How Much Bandwidth Do We Really Need?Plenty, as long as storage keeps getting cheaper and content gets better.... ( old news - 11:39AM Thursday Jul 03 2008) tags: business · bandwidth · stats Telephony Online asks the simple but highly contentious question: how much bandwidth does the American home really need? The question was raised again recently when Comcast and Verizon began offering 50Mbps tiers in some markets. For an individual user those speeds may seem excessive, but for an entire home it's quickly going to become commonplace. The piece notes that customer desire to download media is proportional to the cost to store it, and looks forward to storage costs in 2015: By 2015, storage will cost a penny per gigabyte. (It’s hard to believe, but a $100 computer-based hard disk will hold 10 terabytes, enough for more than 3 million MP3s or 400 Blu-Ray disc-quality movies.) A 25 gigabyte movie will cost the same to store on a hard disk as a 25 megabyte 8-song album did in 2000. By 2015, you’d want to be able to download that 25 gigabyte movie in about 2 minutes, implying bandwidth of 1 Gbps. Add live HD video streams and uploads, and the desired household bandwidth is even higher. 1Gbps connections dumping media onto 10 terabyte drives? It seems like only yesterday my 300 baud Hayes compatible was feeding an Apple IIgs with 256 KB of built-in RAM.
Related:- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Global Broadband Prices Plummet
- Backbone Analysis Puts Exaflood Myth To Bed
- PC Mag Ranks ISPs By Browsing Speed
- Once More With Feeling: There Is No Exaflood
- Wednesday Evening Links
|
page: 1 · 2  |
 | 
WasteNot
@rr.com
| Gluttony? Other than those who will use the internet as a giant DVD library, I can't see how anyone fills more than a 128kb pipe.
We've been very happy with our DSL circuit @ 256kb, though they've "upgraded" to 768k over the years.
The key to our satisfaction though, is not the rated speed, but the consistent delivery of it. 768Kb should give us sustained 768Kb 24x7, not "3 Mbps", except when the cable company decides to give us zero. In this respect, DSL still reigns supreme over all other connection methods.
ISDN would have been preferable, but thanks to Judge Greene and non-competitive pricing, it was stillborn in America.
(My 300 baud modem was an upgrade.) | |
|  | 
Pashune
Inhaling at 410 KB per sec.
Premium
join:2006-04-14
Gautier, MS | Re: Gluttony? My daily dose of Youtube is nice now and then, so 1.5 mbit sort of satisfies my needs...but not really. | |
| | chrisbmoore
join:2003-08-28
Frederick, MD
 ·Comcast
| Well with VOIP you need to have more than 128 kb guaranteed. That connection alone takes 190 kb. If you add in 3 users in a home all using the internet at the same time, then you've easily maxed out 3 Mbps, depending on what you are doing. So for you maybe mroe than 128kbps is not needed but trust me...it is now in the minority of broadband users. | |
| | 
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Akron, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| anyone who runs a MS OS or app would surely beg to differ. the last install of xp pro that I did took just 30mins including drivers, etc. but once I got connected to the net boy was I glad to have 15Mbps down- there were hundreds of security patches to download.
--
"I saw Matlock in a bar last night; the sound was off, but I think I got the gist of it..." | |
| | | 
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: Gluttony? And you do these patches daily?
The excuses are getting lame. The old patches routine, Linuxes, baby photo's to granny, etc, etc. | |
| | | | 
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
| Re: Gluttony? Do we really need a car that can go over 60mph? I mean, for people who dont need to drive on the highway often, why do we need a car that can consistantly hit 60mph?
The point is that the extra speed is available when its needed. I may not patch my windows boxes everyday (though it seems like it some days), but when I have to reformat and reinstall, I'd rather be able to do this in 3hrs as apposed to having to wait for a day off and spend all day doing it.
My pc also doesnt need 4gb of ram all the time, but when I load up Google Earth while browsing in multiple tabs in Opera while streaming some musci from another pc with winamp, my ram usage jumps from 900mb to about 3gb. I dont always need it, but its there when I do. | |
| | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: Gluttony? said by Boogeyman  :Do we really need a car that can go over 60mph? I mean, for people who dont need to drive on the highway often, why do we need a car that can consistantly hit 60mph? I think the analogy is: Do we really need roads with capacity for 160mph 24x7 when most people are ok driving 60? (And, ok with rush hour traffic slowing things down to 40). If I'm ok with 60, why should I have to pay for expanding a 4-lane highway to a 12-lane for the people who are obsessed with "any speed at any time?"
Mark | |
| | | | | |
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL | Re: Gluttony? Yes, much better analogy. | |
| | | | | | | 
BIGMIKE
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA
| Re: Gluttony? said by Boogeyman :Yes, much better analogy. How much car do you really need?
Do we really need a car with v8 motor that gets 12 mpg? | |
| | | | | | | 
slimpickinz
join:2003-11-29
Conyers, GA | Hey Dumb Ass If you have ever been in Atlanta during rush hour, the extra lanes are not for speed, but for VOLUME.
And that would apply to the pipe as well. | |
| | | | | | | |
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
1 edit | Re: Hey Dumb Ass Yes, I have been to Atlanta during rush hour. And in my limited experience, its for speed AND volume. (You Atlanta drivers are fucking nuts, 4 lanes side by side going 50 bumper to bumper? I was scared shitless the whole time driving there)
Anyway, how does agreeing that someones analogy is better than mine make me a dumbass? I dont agree with his point, just that his analogy fits better.
amiga_boy, I understand your side, and I can see from a business perspective how that way should work, but when looked at from a consumers perspective, it would be like ordering fries from McD's and only getting a half order because everyone else was ordering fries at the time too.
Its just part of the cost of doing business. In an office, you dont always need someone sitting at the desk to answer phones, because the phone doesnt ring constantly, but you pay someone to be there all the time for when the phone does ring.
*EDIT* huge spelling mistakes | |
| | | | | | 
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| But we're not ASKING for roads that let you go 160mph. We ARE asking for roads where you can always go 60mph, and if that requires them to upgrade from a 4 lane road to a 12 lane road, well, that's what they should do. Why do they ADVERTISE 160mph, if the only let you do that for 1/2 hour a day?
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Gluttony? said by karlmarx :But we're not ASKING for roads that let you go 160mph. We ARE asking for roads where you can always go 60mph, and if that requires them to upgrade from a 4 lane road to a 12 lane road, well, that's what they should do. Why do they ADVERTISE 160mph, if the only let you do that for 1/2 hour a day? Why do telephone companies advertise that you will reliably get a dial tone (and complete a call) when they know that's not the case when *everybody* tries at the same time?
You're asking for the ISPs to provide capacity which would largely go unused just so they could always meet their advertised rate. Just because you can't accept the idea that they're providing average capacities.
That doesn't sound reasonable to me because, to meet their advertised speed at any time, they'd have a lot of perishable product go unused. That's expensive. If you're willing to pay for it, that's ok.
But, I do agree that if they aren't even trying to tie advertised rates to average usage (and expectations), that's a problem.
Mark | |
| | | | s13
join:2007-12-06
USA
| Good call Bono, only music pirates and warez d00ds need fast connections. 768k DSL for everyone! 
The only thing lame here is your act - notice I didn't say "getting lame," because it has been since day one. | |
| | | | |
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: Gluttony? Sure Jack Sparrow | |
| | | | | | s13
join:2007-12-06
USA | Re: Gluttony? Sure Spack Jarrow | |
| | | | | | |
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: Gluttony? Now you are making perfect sense | |
| | | |
j5
@comcast.net | its not an excuses some people really do that stuff daily | |
| | Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| Well there are other applications besides simple browsing that might be able to really take advantage of these kinds of speeds.
For instance, we are just starting to see web based email applications that approach the same kind of interface that you'd get with a mail client like Thunderbird. Part of that is new(ish) technologies like AJAX but part is also having the bandwidth available to deliver email messages (complete with graphics) in near-real time.
So I'd expect to see a lot more applications popping up on the web (OpenOffice for instance). That's something that's been talked about since the '90s, but 50 Mbps starts to make it viable. There are real advantages to not having your work tied to one particular computer after all.
Also, a 10 Mbps connection brings you to the sort of speeds you typically got with a LAN ten years ago. A 50 Mbps connection gets you a much of the way to the typical 100 Mbps LAN most people still have today. So there are all kinds of implications for network storage as well (assuming that these connections eventually become symmetrical).
--
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." | |
| | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | Personally, I work remotely, and VPN/SSH tunnel in to sites half way across the country on a 3Mbps/512kbps pipe, and it works very well for SSH, Remote Desktop, VoIP (Skype) and even X11.
The issue that I typically have is...not the ability to have higher data rates, but the promotion of higher data rates with caps.
Eg. Is there a need for caps on a 3Mbps connection ?
Companies will promote 10-20Mbps connections, then complain that the lines are being abused, and force a round of caps on all, where the 'low' end user ends up on an insanely low (read wireless like) 5GB/month cap, forcing users to a higher tier, making more profits for the ISP.
Do I really need a higher data rate ? No! But I'd be forced to a higher data rate regardless.
I think anything under 100GB/month for a wired Internet connection is crazy. If you're going to put in a 5GB cap on a line (like TWC is proposing in TX), it should be on a 256kbps-512kbps line ONLY.
100GB cap on a 3MBps line would mean that I use ~1/10th of the total bandwidth in a month, based on a 3Mbps tier.
While I am no bandwidth hog, I do accept a reasonable amount of control.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Gluttony? said by en102 :Do I really need a higher data rate ? No! But I'd be forced to a higher data rate regardless. I wonder if there's really a difference from the ISP perspective. If the average person consumes 1000x their [advertised] speed, I don't think I'd care whether 1. someone wants higher speed but not more consumption (i.e., their capacity will go unused more often). Or, 2. someone wants higher consumption at a slow speed (i.e., their capacity will go unused less often).
Without metered billing, it's all about averages. A perishable product going unused, or overused.
You're assuming that slow speed with above-average consumption (less unused time than the average) costs the ISP less, and would result in a significantly lower-priced plan than higher-speed/consumption. Their costs may be due to people falling outside the average.
Mark | |
| | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Gluttony? said by amigo_boy :Without metered billing, it's all about averages. A perishable product going unused, or overused. Those averages may are typically business models.
In the case of some ISPs, it may depend on where their cost point is. Eg. Cable 'can' put high data rates, but may require caps to support it at the node. This model would work for this scenario, however, I do suspect that time of day usage may also play a part.
Eg. I could consume 95% of the bandwidth, but congestion occurs during peak periods. In the case of DSL, costs are not at the node, so the basis is somewhat different... but the same overall model will work.
If the model is (and most likely is) easier to track on a per GB model, and management can work with that model as a 1:1 correlation. Management can trend based on what they set as averages... they just have their 'averages' set a little 'low'.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| 128KB? Are you kidding? Pages nowadays can easily top 200KB each (with images, JavaScript, CSS, etc). At 128kbps, that would take 12.5 seconds to load. At 1Mbps, it would take 1.6 seconds.
In addition, I'll often load up multiple pages at once. Either by opening an entire folder of bookmarks in Firefox (e.g. "Morning Websites") or by simply browsing on three or four websites at the same time. This cuts my bandwidth-per-site down. If I try loading four 200KB pages at the same time, it will take me nearly a minute on a 128kbps connection. A 1Mbps connection, however, will have those four pages loaded up in 6.4 seconds.
This doesn't even address online video, downloading updates, or some of the other bandwidth-intensive tasks that can be done (that other posters have touched upon).
Nowadays, I'd say that 1Mbps is the minimum bandwidth for the casual web surfer with higher bandwidths required the more you do online (VoIP, online video, online games, etc).
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | |
| | | | |
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
| Re: Gluttony? Heh, bringing Steam up reminded me that when I reformat/reinstqall again, I'll be downloading about 20-30gb from Steam alone just to reinstall my games.
Which was actually one of the features I fell in love with, I dont have to keep all my disks handy and switch them out over a 2hr period while all my games install. I just install Steam, log in, then download and install the games I want to play. Hell, I dont even have all my Steam games installed right now just to save some space.
I'd be pissed if I got charged hefty overages just because I had to reinstall my legally purchased products. | |
| | | | plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY
clubs: | Re: Gluttony? or you could make install discs through steam for all your games. | |
| | | | |
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL | Re: Gluttony? But I'd still have the problem of 3hrs to install all my games again while having to sit there swapping out disks.
I can install Steam, tell it to get all my games, then go to work and everything would be playable when I got home. | |
| | | | | Xioden
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
| said by plat2on1 :or you could make install discs through steam for all your games. You still would have to have them downloaded. What if you didn't currently have them downloaded?
What about non-steam games? Plenty of MMOG can be downloaded directly from the patch server. TWC is flaunting some of their new caps as "1 GB allows for 34 hours of gaming". So cool, I don't play that much so that's fine... Oh Wait, This game is 5GB+ Well damn, its going to take me over a month just to download the game unless I want to pay overage charges.
Some games are in the 10GB+ range. Biggest I've downloaded was Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, which was 21GB. Puts a big damper on things such as Steam, Direct2Drive, and any other digital sales. | |
| | | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by dadkins :Ever see a large... game demo? Or something like America's Army(1800+MB)? Ever want to maybe play it... TODAY? @ 128kbps, it's going to take you a while to download America's Army.  Some games hit the multi-GB size. Meanwhile, someone with 6mbps+ will get it in a more timely manner and be playing it WAY sooner than - you. Got Steam?  Movies are trying to make a play via internet(Netflix streaming? Movielink? Amazon Unbox?) Care to guess how long it will take someone on a 128 or 256kbps line to download a DVD? A HD movie? How about a 46GB Blu-ray? HD movies from places like XBox Live and Itunes are typically 5-6 GB not 46 GB. Those HD movies are 720p and have bit rates of 4-6 Mbps. Places would never have movies in "blu-ray" format for download. If you mean "blu-ray"-like as in 1080p and 40 Mbps bit rate then ok maybe down the road they might. | |
| | | | 
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: Gluttony? said by BF69 :said by dadkins :Ever see a large... game demo? Or something like America's Army(1800+MB)? Ever want to maybe play it... TODAY? @ 128kbps, it's going to take you a while to download America's Army. Some games hit the multi-GB size. Meanwhile, someone with 6mbps+ will get it in a more timely manner and be playing it WAY sooner than - you. Got Steam? Movies are trying to make a play via internet(Netflix streaming? Movielink? Amazon Unbox?) Care to guess how long it will take someone on a 128 or 256kbps line to download a DVD? A HD movie? How about a 46GB Blu-ray? HD movies from places like XBox Live and Itunes are typically 5-6 GB not 46 GB. Those HD movies are 720p and have bit rates of 4-6 Mbps. Places would never have movies in "blu-ray" format for download. If you mean "blu-ray"-like as in 1080p and 40 Mbps bit rate then ok maybe down the road they might. Yes, that's why I added Blu-ray as it's own line - as another possible future item someone might wish to try and download - if it or similar is ever offered.
What "they" offer as HD currently is... poor at best. 
I'll edit the post to reflect this.
Thanks BF!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| |
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Akron, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| What I'm not understanding here is why anyone would side with the big ISP's on this. the ISP's are simply looking for more revenue and could care less about any of us here.
I was sold a 15/768 line (albeit 'up to') and intend to use it in the manner it was advertised: to download music, movies, and software updates at 'blazing fast speeds, all for just $9.95 more per month'. TW in my area continues to advertise 'questionable' online activities that one could use their product for, and they do it for one reason: to sell it. If they decide to backpedal and begin charging users tolls to do these things, then they'd better prepare for someone to get upset.
--
"I saw Matlock in a bar last night; the sound was off, but I think I got the gist of it..." | |
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Gluttony? Because you work for an ISP? | |
| | deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
·Cox HSI
| Generalize for the masses much?
What about people like me? (This number is growing larger everyday too!) who have a Netflix Roku box and a Vudu Box and stream movies and TV shows LEGALLY on an almost daily basis?
I don't use the Internet as a "Giant DVD Library" as you say, implying once again the tired argument of; "Anyone who uses their Internet connection to it's fullest is a Pirate!" I use it for legitimate services like Netflix, Vudu, Flickr, YouTube, etc...
People like you are going to find yourselves quickly becoming more and more of a minority as the streaming services become more and more prevalent.
In short, you are behind the times, missing out, and you ultimately don't seem to care much if technology advances one way or another. Ignorant, sad, and mis-guided of you. | |
| | 
NetAdmin
join:2008-05-22
| said by WasteNot :
Other than those who will use the internet as a giant DVD library, I can't see how anyone fills more than a 128kb pipe. Other than me, I can't see how anyone fills more than 256kb of memory...
Same rationale...
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
| | 
CO_Chris
Premium
join:2001-08-28
Broomfield, CO
·Comcast
·Comcast Digital Vo..
1 edit | said by WasteNot :
I can't see how anyone fills more than a 128kb pipe.
We've been very happy with our DSL circuit @ 256kb, though they've "upgraded" to 768k over the years.
128K you are kidding right?
man how can you live on 768k? really you must read email only. It would take days to download my TopGear Ep's at that.
I remember when AOL was upgrading to 56k and i thought that was fast. I can never go back to less then the 8 megs i get from Comcast that's for sure. | |
| | 
maartena
Nice'n Round.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by WasteNot :
Other than those who will use the internet as a giant DVD library, I can't see how anyone fills more than a 128kb pipe. In what century do you live? We are in the 21st century, with 300-500kbps video streaming to be the average, where online gaming is a profitable industry, where iTunes rules the day (hint: at 128 Kb it would take more then 10 minutes to download a 5 Meg MP3 file) and where companies like BlockBuster and Netflix offer online DVD-rental for a fixed monthly fee. Download a DVD, burn it yourself. Watch it on TV.
Try downloading a 3 Gb+ movie from Netflix using 128 Kb. "Honey, what movie do you want to rent for NEXT tuesday, I need to start downloading it today".  | |
| | | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Gluttony? said by alg :Last week when my brother was still on vacation we had three computers connected to our 1.5 DSL line. While my mother was doing bills and stuff on the family computer, my dad and I were watching sports on ESPN360 and my brother was doing work related expense reports. Even those modest activities (all 100% legal by the way) were really dragging on the connection (which is the fastest connection we can get for the house). That's not even counting the fact that I cannot stream films from Netflix (another legit activity) even when I have the connection all to myself. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to have faster connections. No one is saying there is anything wrong with FASTER connections. Hell I have 10 Mbps form Charter. It's normally $50 a month. I do not however expect that for $50 that entitles me to download 3 Terrabytes of data in a month. And frankly if someone doing that is going to make MY conenction slow then hell yeah I'm all for Charter capping his ass. | |
| | | |
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Akron, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Gluttony? as many others will agree, charter (and the rest of these miserly cable ISP's) is instituting caps not because someone downloads multiple GB's of data, but because that data is more and more often video-data which is competition for the cableco's. they didn't care much 5 years ago did they? no, it wasn't until youtube, and netflix and the other services mentioned by others above went online that suddenly even a few GB became a big deal. technology has advanced a lot since cable internet started up, logically the cableco's would be embracing the idea of adding users, not creating ways of making them feel unwelcome after showing people doing just what they claim is 'hog activity' on their tv commercials.
is it any coincidence that longtime cap-avoider TW is now seriously considering caps, now that DirecTV has a VOD service that can potentially use the TW network to work?
--
"I saw Matlock in a bar last night; the sound was off, but I think I got the gist of it..." | |
| | | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
1 edit | Re: Gluttony? said by kba4 :as many others will agree, charter (and the rest of these miserly cable ISP's) is instituting caps not because someone downloads multiple GB's of data, but because that data is more and more often video-data which is competition for the cableco's. they didn't care much 5 years ago did they? no, it wasn't until youtube, and netflix and the other services mentioned by others above went online that suddenly even a few GB became a big deal. if you think the amount of data going through the pipes of the ISPs is the same as it was 5 years ago you're nuts.
Does INTENT really matter to you? You're convicned these caps are for nefarious purposes and no amount of proof is going to pursade you to think otherwise. You also dislike caps so even if the ISPs did have proof that caps where necessary adn you believed them you simply wouldn't give a shit. You want what you think is yours and that's all there is to it. If your ISP said they were going to have caps but the caps was going to be 600 GB a month and only 15 cents per GB overage you'd still be against it.
I don't think at this point that Comcast's proposed 250 GB is to small. That may change in 5 years. Now the overage fees that both TW and Comcast have proposed are a joke.
I've download DU meter on both my computer and my son's. Last month I used 28 GB total both DL and UL my son used 23 GB. He plays games online and downloads demos from Steam all the time. So that's 51 GB total. Now that's doesn't count any XBL useage since I haven't measured that. Not sure if I can. From what I have read on various places even a hardcore gamer wouldn't use more than 15 GB a month. So adding that up that would come to 66 GB. Hell let's round it up to 70 GB just to be safe. I'd still have 180 GB left over using Comcast's cap. | |
| | | | | |
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Akron, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Gluttony? of course the amount of data is not the same. HDD's are cheaper than ever, and so is the cost of computing. but somehow it suddenly costs more for the ISP to connect me to their network? of course not- it's all gotten cheaper over time and the only things changing are the number of users (which should take care of itself because users pay for service and that money should be invested at least partly into maintaining the network) and the type of data being transmitted.
ISP's like comcast have long snooped in on users habits and more and more often over the past few years it seems that p2p and video have become targets to isolate and boot. the problem is, these ISP's (I can't speak of comcast, I live in TW territory) like to tout their network's speed and potential uses, actually using pseudo progress bars in ads sometimes with familiar file formats on them (mp3, avi) showing us all just how quickly we can 'stream music, movies, download and share, etc.'. But the moment a sizable number of users decide to use their connections they become hogs.
As I've said, and I'm sure a lot of people will agree with me here: I pay for 15/768 and I'd like to use it without paying a second or third time. I'm not asking for anything for free, I just want what is advertised. If cable's main product (video) wasn't threatened then I seriously doubt there would be any issue raised in the first place.
--
"I saw Matlock in a bar last night; the sound was off, but I think I got the gist of it..." | |
| | 
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| said by WasteNot :
Other than those who will use the internet as a giant DVD library, I can't see how anyone fills more than a 128kb pipe.
People like you seem to forget that other people actually exist and have a need/want for more bandwidth. Businesses would love low priced bandwidth instead of being gouged.
I would love to watch more tv show and movies online with better quality, I hate all the buffering and stuttering. I would also like better video conferencing.
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
| |
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | They're dreaming If they think Americans are going to have 1Gbps connections in 7 years..... I strongly suspect most the USA will be stuck in the 20 mbps and under range for a long, long time.
And they'll be capped, too. | |
| | 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
| Re: They're dreaming said by KrK :If they think Americans are going to have 1Gbps connections in 7 years..... I strongly suspect most the USA will be stuck in the 20 mbps and under range for a long, long time. And they'll be capped, too. Being as that broadband to the home has only been mainstream for about 8-9 years now, thats a pretty bold statement. The technology is changing so fast. Who knows what the standards will be in 8 more years. | |
| | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: They're dreaming Well true... but based on advances in my area.... DSL first started in the area late 1999. Uverse is coming, they'll allow 25mbps, and Cox currently has close to 20.
So that's some improvement in 9 years, but nothing as dramatic as 20-50X faster then first DSL... From 6 max to 25ish. Course, as you say it is changing, but based on the entrenched providers, I *seriously* doubt it's going to go to 1Gbps in the next 7.
--
"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!) | |
| | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Site5.com
·Comcast
| Re: They're dreaming said by KrK :Well true... but based on advances in my area.... DSL first started in the area late 1999. Uverse is coming, they'll allow 25mbps, and Cox currently has close to 20. So that's some improvement in 9 years, but nothing as dramatic as 20-50X faster then first DSL... From 6 max to 25ish. Course, as you say it is changing, but based on the entrenched providers, I *seriously* doubt it's going to go to 1Gbps in the next 7. The current technology that we are using, cable and dsl, may give way to FIOS or wireless for that matter. Just as in previous years, dialup gave way to ISDN. ISDN gave way to cable/dsl. Will cable/dsl give way to new technology?
You are right though, that kind of dramatic increase seems hard to believe.
Course, back in 1994 when I got my 486 DX with a HUGE 250mb hard drive, I never thought 14 years later I would be using a quad core processor with dual 1 terrabyte hard drives. I can't imagine what kind of hard drives will be out 14 years from now. Maybe 25 terrabyte hard drives? Heck, 250mb hard drives to a 1 tb drive is about a 1000x difference. Maybe we are looking at petabyte drives? The mind reels. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | attsbcisgay
join:2003-03-18
Beverly Hills, CA
| Re: They're dreaming said by KrK :I think one day, yeah.... but in the next 7 years I can't see it happening. Even if AT&T suddenly had a change or heart (or Cox) and said "We're going FTTH!" I still see it taking longer then that to deploy--- and even when deployed I doubt they'll be wanting to give you a Gbps in 7 years it would be a miracle if the world is wired for broadband
in 7 years there will be more user with faster speed but they are still in the minority...
not a big deal
many user will still crawl at a measly 1.5mbps
3mbps
5mbps or other silly speed that seem to never improve
due to
1. regulation
2. patents
3. profits based on an obsolete model that will never change as long as it makes the provider lots of money namely dialup and slow ancient dsl not broadband is really slowband imho. \outandover/ancientchina | |
| 
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| How Much? As much as you can offer cheaply and reliably.
My LAN runs at 1gbps, why shouldn't my WAN.
Add in many multiples of computers running at once here (a increasingly common practice) and that 20/50mbps starts looking like dialup. At a bare minimum, 100mbps should be the nationally defined 'speed' for broadband.
I can only see demand going up as more bandwidth intensive apps show up on the net.. and more and more people use them.
--
Webmaster - Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»www.1-gb.net
»www.ppnstudio.com | |
| | | alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
|  This is the Age Old Question!
| |
| voipdabbler
join:2006-04-27
Kalispell, MT
| I think their cost estimates are too low Their cost estimates are way off mark since they are not factoring in inflation's effects. (And, unfortunately, most people aren't going to see pay increases to offset the effects of the inflationary cycle that we're in right now.) Inflation will continue to drive up the cost of everything. The other variable, that I believe will make these cost estimates off-the-mark is the imposition of some kind of carbon taxes in the next decade. The other additional taxes/fees that I could see being imposed within the next decade that would drive these costs up, although they won't be popular, are "intellectual property" taxes/fees. If the music and movie industry wake up and see that they can't control pirating, expect them to lobby for money elsewhere--like everyone who subscribes to the Internet (at least in the US). It will be interesting to see how high an annual tax/fee they propose for each Internet subscriber. I suspect it will be a lot higher than proposals that we've seen floated in the past. I also suspect the music and movie industry would like the idea of double dipping so it wouldn't shock me to see some kind of additional fee being added to the cost of digital media and computers to help off set their "losses" due to piracy, even though you'll be paying an annual tax/fee via your ISP. | |
| | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Need vs Want.. said by gatorkram :I've never seen an industry or a company refuse to offer something people are willing to pay for...Makes you wonder what is really going on sometimes.. Maybe what's going on is that the number of people wanting faster speeds (and higher consumption) aren't as many as you believe. Maybe they wouldn't be willing to pay if they knew how much it would cost to provide exceptional services to a non-average customer?
Mark | |
| 
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| 1, 2, 3,... more? If an "American home" consists of only 1 person, then 50mbps might be considered a luxury. If that home has 4 or more people, all frequently using the Internet at the same time--even for relatively mundane things, then 50mbps might very well be needed at times. Regardless, whatever one is willing to pay for he/she should be able to get (if only). A decade ago broadband itself was rare--and SLOW (hardly considered "broadband" at all now). A decade from now 50mbps will seem slow. It is what it is, and it ain't what it was; tomorrow will be different. Whatever one person's/home's "needs" are, you can be sure another's are different. | |
| | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: 1, 2, 3,... more? said by mod_wastrel :If an "American home" consists of only 1 person, then 50mbps might be considered a luxury. If that home has 4 or more people, all frequently using the Internet at the same time--even for relatively mundane things, then 50mbps might very well be needed at times. It's all about averages. If the average home is 2.1 people using the internet at once, I'm not going to get very far by arguing that there's only 1.2 people in my home using the net at once. You won't get far arguing there's 4.5 in your home.
Providing ala carte bandwidth and throughput might be more expensive than designing and pricing for averages.
Mark | |
| | |
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| Re: 1, 2, 3,... more? They didn't say anything about an "average" home, so I made no assumptions. Averages don't really work for the person or persons who use either less or more than average, which is most people. I'm just saying different people/homes "need" different speeds--"need" being a personal perception. It would be really nice if they could be more incremental in the speeds/tiers they make available, from very slow to very fast, but except for FiOS or something else with a huge range of top to bottom capability, it probably wouldn't mean much. | |
|
tmh
@comcast.net | Silly question Bandwidth is like money. I've never heard anyone say they have too much of it. | |
| |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI | Re: Silly question said by tmh :
To power computer users like people here on BBR, bandwidth is like money. I've never heard anyone say they have too much of it.
Fixed it for you | |
| 
Vamp
5c077
Premium
join:2003-01-28
MD | Will be happy with 100/100... I have 20/20 and not happy yet, need 100/100.
10 years from now I will only be happy with gigabit.
--
20/20 FIOS || MSN Msgr: scott001^gmail_com | |
| 
netwire
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Mooresboro, NC | Meh... Why does it matter anyhow? I mean, look at the shape our world is in - why focus on things like this when more important things are at stake, like our future.
--
World of Warcraft - My anti-drug.
| |
| geowil
join:2008-04-20
Laveen, AZ
·Qwest.net
·Cox HSI
1 edit | I think the Cox caps are spot on. with cox you get a 40 gig cap.
i usually dont hit it ever, i think the closest i ever got to it was 38 gigs in a month.
as long as you use it reasonably, any cap over 30 gigs on a 3mbps or higher (up to 50 mbps any higher then i think there would be an issue) should be a industry standard.
really, what we need is not more speed lower caps, or less speed higher caps or w/e, what we need is some consistency.
the rules (if there are any) for caps should all be standardized so that we dont get crap like 5g caps on a 3 meg line.
will the companies hate this, sure if they are non-conformed to the system, but, it would benefit us all really.
it'll root out the "upgraded" networks that are lacking in technology to supply a standard speed that is required by this ages internet needs and maybe force them to upgrade or lower their speeds to match the cap tier and get us some relatively reasonable caps.
as well as still snuffing out the 250g+ a month hogs.
said cap tiers could be like
700 kbps to 1 mbps - 10g cap monthly
1.5 mbps to 3 mbps - 15 or 20g cap
4 mbps to 7 mbps - 30 to 40g
8 to 15 mbps- 40 to 60g
20+ - anywhere from 70 to 120g a month
i would think that could be considered a fair cap tier system for consumers, the companies might see that and think, wtf, never.
--
Speedtest.net:
27759KB/s Down
538kb/s Up | |
| | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: I think the Cox caps are spot on. said by geowil :said cap tiers could be like 700 kbps to 1 mbps - 10g cap monthly 1.5 mbps to 3 mbps - 15 or 20g cap 4 mbps to 7 mbps - 30 to 40g 8 to 15 mbps- 40 to 60g 20+ - anywhere from 70 to 120g a month i would think that could be considered a fair cap tier system for consumers, the companies might see that and think, wtf, never. I think that a better/fairer first cut method on the caps should be to set them as x% of the full speed 24/7 download volume. IOW: If that 700kbs to 1 mbs tier has a 10g cap, the 1.5mbs to 3mbs tier should have a 30g (not a 15-20g cap). This means that my cap allows me the same average download usage independent of my speed tier (ie: I get the same full speed download usage time per month).
Also the overage fee/fine should be based on my cap not a fixed per GB fee (and might even be prorated after a deduction for an access fee). The access fee would be computed based on the upgrade cost of each tier. IOW: If a 3mbs tier is $10/m more than a 1mbs tier then the cost of the extra bandwidth is "only" $10/mbs and the rest of the cost is a fixed "connection" cost. Given the "bump" costs in the fees, this type of Fixed/Variable Cost computation might not be easy since the costs that ISPs list for their Tiers (once there are more than 2) tend not to be computed this way.
No matter what, if I exceed my cap by 25%, then my overage charge should not exceed 25% of my monthly under-cap charges (or much less if the rate is based on the Bandwidth charge). | |
| 
cao1964
join:2000-08-09
Danville, PA
| As much as I can get! Who knows what the future tech will bring, saying we don't need more or saying people use dialup because so many americans are to poor or have lost their jobs is irevelent to bandwidth need.
I personally like to real fiber to the home, and gigabyte transfer, and yes I love to see laws that give say netflix freadom to let people just walk up to their TV call up a movie and have it in 3 seconds start at HD 1080p level, rather than waiting a few days to get to me, why not I deserve it. or maybe all of you would like to crank the front of your car to get it started, after all why would we need anything more. | |
| | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: As much as I can get! said by cao1964 :give say netflix freadom to let people just walk up to their TV call up a movie and have it in 3 seconds start at HD 1080p level, rather than waiting a few days to get to me, why not I deserve it. Go for it. But, why should those who don't need it pay for it? The early adopters of DSL and digital cable didn't expect the dial-up users to pay for their greater needs.
Mark | |
| | | lordofwhee
join:2007-10-21
Everett, WA
| Re: As much as I can get! said by amigo_boy :said by cao1964 :give say netflix freadom to let people just walk up to their TV call up a movie and have it in 3 seconds start at HD 1080p level, rather than waiting a few days to get to me, why not I deserve it. Go for it. But, why should those who don't need it pay for it? The early adopters of DSL and digital cable didn't expect the dial-up users to pay for their greater needs. Mark Nobody's saying they should, just that those who want it should have it available to them, and at an internationally competitive price.
We pay about the same in the US for 10/2 line what you'd pay in Japan for a 100/100 line. Sure, they're a smaller country, but the fact we have a larger area means we will, eventually, be able to support more people, meaning, if we ever get to the density of Japan, higher profits.
Nobody plans for the future any more, everything is reactionary. | |
| | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| said by amigo_boy :said by cao1964 :give say netflix freadom to let people just walk up to their TV call up a movie and have it in 3 seconds start at HD 1080p level, rather than waiting a few days to get to me, why not I deserve it. Go for it. But, why should those who don't need it pay for it? The early adopters of DSL and digital cable didn't expect the dial-up users to pay for their greater needs. Mark Aren't higher speed tiers usually more expensive? As long as a cheaper lower-speed alternative exists I don't see what you're saying here. | |
| | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: As much as I can get! said by EPS :Aren't higher speed tiers usually more expensive? As long as a cheaper lower-speed alternative exists I don't see what you're saying here. I'm ok with that. I got the impression the "any speed, any time" boys want existing tiers to be faster (for example, advertised speed on demand, all the time, regardless of whether everyone needs it at the same time, thus resulting in a lot of unused capacity most of the time).
Mark (using 380kbs DSL and feeling purely decadent). | |
| 
Jeffrey
Bye George, 1937-2008
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Huntington Station, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Vonage
·magicjack.com
|  Love These Threads
You'll always get the first few people to say "why do you need more than [insert the number of bytes they use which they assume is good for everyone] such and such.
Then you'll get a few replies saying how they download 2TB/month, and how that's a slow month.
Lastly, the car/road analogies come into play, and get hashed. Why can't we all just get along? 
The fact of the matter is storage space will continue to get cheaper. This is a great thing as every other god damned thing we need keeps going up. Whether you download 1GB/month on your 128KB line, or 2TB on you're 50Mbit line, enjoy whatever it is. But no one really here should be in the position of telling another person what's good for them.
If it's just you in your apartment and you're not a TV lover and you don't watch movies or listen to music, I don't expect you to download that much per month. If you're a telecommuter with a wife and 4 kids, especially teenagers, potentially with more computers in the house than people, then I expect an entirely different usage pattern.
--
And so castles made of sand, slip into the sea, eventually.
"Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy." - George Carlin
blog | |
| | 
pspcrazy
Anime Freak
join:2008-02-06
San Diego, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Love These Threads Are you kidding me? 2TB a month is nothing Jeffrey I download 10 PB a day and it's not enough as I need to watch my JHouseWife show's in mega future high def NOW! J/k the reason we argue is because we fight for what we believe is important. Some on here like me know Internet is something that evolving extremely fast, and america isn't catching up to it's speed, while others on here for the most part just use email, occasianal video, and don't have much invested on the internet so don't care too much about it.
At the end it's how much we care about the web that causes us to argue. If you streamed video, downloaded anime all day and actually watched them like me, or ran a media streaming cam that showed you to your viewers on mike.tv you would be worried too as these fun thing's would come to a limited end with caps or would be better and enjoyed faster with faster speeds.
As simple as that. | |
| | 
LatinTek
join:2004-06-03
Flushing, NY
| said by Jeffrey :I came in late to this news item, but as soon as I read the teaser, I knew what comments to expect... You'll always get the first few people to say "why do you need more than [insert the number of bytes they use which they assume is good for everyone] such and such. Then you'll get a few replies saying how they download 2TB/month, and how that's a slow month. Lastly, the car/road analogies come into play, and get hashed. Why can't we all just get along? The fact of the matter is storage space will continue to get cheaper. This is a great thing as every other god damned thing we need keeps going up. Whether you download 1GB/month on your 128KB line, or 2TB on you're 50Mbit line, enjoy whatever it is. But no one really here should be in the position of telling another person what's good for them. If it's just you in your apartment and you're not a TV lover and you don't watch movies or listen to music, I don't expect you to download that much per month. If you're a telecommuter with a wife and 4 kids, especially teenagers, potentially with more computers in the house than people, then I expect an entirely different usage pattern. AWESOME!!!! I agree! Thanks Jeff | |
| 
KrazyDawg
join:2001-02-07
Vallejo, CA
clubs:
| 768k unacceptable 384k is an improvement when compared to dialup but its not particularly fast. Websites still took time to load. More websites have flash content that time to load and if you watch any type of video streams e.g. news or anything in higher quality you want a faster connection. I also sometimes have anywhere from 10-30 websites open. Split that 384-768k connection with several people in the household and you'll find a quick bottleneck. | |
|
dsljunky
@comcast.net
| And you care why? If people can afford Ferraris and Lambos and want to have that power at their disposal then let them have 50Mb internet. Don't hate me because I'm fast and awesome and I won't hate you for still living in the 90's. Anyway, we all can't be cool kids, so keep your crappy connections so we have someone to be superior to. | |
| SlyLoK
join:2007-10-19
Sugar Grove, VA | Weee I think I would be happy with a 256/256 connection right about now. | |
| 
ramsfansam
join:2002-08-27
Springfield, MO
·AT&T Southwest
| Put it in perspective, Instead of using highways and cars as analogies, let me explain it in a way that makes sense in a different way:
A family of 4 only needs a 3/4" water line at 30 psi to supply their needs. This will provide adequate water for bathing, cooking, cleaning, toilet use, etc. Thousands of older homes are built with water systems like this.
Now old Joe Contractor, he's in business to make money, so he remembers growing up in an old house with a 3/4" supply line. It worked well for his family back in the day, so it should work just fine for the multi-family housing he's building, and putting in a 3/4" line is a heck of a lot cheaper than putting in that 5" main...he'll be saving a boatload of money. He goes ahead and installs the 3/4" line, and just to make sure, he goes to each apartment and turns on every faucet to check for water flow, then turns each one off as soon as water begins flowing. He tested every one of the faucets, one at a time, so he's satisfied that the residents will be more than happy with his thrift, because it wil save them some cash, too!
Well, when the residents move in, they find out that there's not enough pressure or volume for their needs. They call the manager, he calls the owner, she calls the contractor, he tells the owner she approved it so it's her baby to deal with. The residents are pissed and begin moving out. The owner of the building is losing money, knows she has to fix the problem, so she calls the contractor to rip out the undersized water pipes, and replace them with a 2" line.
That works for a while...but sooner or later, there will be enough people to require a 3" line. So...once again the woman has to spend more money to get a contractor to redo the water system, and instead of just doing it right the first time, she thinks she's smart for waiting until the demand is there.
Most ISP's use the same line of thought...it worked well in 1993, it should work well for everyone still today! Not so. Right now, I have a 6.0/768 DSL line, I have 4 separate computers on this one line. I admit, the majority of the traffic is generated from only one computer, but when I need to transfer that .pdf blueprint from home to work, I use up that little bit of bandwidth pretty fast. 50 Mbps? I don't need it at this time. What I DO need is a reliable connection, symmetrical upload and download, and 10 Mbps would be adequate. Problem is, AT&T is still using 1993 technology in my area. The only other choice I have is Mediacom, and I refuse to pay them one red cent for what they call "hi-speed internet"...roughly translated, that means anything from 128 kbps on up, depending on how overloaded the node is at any given moment. If they would allow me to PAY according to the speed I got when I was a customer, my bills would have been less than 10% of what they tried to extort charge.
Do we need it? Not yet. Will we? Probably. Do we invest now, or do we try to use pipes that are too small just to save a buck? (Which will cost us all more in the long run!) | |
| Spazonator
join:2007-09-16 | OC-24 Just imagine if we all had OC-24 lines. The end of Lag(hopefully) and 30 nano second ping times! It would be amazing if the Internet had that kind of SYMMETRICAL capacity. | |
| | | |
|
|
