  christcorpPremium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
kudos:1 | Skype's opinion is irrelevant Like the CEO of Skype is significant. Skype isn't significant. Why should his opinion mean anything? | |
|
 |  MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevant He's looking to the future I guess.
Plus, he might just want attention. | |
|
| |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevant 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.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevant I 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. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevant 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevant said 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 jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | said by Romney2012: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 
--
"2 Strangers + 1 20 minute ceremony + $50 + 10 shots of tequila = Holy Matrimony and 1st Class Protections Under the Law… now that’s crazy!" | |
|
| | | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevant said by Corydon:I'm curious how the 50 Mbps definition would benefit Skype. More Supernodes. | |
|
| | | | | CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevant Interesting 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.
--
"2 Strangers + 1 20 minute ceremony + $50 + 10 shots of tequila = Holy Matrimony and 1st Class Protections Under the Law… now that’s crazy!" | |
|
| RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | 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.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Armstrong Zoom ..
| Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevant Why 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. | |
|
| | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
1 edit | Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevant Oh, 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.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevant said 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.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | | | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevant You'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.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | |  ParogadiWhat? Stop Looking At Me Like ThatPremium
join:2003-03-31
Racine, WI | 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. | |
|
| |
| RoguePremium
join:2008-01-23
West Milford, NJ | 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
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Skype's opinion is irrelevant Has 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. | |
|
|  james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | 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. | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
 woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
1 edit | hmmmmmm Good luck in getting it changed..... But by bring it more attention who knows
--
BlooMe
Edit to add "But by bring it more attention who knows" | |
|
 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusion is...
I'd need 50Mb to get it to work right.
 | |
|
| | | Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusion yah 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. | |
|
| |  FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusion get 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. | |
|
| | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusion He's on OHMYGODITSSOFASTITGIVESMEORGASMS cable. No wonder it doesn't work right.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | |  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusion 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. 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | | | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusion said 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.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | | |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusion said by RadioDoc:What works for you is not particularly relevant. Nor is your opinion of Comcast. | |
|
| | | | | I tried it on a DS3 and Skype to Skype calls were fine. Skype to PSTN calls were crap. | |
|
| | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusion said 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 conclusion riggggggggggght. | |
|
| | | | | 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?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | said by Rick: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.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | said by Rick: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. | |
|
| | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusion He's just pissing into the wind again about anything that competes with Comcast. This time it's their phone service.
Funny how it's OK to make totally incorrect and outrageous statements while fluffing up the Comcast corporate wiener but calling someone on it results in infantile flames from the fluffers.
I guess that is to be expected here though.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusion said by RadioDoc:He's just pissing into the wind again about anything that competes with Comcast. This time it's their phone service. Funny how it's OK to make totally incorrect and outrageous statements while fluffing up the Comcast corporate wiener but calling someone on it results in infantile flames from the fluffers. I guess that is to be expected here though. No, it's Skype. he said nothing of Comcast's Phone service.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusion Yeah, that must be it. Since it works just fine for millions of other people. The only variable unique to his situation is his wonderful Comcast HSI.
I'll see your and raise you 
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | | dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Re: I tried skype once for a couple of month and my conclusion Someone pee on your Cheerios this morning Doc?
LMAO!
You were wrong, and everyone that reads this news item will see it.
*I* really couldn't care less!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | | RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
1 edit | Given your years long support of AT&T I'm rather surprised at your unwavering support of skype throughout this thread.
Am I to now take it that you feel that this free service is now equal in your mind to the more traditional type services that the telco's offer and that as such..people should be flocking in droves to cancel their telco service even faster than the demise of the industry which I have long predicted was coming anyway?
I mean..jeesh Doc. Even I haven't gone so far as to suggest that skype was good enough to replace the telco's. And certainly it's not good enough to replace the high quality of Comcasts CDV. | |
|
| | | said by Rick: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
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | I use Skype for video conferences with the family across the country, works great. | |
|
| | He is dead on While 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. | |
|
| | | Re: He is dead on I agree 100% If my tax dollars are going to the ISP's or network operators if better be for something that is going to pay off in the long run! | |
|
| RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | The last successful government infrastructure project with that kind of impact was the Interstate Highway System, primarily a military asset with civilian benefits. While the "information superhighway" moniker is tired and overused, it wouldn't hurt to get back to that sort of thinking and start building concrete on and offramps instead of dirt burro trails.
Or figure out a way to interest the Pentagon again.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | Re: He is dead on The Pentagon moved on a long time ago  | |
|
|
| | 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?
--
Fed Up With Stupidity?
Patentlystupid.com | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | Re: Is it just me or.. said by rahlquist:Wouldn't a 45Mb down and 1Mb up not work? Is 1Mb up enough for the ACK requests for a 45Mb down? IMHO 36 Mbs down and 9 Mbs up would be better. | |
|
|  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | I would think that Skype would rely more on latency, jitter, and your upload speeds. The limitations on VOIP are rarely based on your top-end download performance.
Skype currently recommends a minimum of only a 384kbps connection for their "High Quality" video with certain web cameras. If they are looking to greatly improve this video service, they would benefit from a significant increase in the upload speeds provided to the average home or business. | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | uTP...erm...UDP | |
|
|  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by rahlquist:Wouldn't a 45Mb down and 1Mb up not work? Is 1Mb up enough for the ACK requests for a 45Mb down? That depends on how you are configured. With Selective ACK (SACK), Sliding Windows, and a clean connection, you send one ACK per window not per Packet so the uplink load is small. It is only when you can not support SACK or have a bad line that you get into problems. Look at how Satellite TCP/IP works for a similar situation to a massively unbalanced set of speeds. So long as everything is working and you send "I have all the packets up to sequence number X" and or "Resend Packet Numbers" type messages as opposed to listing every packet that successfully is received, you can keep the uplink load small. OTOH, it is better to have unneeded/unused uplink bandwidth capability than rely on hoping that you can respond fast enough to keep the downlink saturated.
This ignores the case where YOU are the sender not the receiver of the session (such as when you are uploading to a FTP Server or, to a lesser extent, are sending Email). | |
|
 aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA | 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
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| 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. | |
|
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| 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...:/ | |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| 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 | Broadband Is 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: Broadband I agree, it's an ambiguous, relative term. We need something better - maybe just the speeds would be a good term... | |
|
 gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
·Suddenlink
| 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.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
|
| | 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 | 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 | 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. | |
|
| | 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
·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
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. | |
|
| | The Skype Guy Must be Crazy I 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. | |
|
| Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: The Skype Guy Must be Crazy Dave
If you cannot get 100Mbps on your local lan then you have something set up very wrong. I have one system with a $20 router and a $35 GigE switch (both relatively cheap) that sustains 900Mbps locally without any problem. 100Mbps is only 12.5MB/sec(roughly 9.5 after overhead, etc). | |
|
| | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: The Skype Guy Must be Crazy I agree... I've run Skype on AT&T 3Mbps/512kbps ADSL for years, and more recenlty - TWC Cable (6Mbps/512kbps and 10/1Mbps) with very good success. I've had issues running it over HSDPA/WiFi throught my HTC Titl (garbles a bit).
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
|  pspcrazyAnime Freak
join:2008-02-06
San Diego, CA | Is that sarcasm or are you being serious lol. If it's not sarcasm then i'd rather you not reply to me. | |
|
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. | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Verizon Wireless..
·Mediacom
| 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. | |
|
| | | 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... | |
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | 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 | 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 | |
|
| | nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | 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 crap
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....
--
"True Patriotism is more closely linked with dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security...I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist abusive state power." -Ron Paul | |
|
 Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | 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.
--
Bresnan 15M/1M|Mine[P4HT 3.2GHz,2GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,WinXP]|Wife's[P4 2.4GHz,1GB RAM,60GB HDD,WinXP]|Router[2xP3@1GHz,640MB RAM,18GB HDD,Allied Telesyn AT-2560FX,Kingston KNE100TX,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,iPro/1000DP,Blitz BWI715,Gentoo] | |
|
|
|
