christcorp Premium Member join:2001-05-21 Cheyenne, WY
1 recommendation |
Skype's opinion is irrelevantLike the CEO of Skype is significant. Skype isn't significant. Why should his opinion mean anything? | |
|
| Mike Mod join:2000-09-17 Pittsburgh, PA |
Mike
Mod
2009-Jan-16 9:42 am
Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevantHe's looking to the future I guess.
Plus, he might just want attention. | |
|
| | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Jan-16 10:38 am
Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevantsaid by Mike:He's looking to the future I guess. Plus, he might just want attention. And since he can't compete with major ISPs voice products, he wants the battleground changed to give him a chance. | |
|
| | | en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2009-Jan-16 11:45 am
Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevantI don't know about that. I typically see + 12 million subs on Skype at any one time. I do think that with the economy running over a cliff right now, products like Skype will become more relevant, and become a good compliment to Wireless.
The 'best' current feature of Skype Mobile is to use a form of dial around for International calls. For those calling places like Canada and are charged $0.29/minute for LD, the $36/year gets paid for very quickly.
Companies like Skype just go against the grain by not forcing the typical phone service model. | |
|
| | | | |
Chuck Carlson
Anon
2009-Jan-17 2:26 pm
Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevantVOIP only works marginally at best in Canada. Sympatico speed throttles at 30 kilobytes per second download and upload speed almost around the clock 24/7. Rogers is not much better. VOIP is all but useless in this country. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevantsaid by Chuck Carlson :
VOIP only works marginally at best in Canada. Sympatico speed throttles at 30 kilobytes per second download and upload speed almost around the clock 24/7. Rogers is not much better. VOIP is all but useless in this country. I'm not having any problems and I've taken my VoIP adapter all over Bell and Rogers territory. I'm sure Bell/Rogers isn't that stupid at their throttling practices to go that far... | |
|
| | | CorydonCultivant son jardin Premium Member join:2008-02-18 Denver, CO |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:said by Mike:He's looking to the future I guess. Plus, he might just want attention. And since he can't compete with major ISPs voice products, he wants the battleground changed to give him a chance. I'm curious how the 50 Mbps definition would benefit Skype. VoIP itself really doesn't need much bandwidth at all (we're talking kbps here, not Mbps). I suppose video chat would be somewhat more bandwidth intensive, but even that seems to work reasonably well with current bandwidth availability. Of course they may have something else up their sleeve. Perhaps something like net broadcasting in full HD right from your house. Good for the amateur porn industry I suppose | |
|
| | | | SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
1 recommendation |
Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevantsaid by Corydon:I'm curious how the 50 Mbps definition would benefit Skype. More Supernodes. | |
|
| | | | | CorydonCultivant son jardin Premium Member join:2008-02-18 Denver, CO |
Corydon
Premium Member
2009-Jan-16 12:12 pm
Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevantInteresting article on that here. Apparently, nodes that are behind NAT are not selected as supernodes (i.e. just about everyone with a normally configured router would not qualify). Also, they found the supernode bandwidth consumption remains quite low, typically on the order of a few hundred bps, with spikes into the kilobit range. This is the sort of stuff that could be easily handled by typical cable modem bandwidth today. The data's a little old (collected in 2005 and 2006) so I suppose there could have been changes, but keep in mind that the whole process is designed to be pretty invisible to the user. | |
|
|
3 recommendations |
to christcorp
He probably has more industry weight than anyone here does...
If we're going to start bantering around numbers, let's make it a bitrate x usage cap product of some sort. Fifty megabits with a 1 gigabyte cap is hardly 'broad', while 10 with no limits is. | |
|
| | |
Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevantWhy not make it something reasonable?
50MBPs? Where is that even available? 2% of the US? If you want to make it a goal, then I will be stuck without broadband for another 10 years.
I think 1MBps in both directions is broadband today. Every year I think it should double. | |
|
| | | 1 edit |
Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevantOh, I agree with you. 10 megabits is do-able now without stretching the technology much. DOCSIS, ADSL2+ and 802.11g easily hit that. But even the speediest transport means nothing if you can't actually use it for much before slamming into a cap.
A 10 megabit connection can do about 4.5 gigabytes per hour. That's also about one hour of HDTV at 720p. If we're actually moving toward IPTV, and the average viewing is around 4 hours per day, one minimally HD stream will consume over 500 gigabytes of data. The cap becomes much more important than the raw connection rate.
So "broadband" needs to be defined both in terms of line speed and data consumption limits. | |
|
| | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Jan-16 3:10 pm
Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevantsaid by RadioDoc:So "broadband" needs to be defined both in terms of line speed and data consumption limits. Data consumption caps can be raised by gov't fiat. But it will drive up the monthly bill unless the U.S. is going to turn in to another "socialist paradise" under Obama where gov't sets prices as well as usage rules. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevantYou'd sound much more credible if you'd check your right wing blabber at the red room door. There is no valid reason for low usage caps other than corporate greed and anti-competitive behavior stifling the development of outside content providers. Obama (or Bush for that matter) have precious little to do with that. | |
|
| | | | | ParogadiWhat? Stop Looking At Me Like That Premium Member join:2003-03-31 Racine, WI |
to FFH5
whatever, bandwidth costs nothing once the line is already in place.
If anything, theres already a hard cap for 99.9999% of users out there even if we had 1Gbps Fios to the home, and that is the capacity of their hdd.
Besides, at 1Gbps it's nigh on impossible to "clog teh intarwebs" since 90% of downloads would take little more then a second to complete at that speed.
The only issu would be botted boxes, which nobody seems to have the ballls to just kick from the internet for blasting out a million spam messages a day or being used in a DDOS for a few hours.
Theres no technological reason why you can't have it this way. | |
|
| |
| Rogue90 Premium Member join:2008-01-23 West Milford, NJ |
to christcorp
said by christcorp:Like the CEO of Skype is significant. Skype isn't significant. Why should his opinion mean anything? While at first some may agree with you, knowledge of Skype's usage around the world would tell another story - Skype is very significant and his opinion does mean something. | |
|
| | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-Jan-16 4:03 pm
Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevantHas Skype deployed their own broadband infrastructure to support their customers? If so, then the CEO can pop off. If not, then he doesn't have a seat at the table IMO. | |
|
| |
to christcorp
said by christcorp:Like the CEO of Skype is significant. Skype isn't significant. Why should his opinion mean anything? To be fair, his opinion is more significant than 99% of ours. | |
|
| |
to christcorp
said by christcorp:Like the CEO of Skype is significant. Skype isn't significant. Why should his opinion mean anything? Well what do you think broadband should be defined as? And whose opinion does mean something and why? FWIW I use skype frequently and I know quite a few other people who do as well. | |
|
woody7 Premium Member join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA 1 edit |
woody7
Premium Member
2009-Jan-16 9:40 am
hmmmmmmGood luck in getting it changed..... But by bring it more attention who knows | |
|
Rick5 Premium Member join:2001-02-06 |
Rick5
Premium Member
2009-Jan-16 9:44 am
I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusionis... I'd need 50Mb to get it to work right. | |
|
| |
Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusionyah its very choppy.. i didn't have very good luck with it.. the only thing it worked great for was voicemail if you didnt want to give out your number. | |
|
| | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
ArrayList
Premium Member
2009-Jan-16 10:27 am
Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusionget a decent internet plan. don't max out your bandwidth while using it and try again. if your doing skype2skype calls then the problem could be on the other end of the conversation as well. | |
|
| | | |
Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusionHe's on OHMYGODITSSOFASTITGIVESMEORGASMS cable. No wonder it doesn't work right. | |
|
| | | | dadkinsCan you do Blu? MVM join:2003-09-26 Hercules, CA
1 recommendation |
Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusionsaid by RadioDoc:He's on OHMYGODITSSOFASTITGIVESMEORGASMS cable. No wonder it doesn't work right. I'm on Comcast as well and it works fine. What's your point? It's been working for years on Comcast. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusionsaid by dadkins:said by RadioDoc:He's on OHMYGODITSSOFASTITGIVESMEORGASMS cable. No wonder it doesn't work right. I'm on Comcast as well and it works fine. What's your point? It's been working for years on Comcast. My point is that he says it didn't work on his screamingly-hyped Comcastic! HSI connection. What works for you is not particularly relevant. | |
|
| | | | | | jester121 Premium Member join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL
1 recommendation |
jester121
Premium Member
2009-Jan-16 11:41 am
Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusionsaid by RadioDoc:What works for you is not particularly relevant. Nor is your opinion of Comcast. | |
|
| | | |
to ArrayList
I tried it on a DS3 and Skype to Skype calls were fine. Skype to PSTN calls were crap. | |
|
| | | | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
ArrayList
Premium Member
2009-Jan-16 10:44 am
Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusionsaid by battleop:I tried it on a DS3 and Skype to Skype calls were fine. Skype to PSTN calls were crap. PSTN is crap | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusionriggggggggggght. | |
|
| | | |
to ArrayList
I'm sorry i don't have Comcast I have buckeye. My internet is 12/1 and i get 11.5down out of that and 988up out of the 1meg.
I don't think its my connection.
And my calls were Skype to PSTN | |
|
| dadkinsCan you do Blu? MVM join:2003-09-26 Hercules, CA
1 recommendation |
to Rick5
said by Rick5:is... I'd need 50Mb to get it to work right. Has worked well from 4mbps through 8mbps and now at 16mbps. Voice through Skype, here, uses under 10KB/sec(~80kbps) both ways. I use it every day with several people from Louisiana to New York. Crystal clear and stable. 50mbps? Make that symmetrical and not $150 per month and I might go for it. | |
|
| en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
to Rick5
said by Rick5:is... I'd need 50Mb to get it to work right. Must be the jitter on your line then. I've been using it for +3 years for conference calls. The _only_ time that it tends to get not work well is when I'm either running tunneled VPN + web proxy (over that VPN). I will admit that I have had better results using Skype over 3Mbps DSL than I have using Skype over 10Mbps Cable - this is primarily due to jitter. Hard core gamers or those using high cpu/bandwidth will not do well on Skype. | |
|
| | ••••• |
| |
to Rick5
said by Rick5:is... I'd need 50Mb to get it to work right. That's funny because I've done skype to skype video calls over a 256Kbps DSL connection (Qwest) before and it worked just fine. The problem must be comcrap. | |
|
| ptrowskiGot Helix? Premium Member join:2005-03-14 Woodstock, CT |
to Rick5
I use Skype for video conferences with the family across the country, works great. | |
|
|
He is dead onWhile 50Mbps shouldn't necessarily be the definition of broadband for marketing, if the government is going to put money into anything it should be what they are aiming at. They should not put money into bringing people 2Mbps now, but lay the foundation for 50Mbps in the near future. | |
|
| ••• |
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
ArrayList
Premium Member
2009-Jan-16 10:25 am
*insert random dialup modem noise here*i'll sign on to that. only people that wouldn't want this are idiots. the "high speed" internet plans of today will be the dialup plans of tomorrow. get with it people. there is no reason that this should not happen. i'd be willing to say that 100Mbps is broadband. broadband should allow the user to accomplish damn near anything.
these changes won't occur overnight but seriously within 10 years there is no reason the US can't be beyond 100Mbps. no legit reason at all. | |
|
|
Is it just me or..Wouldn't a 45Mb down and 1Mb up not work? Is 1Mb up enough for the ACK requests for a 45Mb down? | |
|
| •••• |
aaronwt Premium Member join:2004-11-07 Woodbridge, VA |
aaronwt
Premium Member
2009-Jan-16 11:33 am
I guess ihave broadband.I have 50mbs now so i guess I have broadband, just like in 1997 when I had 5mbs I had broadband. | |
|
|
iansltx
Member
2009-Jan-16 11:47 am
50 Mbps =1. DOCSIS 3 cable 2. Fiber 3. LTE
On the backhaul...
1. Ethernet/Fiber 2. Expensive Motorola PTP wireless gear
No other techs can make those speeds. Honestly, you have to get an expensive-ish ($70+) 802.11n router and expensive-ish ($50+) 802.11n wireless cards (if you don't have them already) for that kind of wireless throughput.
SO yes, the Skype guy is living in dreamy land, where everyone is in one big city that's easy to wire. Sure, NYC can do 50 Mbps no problem, as soon as OOL upgrades their network to DOCSIS 3. Other areas WILL BE less fortunate, at least for another 5-15 years. If you want broadband under $100, many places outside town are limited to about 2 Mbps down, 1-2 Mbps up, if that.
Besides, what does the Skype guy want 50 Mbps for? Teleportation? Holographic calling? I'm at a loss here...50 Mbit is nice but even I don't require it.
Besides, it marks out WiMAX,a potentially somewhat-cheap way to get pretty-darn-high-speed internet to lots of underserved areas. Meh. | |
|
| |
Re: 50 Mbps =Not really. I'm 'out of town' actually in one of the last remaining rural areas of NJ and our cable system upgraded to DOCSIS3 before Cablevision.
It might be easier to deploy higher speeds to less populated areas since they don't have a whole complex mess of infrastructure to deal with like the big cities do. | |
|
| | |
Re: 50 Mbps =If the cable is in the ground, it's in the ground. DOCSIS 3 is an upgrade on the headend. Fiber is new wire in the ground. One of my relatives is out where cable used not to go until recently, and gets 3M/640K DSL speeds. Sadly, the upload of cable isn't even as good as that in the area.
Yes, laying fiber in populated areas is a bit harder, whereas laying fiber in suburban areas is a bit easier. In rural places, on the other hand, you've got too much cable to lay...:/ | |
|
|
tmc8080
Member
2009-Jan-16 12:15 pm
The more, the merrier..If Skype would like to build last mile isp access, they are welcome to it.. the more, the merrier. Just because FIOS is out there, doesn't mean that Comcast is jumping all overthemselves to deliver docsis 3 upgrades any time soon. They will upgrade as it suits their needs, not the customer's. So, unless your prepared to put your money where your mouth is... even if it's to take one small town and wire it up for 50mbit..
STFU | |
|
modifiy join:2001-04-13 Minneapolis, MN |
modifiy
Member
2009-Jan-16 12:16 pm
BroadbandIs it just me or isn't broadband the wrong word for speed anyway? Broadband had nothing to do with the speed of the media, but the signals. hence broad and baseband.
I agree the mark should be set high and would think 100mb should be "broadband." We are playing catchup with the most of the world when it comes to speed. If they made broadband 5mb by the time we reach it, the rest will be far beyond that. | |
|
| |
Re: BroadbandI agree, it's an ambiguous, relative term. We need something better - maybe just the speeds would be a good term... | |
|
gatorkramNeed for Speed Premium Member join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC |
gatorkram
Premium Member
2009-Jan-16 12:43 pm
50mbit..It would be nice to have that much speed, really it would..
I'd be "happy" to have 10/10 working with low latency 24/7/365 first though.
I think 10/10 would also be a good starting point, if you wanted to define broadband as a speed, rather than a technology. | |
|
1 recommendation |
I think people are missing the point...Why should the taxpayers pay anybody for anything less than full network upgrades?
5/1, 10/1 and even 45/2 are all speeds within reach of existing networks.
If my tax dollars are going to be spent for broadband access, I would insist that all companies using that money (including Verizon and FIOS) be using state-of-the-art technologies such as fiber to the home to provide a minimum beyond what is being provided for today.
Considering Verizon FIOS is already providing 20/20 for $65. I would push for a graduated scale with 25/25 being the minimum specification required for funding and 100/100 for maximum funding. I would also require a USF (universal service fund) like system in order to reach maximum coverage with subsidies tied to provide access to rural areas that would be unprofitable without them.
Anything less is just handing your tax dollars over to big companies to bolster their earnings.
I think the CEO of Skype is just doing a public service by pushing the definition. | |
|
| RARPSL join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY |
RARPSL
Member
2009-Jan-16 3:03 pm
Re: I think people are missing the point...said by jriskin:I would also require a USF (universal service fund) like system in order to reach maximum coverage with subsidies tied to provide access to rural areas that would be unprofitable without them. I would want Seed/Start-up money only with additional money being given as you reach set milestones. The current USF system just gives all the money up-front with no controls on how it is used. The money should instead be paid as you show that the prior payment has been used to meet your goal. | |
|
| Lazlow join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO |
to jriskin
You also need to add something in there about not having any caps and with enough headroom in the local (last mile) system to be able to handle enough bandwidth to support the upper limit. If you have 100/100 but have a 1GB cap it is worthless. | |
|
|
JoeD
Anon
2009-Jan-16 2:45 pm
What business is this of Federal government anyway.I think I am rather in the minority here that completely and absolutely believe this is completely wrong to have the Federal government involved with this at all. High speed connectivity is expensive and it make no sense to have Congress stealing money from the citizens to fill this "want" of a minority of people. We have really gone a very strange direction in our country where everyone believes someone else should subsidize their wants. If you want high speed internet step up and pay for it. A DS3 is around 1000 per month. If no one supplies a service for what you think is fair, it seems like a perfect opportunity to start your own company so you can offer this service no one else is willing. You could be the next Bill Gates with your cheap high speed internet service. | |
|
| XBL2009------ join:2001-01-03 Chicago, IL 1 edit |
Re: What business is this of Federal government anyway.Your completely wrong:
1. The Federal Government built the highways and GM, Ford, Chrysler built the cars. That's the way the Internet should work as well. Deployment is just to expensive for corporate America.
2. No competition will ever be allowed so get over your fantasy of having dozens of fiber lines running to your house and you having your pick. Big Business will crush the little guy in telcom that's why these companies have been around for 100+ years.
3. Look around the world and governments are involved in building the fastest networks and allowing people to use them in countries like Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc. They have been wildly successful and yet in America we have the slowest broadband. | |
|
|
Dave0909
Anon
2009-Jan-16 3:40 pm
The Skype Guy Must be CrazyI couldn't get 50Mbps on my local 100Mbps LAN unless I use an expensive switch/router and with discreet nic's.
At least for now, we are not like Japan or South Korea where they spend most of there money on their own economic productivity and infrastructure rather than military capacity.
I'd rather the most of the world fear us than have higher speed "broadband" any day. At least they wouldn't dare do something "stupid" against such as another 9/11. | |
|
| ••• |
XBL2009------ join:2001-01-03 Chicago, IL |
Just so long as it's 50/50 !50 megabits up and 50 megabits down with a 1000GB cap for $25.00...seems fair. | |
|
| |
AnoNutter
Anon
2009-Jan-17 4:25 pm
Re: Just so long as it's 50/50 !said by XBL2009:50 megabits up and 50 megabits down with a 1000GB cap for $25.00...seems fair. LOL... Yeah, I want a Gig-E connection and a 5 TByte cap. I think the definition of broadband is a moving target. Being a techie, I guess I can say this without fear of too much retribution. Techies just don't get reality very well. | |
|
|
How does this turn in to Skype bashing?At any rate the last report I saw said something like 6 or 7% of the total voice traffic is Skype-initiated. It's nothing to sneeze at and while Skype hasn't been all that great profit-wise for Google, the service itself is great. For a mere $3 a month you can blabber all you want (US and Canada) and for a few bucks more the world. With a decent connection Skype's quality is superb. I've been using it for years. | |
|
| |
Skype user
Anon
2009-Jan-17 8:00 am
Re: How does this turn in to Skype bashing?Skype is owned by eBay, not Google. But, I wish, it was owned by Google. We would probably see a better product. | |
|
| | |
Re: How does this turn in to Skype bashing?Oh, my apologies. I misspoke, must have had Google on the mind for some reason.
I meant eBay, and yeah, you might be right. But on the other hand, look at GrandCentral... | |
|
nitzan Premium Member join:2008-02-27 |
nitzan
Premium Member
2009-Jan-16 7:38 pm
Completely agree.I don't want our tax dollars to go to AT&T's pockets with no significant return. If you want to spend taxpayer $ on broadband - make it fiber all the way!
Skype CEO - as well as I - and every other VoIP provider out there has an interest in getting the internet to be all that it can be. The faster users' connections are - the better quality their VoIP solutions sound! | |
|
| hihi9 join:2007-05-06 Port Orange, FL |
hihi9
Member
2009-Jan-20 1:21 pm
Re: Completely agree.said by nitzan:I don't want our tax dollars to go to AT&T's pockets with no significant return. If you want to spend taxpayer $ on broadband - make it fiber all the way! Skype CEO - as well as I - and every other VoIP provider out there has an interest in getting the internet to be all that it can be. The faster users' connections are - the better quality their VoIP solutions sound! DSL is an obsolete technology already pass it age of usefulness From 2000 to 2005 is all DSL is good for From 2006 and onward it will become a dinosaur in the technology department. Faster DSL only good for the few ppl that are close to their network called CO or RT... Copper line is useless for broadband... due to it limitation... and cost associcated with it to maintain the line. coaxial cable line are far superior... an upward of 40/10 docsis 1.0 40/40 docsis 2.0 and docsis 3.0 320/160 or 144/144 DSL=useless technology it will die out very soon when cable have much higher speed offering and will leave them out in the dust | |
|
| | nitzan Premium Member join:2008-02-27 |
nitzan
Premium Member
2009-Jan-20 3:03 pm
Re: Completely agree.Although I agree with you, this basicall means there'll be only one broadband provider (local cable co, usually Comcrap) available. That is not good.
I think regulators should force cable co's to wholesale to competitors, it's been done on the DSL side already, but since DSL is becoming more and more obsolete, now it's time for cable to become competitive. | |
|
|
who gives a crapRegardless of what's defined as "broadband", they'll just use some other term "High-speed Internet" "ultra-fast internet connection" or "XX times faster than dial-up!".
This is all really moronic, IMHO on the government's part, and, in fact, could only seek to create confusion for consumers.
besides "broadband" is a term related to how many frequencies are used....not speeds.... | |
|
SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
Minimum Broadband Spec?Jeez. My parents are getting ripped off then, paying around $30/mo for a 256kbps line with MidRivers.
So, technically, this isn't broadband and I *could* rat them out to the FCC for not complying.
..although, I'm pleased to see with the new stimulus plan that many ISP's (including mine) could upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0 (which would be required) if 45Mbps becomes the new standard. I'd be happy enough if 5mbps (or higher) becomes the lowest tier.
That way even the oldest DSL technology could utilize the minimum tier without it becoming useless. | |
|
|
|