitors? Satellite, cable, VOIP, cell. Enough? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
DSLTech
join:2000-12-30
San Jose, CA
| Re: wow.... idiots! I dont see sat/cell/voip competing with the ILECs. sat is pretty marginalized and too much latency. cell? well, ILEC's have that already. so they compete against themselves? voip? they have that too.
honestly, the only competition for high-speed internet is CABLE, and with Comcast at $45/mo, doesnt seem like they really see any competition. they KNOW if you cant get good dsl, you got them. thats that. | |
|
| | | | | | 
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | Size does matter, when it comes to cost. | |
|
| | | | shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA
1 edit | I know, I was just reading about that. Here I am trying to save some money going from Charter's shotty 3mb/256k service for $45 to Verizon's $25 (naked-dsl) 768k/128k. Verizon FIOS hurry up and deploy in Central Mass already! I had better choices and speeds 7-8 yrs ago when I lived in Okinawa, Japan. | |
|
| | | | 
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß
| You are kidding right? Ever hear of economy of scale? It's very cost effective to put heavy/high throughput broadband in densely populated areas where the is a large customer base and ample infrastructure to support it.
They can "plan for the future" because the future of the customer base already exists. The whole country is only 374,744 sq km with like 128 million people. Doesn't take a lot of "planning" to figure out that customer base or even worry about the "last mile". | |
|
| | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: wow.... idiots! Canada is larger, less densley populated, and ranks higher on broadband per capita measures.. next excuse please.. | |
|
| | | | | | 
BloodRoses
Gods lend wings to tainted hearts
Premium
join:2003-03-17
clubs: | Re: wow.... idiots! Manhattan has a population density of 26,000 people per square kilometre, greater than that of Seoul or Tokyo. Yawn.
--
Cheers,
Stephanie - www.GlitterFaerie.com | |
|
| | | | | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: wow.... idiots! Well then I'm suprised that Manhattan Telephone and Telegraph hasn't deployed GigE all over the place. It's almost as if Manhattan isn't the only place the local telco serves. | |
|
maracaibo
join:2003-03-20 | HD Video Could 'Choke the Internet' They used to say that in the early 90's when the first .gif files started to appear | |
|
| Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| Re: HD Video Could 'Choke the Internet' said by maracaibo :They used to say that in the early 90's when the first .gif files started to appear Its all relative. In the early 90's, 14.4k and 28.8k dial up modems were the standard in computers and .gif files were actually somewhat large back then. | |
|
| | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: HD Video Could 'Choke the Internet' said by Cod :said by maracaibo :They used to say that in the early 90's when the first .gif files started to appear Its all relative. In the early 90's, 14.4k and 28.8k dial up modems were the standard in computers and .gif files were actually somewhat large back then. Which just proved...good porn is worth the wait. 
I couldn't tell if that era was more about technological innovation, or a social experiment testing users' patience. | |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | For sure... ...we know how accurate the AP was with the Katrina reporting so this must be true as well. | |
|
sapo
I eat meat
Premium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA | Blehh If ISPs wont upgrade their system for my needs then I want to pay only half of what I pay now.
--
I throw bricks at the devil. | |
|
petecellar
join:2002-10-15
Philadelphia, PA | Waa, we may actually have to provide what we bill for! Who can trust either? The AP, or ISPs?
Meanwhile, at least this AP article has a name attached to it. | |
|
| cluth
join:2004-01-06
Anchorage, AK
| Re: Waa, we may actually have to provide what we bill for! Meanwhile, at least this AP article has a name attached to it. Side note:
The AP is a cooperative/non-profit organization. (One of my journalism profs was an AP writer and explained it to us.) While they do have their own in-house writers (though not many, compared to area newspapers), most of their stories are copied from their member newspapers (and usually shortened quite a bit). That's part of the AP's agreement with their member newspapers.
If you see a story with no name, that means it was published in a member newspaper, edited, and then put out on the wire. If you see a name, that means it was reported and written by an AP staffer.
Having said this, it would be nice if the AP would stick the source newspaper's name on the edited copy so there is a trail to follow if errors are found (which, because reporters are human, is inevitable, sometimes). So, while the AP should take some blame for poor fact-checking on some of their Katrina stories they took from member newspapers, those source newspapers deserve most of the blame. To be honest, though, things happened so rapidly and on such a big scale that I don't think any one (or two) reporters could possibly assimilate everything, so many single stories missed the mark. In fact, I think that newspapers should give up the whole "un-biased/objective" stance and report in the first person and with liberal acknowledgment that each story is that reporter's interpretation. I think that would go a ways towards restoring newspapers' credibility. Even speaking as a student journalist, I can say that it's nearly impossible to be completely objective, no matter how hard you try--you'll always see things through your worldview's colored glasses. No matter how hard newspapers try to pretend that fact isn't there, it is, and people realize it. In many ways, I trust bloggers more than newspaper reporters--their viewpoint is far from hidden, which sometimes makes the actual news item easier to understand and interpret.
Another option would be to have every news story written and edited by at least two people, each with opposing viewpoints. That way, no "bias" would slip through, and everything would (hopefully) be factual and neutral. That's why Wikipedia works--anything POV is excised because there are people of all different worldviews editing.
Perhaps I should send this to the Poynter Institute...? | |
|
Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA | 2 Tier Internet Thus, the debate for the 2 Tiered Internet, Video is a loss sensitive service, and if you want QoS over the Internet... | |
|
|
See 15 replies to this post |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| brilliant! You mean 10Mbps isn't enough? who'd have thunk it?
What about docsis 3.0??? Is that not "bonding" channels together to give more bandwidth? To me this is the most obvious thing to do here, I mean right now a cable modem is only using one "Channel" of bandwidth, and there is only so much that can be squeezed into that 6Mhz of space. Get two or three, simultaneously, and BAM! you have a ton of bandwidth.
Please take away some useless channels and use that space for internet speeds. | |
|
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Re: brilliant! said by amungus :Please take away some useless channels and use that space for internet speeds. Why should they? The home shopping channels pay them to be placed on their network. Why would they want to give that up? | |
|
| |
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: brilliant! said by PDXPLT :said by amungus :Please take away some useless channels and use that space for internet speeds. Why should they? The home shopping channels pay them to be placed on their network. Why would they want to give that up? So, stations like ESPN pays Charter so Charter will broadcast ESPN?
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: | |
|
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Re: brilliant! said by DaSneaky1D :So, stations like ESPN pays Charter so Charter will broadcast ESPN? No, not ESPN. Charter pays ESPN. In fact, ESPN insists that ESPN be part of the basic package, so that all subscribers get them, whether they want to or not.
ESPN can get away with this because they maintain that they are so popular a channel that, were Charter to balk and not carry ESPN anymore, Charter would lose alot of subscribers to satellite. | |
|
|
Littlefalls
join:2004-11-16
Ringwood, NJ
| uhm... they should make the "shopping network" pay more so the Isp's can upgrade there service  20490x faster. They have to realize that A LOT of people watch TV. And that the providers can seriously control alot of channels and if they do not brodecast those channels they will loose alot of money so really they are dependent on the providers. Btw I can't spell today i'm tired lol. | |
|
|
| 
AnonName
@12.160.x.x
| Re: Overblown QoS is a bad idea. It's cheaper to just support more bandwidth. And it has other problems - for example, prioritizing one video over 10 thousand telnet (or ssh) connections because it's 'time sensitive' is a REALLY bad idea. But that's what QoS normally does. I've looked closely at the MPLS prioritization schemes, and they do this. Incredibly dumb, IMO.
QoS is not a bad idea. Properly applied it is quite usefull and can improve everyone's Internet experience.
It is not cheaper to support more bandwidth. If it were there would be absolutely no need for QoS and we would all have a couple of hundred M/Bits/Sec. QoS is in actual fact a result of the problem that additional bandwidth is not cheaper than traffic shaping.
Prioritizing one video stream over many telnet, or ssh streams is indeed stupid, and only someone who was not qualified to employ QoS would do something that stupid. On the other hand, prioritizing many telnet, or ssh streams over one video stream would not be all that stupid because the buffers at the client end of the link can easily be enlarged to reduce any "stutter" encountered at the gateway.
Reading a bit about prioritization schemes is helpful but it is important to understand the characteristics of each type of data stream. Nobody in their right mind would solve the latency sensitivity issues of TVIP by giving it priority, buffering will solve that problem because TVIP isn't latency sensitive. Video is sensitive to bursty data. Give TVIP a sustained 56k data stream and a big enough buffer and all will go well. Video is not interactive. It is not sensitive to anything but an empty receive buffer. | |
|
Littlefalls
join:2004-11-16
Ringwood, NJ | S-Video? Can't people connect the S video from their tv to their computer's video card? and watch tv? Or am I think of something else? | |
|
| devicenull
Premium
join:2002-12-01
Clifton, NJ | Re: S-Video? Not quite.. while that works for normal cable (with a special card), HD is a lot bigger.. There's not enough bandwidth for it on normal cable channels. | |
|
devicenull
Premium
join:2002-12-01
Clifton, NJ
| So what? I pay for 3.0/512. I expect that if every other customer were to make use of their connection, I would still be able to use mine at full speed. I know I probably wouldn't be able to..
The pathetic thing: I was watching someone in Europe upload a file to a FTP server.. they had a "standard" connection from their ISP, and they could UPLOAD faster then I could download. (600KB/s as measured by the FTP server)
So, maybe ISP's need to get off their ass? | |
|
Techman21
join:2005-04-14
Richmond, VA
| Um...what about all the dark fiber... that is still laying around the country. How's about actually utilizing it rather than sitting on it and then trying to soak the customer dry.
If worse comes to worse people will just stop using the net if Telcos/Cable companies are going to continue to be greedy about the whole deal. OR...the people will come together and create their own networks, which in time would grow.
I don't know what the fix will be in the future. All I know is that the internet needs to stay free and open as it was meant to be. (at least since its inception to the public) We pay for our actual connection and that is the end of it. Telcos/Cable companies are just pissy because they see all this money floating by for services on the net and they want a piece of the cake. Well tough luck. They are merely the connectors for us to receive the those service. If they want cash they should offer their own content and then charge for it if they wish..but no one will use it. The net is meant to be free and thus it will be. No amount of crying about it and trying to charge the people for it will change that fact. | |
|
| bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: Um...what about all the dark fiber... What dark fiber are you speaking about? How much dark fiber do you think is customer use? | |
|
| | Techman21
join:2005-04-14
Richmond, VA
| Re: Um...what about all the dark fiber... "Several communication companies, burdened with unredeemable debts from their expansion projects, sold their assets for cash or filed for bankruptcy. WorldCom, the largest of these, was found to have used accounting devices to overstate its profits by billions of dollars. The company's stock crashed when these irregularities were revealed, and within days it filed the largest corporate bankruptcy in U.S. history. Other examples include NorthPoint Communications, Global Crossing, JDS Uniphase, XO Communications, and Covad Communications. Demand for the new high-speed infrastructure never materialized, and it became dark fiber. Some analysts believe that there is so much dark fiber worldwide that only a small percentage of it will be "lit" in the decades to come." »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_crash
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fiber
»news.com.com/Google+wants+dark+f···392.html | |
|
| | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: Um...what about all the dark fiber... And for the most part it's meaningless to the end user. Light it all up. You ain't getting a faster internet connection from it. | |
|
| | | | Techman21
join:2005-04-14
Richmond, VA
| Re: Um...what about all the dark fiber... The point was that there is a ton of dark fiber laying around and the telcos/cable companies are complaining about usage. If they are that worried about it they can slowly light up some of this dark fiber as needed to curtail the bottlenecks if that is indeed what is happening.
I don't know how either one operates internally or presume to know the costs involved, but it seems to me they are trying to nickel and dime the consumer to get a piece of the pie. | |
|
| | | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: Um...what about all the dark fiber... Ok, I'll be explicit here.
It's not a backbone problem they're talking about. It's a node problem. | |
|
|
|
| Techman21
join:2005-04-14
Richmond, VA
| Re: Implication of IPTV Well said. My post was somewhat argumentative, but yours is very informative.
My qualms with all this is that from a technical stand point I know it can be done. My problem is that big business is trying to stop it until they can figure out a way to put a price on it so they can reap huge rewards. I have no problem with businesses earning money, they are in the business to create revenue. What I have problems with is when they decide to rape the public/consumer for as much as possible because they get to greedy. Perhaps this has come about because we as a nation want cheaper goods now, not later, but now. So in order to get these goods cheaper other areas are sacrificed. Namely service. | |
|
i1me2ao
Premium
join:2001-03-03
TEXAS |  confused
| |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs: | Buffering...... Buffering...... | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
·