  telcolackey5The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | twisted pair will never go faster than 10Mbps
Where is that BS gif? | |
|
 Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1
 ·Embarq Now Centu..
| We will defeat the infidels who circulate unfounded lies
Bandwidth is fine. Move along |
We will defeat this vicious propaganda from the Turtles looking to eat away at the empire with more, uh, propa ... move along I say; move along!
--
A monthly desktop thread is what happens when a Paris Hilton mentality mates with a computer | |
|
 | | | Re: We will defeat the infidels who circulate unfounded lies LOL, I agree. Cable Labs is the enemy of all cable guys all over the airport and we have cleaned all the cable labs army from all the airport grounds. | |
|
|  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Always love a little Baghdad Bob.
That guy was the personification of a bad SNL character..
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
|
Warez_ZealotRural land of the rising sun
join:2006-04-19
Hamilton, ON | Why upgrade when you can throttle. I like that last sentence. It's cheaper to blame your customer for the slow speeds and throttle them than to keep up w/ the ever evolving uses of the internet.
--
"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it." - Malcolm X | |
|
| telcolackey5The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
2 edits | What do people realistically want? 1) Faster
2) Cheaper
3) Unlimited usage
Pick only 2 options
Bandwidth usage at peak times cost $$... That is why all commercial ISPs moved from flat rate to 95%ile usage based billing years ago. As speeds get higher, a small set of customers will throw off the cost models | |
|
| |  ModusI hate smartassery on forumsPremium
join:2005-05-02
us
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: What do people realistically want? I would choose faster and cheaper.  I always here about cable co's speed problems but i don't see anything about att's slow dsl speeds. Forget u-verus i wanted faster speeds 3.0-6.0mbps are these morons serious!
--
Think Ahead. Learn More. Solve Now! | |
|
| | | | Please remember:
Capital Investment is, perhaps, the most important component of a healthy company and healthy economy. Of course, all those Wharton School and U of Chicago business school graduates will tell you(When they aren't sacrificing sub-humans at their altar to Ayn Rand) that sitting on mountains of cash, and doing no capital investment, is preferable.
Capital Investment is the way that successful, large capitalist venture fuels the wider economy and benefits the whole country.
Of course, recent levels of capital investment, across the board, have been meager.
Also, if 5% of the users throw off cost models, then the cost models are flawed, and likely hallucinatory. | |
|
| | Warez_ZealotRural land of the rising sun
join:2006-04-19
Hamilton, ON | said by telcolackey5:1) Faster 2) Cheaper 3) Unlimited usage Pick only 2 options Bandwidth usage at peak times cost $$... That is why all commercial ISPs moved from flat rate to 95%ile usage based billing years ago. As speeds get higher, a small set of customers will throw off the cost models Well I don't buy that.. I've never seen the #'s in financial reports showing actual bw costs.. Most ISP's have peering agreements too.
IMO the throttling is done mostly due to capacities. It's cheaper for them to stop your P2P uploads than to upgrade for congestion.
I would rather have the faster upload speeds, but what's the point if you cant use it.. 
The funny thing is, when ISP's throttle, they typically throttle to 0kB/s or 5-10kB/s. That is a little excessive.. If anything, they should configure the throttling program to throttle more as more people are online, and less during off hours..
--
"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it." - Malcolm X | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: What do people realistically want? said by Warez_Zealot:said by telcolackey5:1) Faster 2) Cheaper 3) Unlimited usage Pick only 2 options Bandwidth usage at peak times cost $$... That is why all commercial ISPs moved from flat rate to 95%ile usage based billing years ago. As speeds get higher, a small set of customers will throw off the cost models Well I don't buy that.. I've never seen the #'s in financial reports showing actual bw costs.. Most ISP's have peering agreements too. IMO the throttling is done mostly due to capacities. It's cheaper for them to stop your P2P uploads than to upgrade for congestion. I would rather have the faster upload speeds, but what's the point if you cant use it.. The funny thing is, when ISP's throttle, they typically throttle to 0kB/s or 5-10kB/s. That is a little excessive.. If anything, they should configure the throttling program to throttle more as more people are online, and less during off hours.. The only method of customer feedback cable companies understand is to cancel service and go with any competitor available.. How do you think Verizon FIOS gets to 1+ Million installed customer base? Happy telco talk? NO! From companies such as cablevision throttling their connections and pissing off customers.. Now many of those people are relatively happy Verizon FIOS customers. $29.95 Lures will not work if the service SUCKS. Conversely.. the shoe can as easily go on the other foot for Verizon's BILLING fiasco's that they like to play games at...
Eventually, they'll calculate their losses to the competition and see if it's worth upgrading the network capacity and giving customers MORE for LESS.. For the time being, that answer is NO (with limited exceptions). | |
|
| | | | I want in this order:
1. Cheaper
2. Unlimited usage (close 2nd)
3. Faster | |
|
| | | | | Re: What do people realistically want? said by clocks11:I want in this order: 1. Cheaper 2. Unlimited usage (close 2nd) 3. Faster Then you want DSL.
--
Hate your enemies. Save your friends. Find your place. Speak the truth. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: What do people realistically want? You are assuming I have a phone line, which I do not. | |
|
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Faster, Cheaper and all the usage 95% of broadband customers can reasonably ask for is fine by me. | |
|
| |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by telcolackey5:1) Faster 2) Cheaper 3) Unlimited usage Pick only 2 options Bandwidth usage at peak times cost $$... That is why all commercial ISPs moved from flat rate to 95%ile usage based billing years ago. As speeds get higher, a small set of customers will throw off the cost models 
How about just what i'm paying for???
I'm paying for 12000/1000 and getting this!
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: Why upgrade when you can throttle. said by Warez_Zealot:I like that last sentence. It's cheaper to blame your customer for the slow speeds and throttle them than to keep up w/ the ever evolving uses of the internet. BINGO!
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| | Consider the SOURCE The report was generated by a company that makes its profit by writing reports......da.....maybe we should consider their bias/motive.
I've been a cable engineer for 30 years, we'll be just fine thanks you. | |
|
|  sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Re: Consider the SOURCE Seeing the way cable ops behave, there's probably gonna be a bandwidth crunch and they won't be able to deliver all the content they want to ... many can barely deliver what they're selling now with limited bandwidth in many areas.
It's reaching the point where sending everything down one pipe is starting to reach back and bite them. TV should go on a TV pipe, Internet on an Internet pipe, and Phone on a Phone pipe. These technologies don't work well when mashed together. | |
|
| | |
| | |  alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA | Re: Consider the SOURCE said by djrobx: quote:
TV should go on a TV pipe, Internet on an Internet pipe, and Phone on a Phone pipe. These technologies don't work well when mashed together.
I don't agree with that at all. With today's technology those three things have all become the same thing. Data, Data, Data! This is the kind of thinking the Average Person has, but Djrobx is correct, Data is Data. People just have to realize what is needed is a Big Pipe for everything.....That is Fiber! It's going to cost more and deployment is difficult, but it can be done. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Consider the SOURCE Hence the reason why AT&T is investing in its fiber lines in South Florida I guess. I have been to the areas that have 24 Megs of bandwidth and let me tell you I never knew fast internet until I used fiber. | |
|
| | |  CableToolPoorly Representing MYSELF.Premium
join:2004-11-12 | said by djrobx:Cable's got a very big data pipe on its hands, and they just need to get a little smarter about how to they use it. SDV is a good example of smarter utilization of their resources. Thats funny because everytime switched video or channel bonding is mentioned on DSLR its called a "TRICK". Not a technology.
--
CableFAQ.org/Technicians Unplugged
| |
|
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Consider the SOURCE That's because calling it a "trick" supports their desire to spin and sound like they really know what they are talking about and "forcing their agenda on to others" and calling it technology would make them "eat turtle"..
The more this happens, the more this "resource" becomes less of one.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
| |  IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | said by sbrook:Seeing the way cable ops behave, there's probably gonna be a bandwidth crunch and they won't be able to deliver all the content they want to ... many can barely deliver what they're selling now with limited bandwidth in many areas. That's more underinvestment, cable is quite capable of doing what is required but the companies are not interested in the required CapEx to do the job to be fair.
said by sbrook:It's reaching the point where sending everything down one pipe is starting to reach back and bite them. TV should go on a TV pipe, Internet on an Internet pipe, and Phone on a Phone pipe. These technologies don't work well when mashed together. The technologies work fine when mashed together. In the case of TV and Internet/Phone in the PacketCable model they are no more mashed together than you can say Wifi, a cellphone and terrestrial TV are mashed together as they all use RF.
Shortage of Unicast bandwidth doesn't mean that the cable plant as a whole isn't up to the task, it usually means that a node is too large, or the cableco isn't interested in innovations like running multiple downstreams or DOCSIS 2.
PacketCable is a good solution to presenting a telephone service over HFC using the same hardware as internet traffic however there is no real interaction between them.
So long as the operator invests in the required CapEx to keep the nodes at the appropriate sizes for the demand, ensures that there is RF bandwidth available, and that they are using the existing spectrum efficiently IE through DOCSIS 2 there is no need for these technologies to cause problems when 'mashed together' they actually work fine together.
I think your view of cable is tainted a little by your experience of Rogers  | |
|
| | | sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Re: Consider the SOURCE said by Ignite:I think your view of cable is tainted a little by your experience of Rogers To a point, you're right ... but look at the total picture, the cable (and DSL industry too) have been on a continual game of catchup for years on how to get these things to work well together down a single pipe, for as soon as Cable Labs and other interested parties come up with new ways to remedy the bandwidth crunch, along comes more people wanting more and more bandwidth consuming things to pump up and down the pipes.
BitTorrent has long been considered the domain of the consumer of illegitimate materials for up/downloading, but now we have organisations like open office using BT for distribution.
We have more and more HD TV.
As we get to larger screens in the home, HD as we know it today isn't going to be enough. We're going to remain in bandwidth catchup mode and we'll then start having more and more demands to fit stuff on that pipe. As for head end sourced channel selection, this is a bandaid because 100 people on a cable segment all decide to watch the same thing together all being sent down the chain individually.
Yes, DOCSIS 3 will solve some problems. Then when will we need DOCSIS 4 and 5.
The continual upgrade costs across all the different media being pumped through these pipes is going to get very expensive very fast. At least keeping the pipes separate means that I know that just because my MSO upgraded their CMTS software that I'll still have a phone to call 911 (999). | |
|
| | | | IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | Re: Consider the SOURCE Again Mr Brook think your MSO is just incompetent. They fail to test their new code releases so they wreck your 911 service. They fail to invest so you see a crunch.
Fibre still meshes everything on the same pipe, uses FDM to seperate broadcast TV and broadband/telephone same as cable, indeed the only real differences are the distribution mechanisms.
As far again as the code issues were mentioned, this is no different from a code issue on a telco soft switch. With operators moving their core telephony to an IP based backbone the rather dated switches are being retired and replaced.
A 250 home node with 100% penetration of cable can be guaranteed 10Mbps per home of unicast bandwidth absolute worst case on a cable network with channel bonding and full VoD services with zero broadcast. Split that node and you double the bandwidth, this is not that different from fibre, apart from that fibre is the same media all the way through and is shared between less homes.
The only way we could provide these services to your satisfaction would be 3 distinctly seperate medias, a piece of coax for TV, some fibre for data, and some twisted pair for telephony, with none of these sharing the same networks at any point.
You'd have loved a service I had a year ago, TV over DSL, I had broadband, telephone, broadcast TV (media server in CO and IGMP aware MSANs) and VoD all coming down my phone line. Amazing what you can cram into 1.1MHz | |
|
| | | | | sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Re: Consider the SOURCE I absolutely agree that fibre is perfectly capable of carrying all the data ... be it telephone, be it internet, be it television.
The problem that currently requires 3 pipes is because it is an HFC network ... you can only feed so much down that piece of coax. As long as we're working with that last half mile of coax, we're always going to be battling getting enough space on the pipe.
Things WILL improve when they get rid of the analogue channels, but the world isn't ready for Digital TV. Even the cable world isn't ready for cable TV since we have to go out and buy damned set top boxes to do the job the TV should be doing and often duplicates. It drives me crazy that I have so many remotes and while I can get a universal remote, half the TV/VCR/DVD functions get lost on the remote, so I still need all these damned remotes.
The reason your DSL service worked as you described it is because it was point to point. You weren't sharing that service with anyone else. Cable is taking an essentially broadcast medium (viz same stuff to everyone) and trying to provide individual services for up to say 250 people on that last 1/2 mile of coax remains the challenge.
Sure comms has changed since I got my degree 30 odd years ago, in that we're now able to force a lot more data down a pipe rated for far lower bandwidth, but doing so creates technical problems when we expect 24/7 virtually flawless service. Yes, I'm dealing with a poorly competent MSO, but from what I've seen, most cable operators fall into that category. The cost of all this hardware to continually upgrade to force more and more data down the pipe and to maintain reliability 24/7 is way more than most cable operators can provide for the price they have to charge for their services. | |
|
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Consider the SOURCE Stop blaming the STB and stop blaming the remotes.. blame the free market. It doesn't want to work together.. it wants to fight for dominance. In the case of the U.S. now, one part of the market corrupted one part of the government to side with them to force another part of the market to open its doors so they could have a piece of the pie. (ie: electronics makers bought our republicans to force cable to open their systems so they could sell their boxes which none have yet rushed to market)
Now that this has happened, expect that technology will slow down because they have to now figure out how they are going to play together.. and actually make it all work.
Also.., you are NEVER going to get rid of having the damned remoteS.. there will always be 'one more remote'...
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
| | | | | | | sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
1 edit | Re: Consider the SOURCE said by fiberguy:Stop blaming the STB and stop blaming the remotes.. blame the free market. ... Also.., you are NEVER going to get rid of having the damned remoteS.. there will always be 'one more remote'... Well, let's actually blame the corrupt market ... where we have politicos willing to bend to the whim of those who grease their palms enough.
I won't go HDTV Digital until I can buy an integrated TV ... I'm gonna have a long wait, I know ... but it eventually happened that the cable ops got it together to eliminate the STB for the cable channels. It will come eventually.
Technology has a long way to go and now that the decision to go totally digital has been made things will rationalize until the next irrational decision is made!
The problem with the remotes is that the STBs and TVs don't co-operate at all in how they work for even simple things like on/off. The choices don't work well. I leave my STB on and use the remote to turn the TV off. If I turn the STB off, and use it to turn off the TV, it powers the TV down and I have to reset the TV!
I know there's always be lots of remotes ... but this is one that doesn't need to be. | |
|
| | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Consider the SOURCE I am not sure what setup you have up there, .. are you on a moto system or an S/A system?
You may want to look at getting one of the remotes that Comcast puts out. For basic use, it pretty much makes the box transparent when programmed well.
»search.ebay.com/search/search.dl···L+REMOTE
The way I have set mine up, the box is non-existent. The red all on button turns on & off my TV, Box, and Amp. Volume works the AMP, Channel and all related guide/box buttons works my box, and the tv pretty much sits there. The only time I need to pick up other remotes is when I want to use my DVD or MS Media Center system.
I have the Harmony 890 Remote and the Sony AV 3000 remote.. while they are both really cool remotes, for simple TV/Cable operation, my silver CC remote works smooth.. never even look at it to use it.. and it's a MUCH better improvement over the previous black remote AND anything Motorola itself has put out.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | "BitTorrent has long been considered the domain of the consumer of illegitimate materials for up/downloading, but now we have organisations like open office using BT for distribution."
Personally, why not allow MS to distribute it's Service Packs with BitTorrent, or Netscape, or any and all other businesses. Why should they run their own servers any more and pay/pony up the expense of running proper distribution systems themselves?
The line can't and won't be drawn and I am perfectly fine with BT being treated the way some ISPs are.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
| | | | | sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Re: Consider the SOURCE said by fiberguy:Why should they run their own servers any more and pay/pony up the expense of running proper distribution systems themselves? The line can't and won't be drawn and I am perfectly fine with BT being treated the way some ISPs are. Personally speaking, I agree. That said, I just wish that cable and phone would stop messing around and get ahead of the game and stop playing catch up, whether it's for BT or legitimate distribution (after all, many people have been known to upload quite legitimately within the context of residential internet, many many gigs of data). All they keep doing is investing money into solutions that will allow them to just about meet the current needs of the public. The technology, by your own nick, exists today that would allow them to actually get ahead of the game, but no, we can't bring fibre into the home, it would cost too much. Instead they invest in lots of interim solutions. | |
|
| | | | said by sbrook:It's reaching the point where sending everything down one pipe is starting to reach back and bite them. TV should go on a TV pipe, Internet on an Internet pipe, and Phone on a Phone pipe. These technologies don't work well when mashed together. What? That doesn't make any sense.
It's data, all of it. Once the analog channels are off the pipe, then it is all IP data.
Fiber all goes down the same pipe. All the services are "mashed together" there as you say. Why is this magically different?
Obviously, you have no idea how the technology works that puts this data on the same pipe, so you should really not try to comment on how they should be delivering services. | |
|
| | | CableToolPoorly Representing MYSELF.Premium
join:2004-11-12 | Re: Consider the SOURCE how true?!!
I want three internets. One for my video streaming, one for my music and one for my text. Meshing them all together screws em up!
--
CableFAQ.org/Technicians Unplugged
| |
|
| IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | said by ftth_freak:The report was generated by a company that makes its profit by writing reports......da.....maybe we should consider their bias/motive. I've been a cable engineer for 30 years, we'll be just fine thanks you. I feel a 'pulling rank' vibe, though 30 years of experience isn't really relevant when cable has only been carrying unicast in any quantity for 1/3rd of that though and the challenges of cable networks today bear no resemblance to the all coax broadcast plant of 30 years ago.
DOCSIS 3 along with SDV will be fine for now, and as unicast bandwidth requirements increase so in theory highly scaleable wideband systems should be alright for a while.
The main crunch will come when so many tuners are required to deliver unicast bandwidth to each node that it's not feasible. | |
|
|  paulhaskewUnoffical Dominos Spokesman
join:2002-01-10
Vancouver, WA | I love your name though... ftth_freak but yet a cable engineer... | |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
2 edits | This is much more about HDTV than broadband This has very little to do with your download speeds. The truth is the cablemodem system currently runs on a very, very small chunk of your cable spectrum (equivalent to a couple TV channels). Docsis 3.0 will increase the amount of the total spectrum cablemodems can use, but compared to the hundreds of broadcast channels being shoved down the pipe, it's a drop in the bucket.
HDTV is the big consumer here. They can get two, maybe three HDTV channels per 6mhz channel.
I think SDV is the perfect solution to the problem. HDTV is only gaining momentum, and cable companies are wanting to compete with satellite services by adding a lot of very second-rate (read, unpopular) HD channels. With SDV they can have lots and lots of infrequently watched channels.
Both SDV and cablemodem benefit from adding diversity to their broadcast system (e.g. reducing the number of homes per node).
Over time, as HD gains popularity and more "A list" channels require space, they can look to taking away from the analog broadcast side. For each channel they take away they can get two or three HD channels. By the time it's really necessary, the analog OTA broadcast will have ceased, people are going to have heard a lot about the need to have some sort of digital converter anyway. The cable company won't lose anyone to satellite over it, because with satellite, you need a STB for each TV anyway!
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. | |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| 80 Billion Fiasco that we the customer end up paying. The great thing about ARI Research and here is both can cry all they want about needing 100Mbit Fiber to the home but have do not have to pay the bill. I see Fiber to the home is a is load of bull. Many web applications can work on far less if they become more efficient. As for video as some one noted as analog channels are removed it will open up more bandwidth. As for HDTV as a consumer I still on the fence I see not need more that regular LCD TV. Instead, more efficiency is need like traffic shaping and switched digital video. Also all these traffic hogs need get a life, the cable companies are not all you can buffets: get out you mama’s basement, get a life and deal with it. | |
|
| bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Re: 80 Billion Fiasco that we the customer end up paying. I see, so anyone who does have the same use pattern as you for the internet needs to "get a life and deal with it." Forget the fact that some of us have home offices, etc.
Good to know. Nevermind the fact that people with minimal usage patterns are what are keeping the internet at a perpetually mundane level of development.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: 80 Billion Fiasco that we the customer end up paying. Well I happed to work in an office with 500 other personnel and 200 and the corporation connects to the wan off 6 bonded T1. I also run an web story and sell on eBay I do not use 1/2 of the available 6Mbit bandwidth give to me on the average. Oh yes the engineer I work with some time works form home with 1.5DSL connect back to VPN.
WE need to use what we have more efficiently, I.E. traffic shaping, cashing to the intranet etc. rather than speeding 80 billion for a 100Mbit thrill ride for a very small majority. | |
|
| | | bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Re: 80 Billion Fiasco that we the customer end up paying. Like they say, you build and they will come. Staying where we are today in terms of connectivity just because someone claims there is a bandwidth shortage (and there isn't) will prevent a who new generation of services that are totally overdue.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|
|
|
| | What about MPEG4??? I'm hearing that all the satellite companies are converting all their channels to mpeg4 to be able to squeeze more channels into transponders. Why don't cable companies do that, convert all channels to mpeg4?
Also, getting rid of analog and implementing SDV are other good solutions. But how much would it cost to implement all these changes? | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: What about MPEG4??? Changing to mpeg4 means every current digital cable box and cable card will be obsolete. | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: What about MPEG4??? I hope this happens.. ONLY, I hope that it would happen where people start buying their own boxes and cable ops decide they want to enhance the technology and figure they either 1) can't because their hands were tied by congress.. or 2) make the pains of the new rules clear as to why they were bad for consumers.
"Hi, we're from the government and here to help you"....
RUN!
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Some sticking points with these guys... I went digging around on ABI Research's site and I must say, a lot of good their "research" does when you can't access it. Seriously, for anyone to actually examine their claims in this study, you have to shell out a wad of cash.
As for a solution to the problem, since they are getting tossed around... Providers need to enable multicast on their networks. You want to see some serious bandwidth savings, for live streaming media, use multicast.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
| | Free bandwidth by cutting P2P. | |
|
| jsouthJsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | Re: Free bandwidth Only if you believe the MPAA/RIAA gestapo. Independent tests show things like video from sites like Youtube are ahead in bandwidth usage. Plus P2P in of itself isn't illegal. Companies are now using it to more their products.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? | |
|
| bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Here's a better solution... Getting rid of spammers and companies that bombard you with oversize Flash ads about spanking the monkey... That'll save plenty of bandwidth.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|
| |
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | the WoW patcher also uses P2P in the form of bitorrent, it has legal uses but you must be blinded by the RIAA/MPAA bullshit mill that p2p only has illegal uses.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Free bandwidth Maybe WoW, like any other business, should be housing their own patches on their own servers and absorb the cost themselves.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
| | Not rocket science For every analog channel dropped, there's room for 2 or 3 HD channels. No plant upgrade required - just have to shell out the money for set top boxes.
Keep in mind that the downstream of a cable plant has a capacity of around 5 gigabits/s, if it were 100% digital. That's only slightly (10%) less than Verizon's FTTP! (Of course, fiber has many advantages...but raw downstream bandwidth isn't one of them). | |
|
| | | Re: Not rocket science 5 gigabits/s per how many users?
FiOS BPON does 655 megabits/s per 32 users and GPON is on the way that offers 2.4 gig per the same 32.
do the math. | |
|
N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | What the hell? What the hell is this, apocalypse week at BBR?
Bandwidth, bandwidth goes in the water....
sharks users in the water.
Users receive 404 messages in the water....
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
|
| | | Re: What the hell? said by N3OGH:What the hell is this, apocalypse week at BBR? Bandwidth, bandwidth goes in the water.... sharks users in the water. Users receive 404 messages in the water.... Gurgle gurgle.
help, I'm drowninggg.
--
Reach out and Tap someone! | |
|
| | | | Re: What the hell? just lmao | |
|
| | 800mhz -1000mhz I thought most cablecompanies do not use the 800mhz -1000mhz parts of their network.
So if this is the case don't they have a lot of capacity left?
PS I might have gotten the frequencies wrong . | |
|
| IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | Re: 800mhz -1000mhz said by majortom1029:I thought most cablecompanies do not use the 800mhz -1000mhz parts of their network. So if this is the case don't they have a lot of capacity left? PS I might have gotten the frequencies wrong . Most cable companies don't have 1GHz networks as far as I'm aware, they top out at 750MHz or 860MHz due to amplifier and diplex limitations.
To use bandwidth outside of that range you need to do what Cablevision have with the Narad equipment and 'bypass' the legacy amplifiers. | |
|
|
| | Bandwidth Comcast has added a second forward carrier to help with any bandwidth issues that could arise in the future. So you can avoid hitting the panic button for now. Comcast is already testing Docsis 3.0 in Philly and have achieved 200 meg download speeds. I know that it's not perfect but you have to say at least Comcast is trying to stay ahead of the Game, We all remember when AT&T owned the cable company with @home "what a nightmare that was" Sometimes you have to put a little sugar on that lemon to mask the sour taste. | |
|
| IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
1 edit | Re: Bandwidth Good, however some operators in Europe already run quadruple EuroDOCSIS 2 downstreams and have for a while so this is a step in the right direction but certainly not a solution unless you offer pretty low speeds.
I think most of Comcast land is on 8/768, the operator I'm specifically thinking of had tiers up to 24/8.
DOCSIS 3 is being tested by most MSOs at present, it's a good solution for now and will be interesting to see just how it's used. | |
|
| | | said by mcnabb22: Comcast is already testing Docsis 3.0 in Philly and have achieved 200 meg download speeds. Great,
With that kind of speed, their new solution will be to call every customer a bandwidth abuser and cut them off. | |
|
| | | | Re: Bandwidth Simple fix for that is get the business service with a ip gateway for 39.99 a month and you will never be bothered about bandwidth abuse. | |
|
|
|
... we need more U-tubes ... 
