Higher Broadband Speeds 'Overkill'

In a couple years we might be at standard 10mb downloads.
We'll probably still have 128-384k UPLOADS!

Screw the mega-uber-ultra downloads, 3MB is fine for me, I want UPLOADS!

So your getting 3MBs=24 Mbps? If not here's some help on bits and bytes.

»www.edoceo.com/utilis/ba ··· alculate

There is, if so many people use it that the internet comes crashing down for everyone else or the costs begin to skyrocket. And all so that the video thieves can be happy.

you know what he meant tradewiz50 so qft..... on topic though, my 3Mbit connection is not enough, I will always want to download content faster than I currently can, It is just natural to do so

Oh please - the CPA's at big telco have been predicting the crash of the net for eons. Theres plenty of dark fiber, and plenty of relatively low cost upgrade options for the existing fiber.
All the whining has a point - the telcos are trying to lobby for net control, so they can determine where video content gets delivered from.

You can't have to much down load speed. LOL. Think HDtv is going to be the choking point in the future. Without huge compression, big bandwidth going to be used. I did like when I had DSL, 1.5 meg uploads, pictures flew out of my out box. To bad my ISP never got the latency problem figured out. They capped downloads to what ever tier you paid for but uploads were uncapped. Their problem was the caps, they were causing latency issues.

I remember back in the 90's when cable and dsl was just getting started, this same arguments came up. Did we ever see the Internet chocked with broadband user, No. If their is money to be made ISP's will find a way to deliver the content. In the long run ISP are going to have to start metering bandwidth anyway. Why should someone who just checks their email and trades stocks online have to subsidized people who download 900 gigs a month worth of movies(either legally or illegally). For example the Cable company could offer 50,100,300 gigs per month. For very light user they could just charge per gig. The more bandwidth a person uses the more it costs the ISP. Since broadband is becoming more like a utility they should meter it like the electric company. As long and cable co's offer unlimited people treat it like unlimited. BTY I used 30 gigs last month

overnight for a movie??? wow, that has to really be fun, not..

for a bit, my connection was almost that slow, but when it was working at full speed, I rather enjoyed having a movie arrive in 15 min. or less! there will always be a reason for faster speed. what about service packs? linux iso's? game patches? game demos? multiple users?

not overkill at all. they should all work towards at least 10Mbps down and 2Mbps up.

even my dad, who is one of those users who doesn't "use it all up" wants the max available, just because. oh, and yeah, because that bill every month is paid.....

besides, if people WERE using it all up, then everyone calls everyone else a bandwidth hog... so what if streaming video doesn't take up "that much" available bandwidth, GOOD streaming video DOES! Nobody really does it, but it's out there. Same goes for audio, at current speeds, streaming FLAC (which is possible from what I understand) would be awesome. Even 1.5Mbps is plenty for pretty good streaming video if done right... it's easily enough for streaming lossless cd quality audio instead of lossy mp3 or whathaveyou.

Or do they all live alone, in single-computer households?

Sure, one person downloading one thing may not notice. But what if you're streaming while you're downloading? Or two people are streaming while you're uploading?

I agree with you. Metered access is what will come eventually. It also solves the problem of young adults who don't pay the bills, but depend on mommy and daddy to pay the freight eating up bandwidth with no regard for the consequences. Once the "you pay for what you eat" model is in place, it also puts a natural throttle on P2P applications where the apps run 24x7 eating bandwidth. The people who pay the bills will put a lower tier in place so sonny doesn't run up big bills.

i guess it all comes down to the individual user. we all have our own preferences. The guy who wrote the article could easily be using a 486 pc on dialup and wouldn't notice much of a slowdown typing up his article and sending it via email.

I mean, I can't stress that there are only a few servers that have the bandwidth that I can handle (Microsoft, Apple, ...) for downloads but most websites I go to, they are slow in comparison.

"Nothing is really new, just the name; Mainframe-Terminal, Server-Client, ..."

I'm still waiting for i2 and Gigabit-ports on modems/routers...

quote:

---

It also solves the problem of young adults who don't pay the bills, but depend on mommy and daddy to pay the freight eating up bandwidth with no regard for the consequences.

---

i cant say how much this attitude irritates me! so you want metered bandwidth? what about when your computer gets hijacked? metered bandwidth is a joke because they will never be able to control when someone is sending you something that you didnt ask for or never wanted in the first place.

there is internet available to people who only use it to check thier email. its called dialup and you can get it for free.

what are the consequences? if someone pays for internet access they should be able to use it however they want to...

His primary goal is to pump concepts that benefit his wallet as an investor. Metered bandwidth was attempted in the UK and the market rejected it. The poster above doesn't really have a firm grasp on the realities of the industry, he's more concerned with selling a perspective.

I'll say it again - we all need Symmetrical connections @ 10/10 minimum. This lopsided connection crap is getting old already.
Don't want to use all of that speed, dont! No one forcing you to!

Sure would come in handy though for "LEGAL" purposes that some of us have.
P2P will always be here, filesharing/newsgroups have been online from the start! Get off that wagon.

I seem to remember some group was looking at BT for delivering LEGAL movies for a fee... with everyone on a restricted upload, getting these movies will still be rather slow, huh?

Try backing up, Offsite, your HDD with 768k - 2mbps. Yeah, that's fun!
Send some family members home movies or RAW images. Uh huh.

Now I feel guilty having a 30/2 connection. Guess I'll downgrade so I can save some bandwidth for the rest of you guys.

Still pretending to be a mind reader. You should take your act to Vegas and be a lead in to Wayne Newton.

No mind reading. Your posts show ample evidence of your tactic of trolling, baiting, and spinning to pimp your portfolio and make a trash-pile out of this site's news-comment section. I plan to crack down on it. Be aware. Playtime for you is over.

Japan with their 100Mbps connection speeds is over kill. I wonder what the average power user in Japan would think about this. My thoughts about speed is the same idea I have about power supplies, you can't get one that is to big. I have power supplies that can feed my old vacuum tube dinosaurs up to with 100 amps and 2400 volts DC. My next computer is going to be equipped with a 600 watt power supply, asked why I am getting one this powerful and my answer is because I couldn't get a 700 watt supply. You can't have a connection that is to fast.

But I can see this; 100Mbps connections + Bit-Torrent = chest pains for MPAA, and RIAA executives.

NO he does not.
He misunderstood.
The dude meant 3mbps or 2.5mbps throughput speed so
300kb/sec

not 3mb/sec

Duh!

I would have agreed with CNET lock, stock and barrel.

What DID people need all these speeds for anyway...to load BBR's newspage faster?

And, even for those who downloaded music, I just couldn't really see that much need, not to mention that I really couldn't see supporting those who did it illegally with even more bandwidth.

But today..it's a whole different story. With the video offerings out there now and with many more to come in the future, particularly with Hi Definition (which is incredible once you get it and realize what a difference it makes)...it just proves the old adage..just build it and people will figure out how to use it.

More and more Bandwidth, more sweet, Ultra wide bandwidth....

it's the future.

100mbps is not an overkill yes its a lot faster then our broadband but hell its the same as your 100mbps router, switch or hub and they are kind of slow IMHO... for my use

I can only burn dvd-r at 4x speed on this kind of connection...
It is faster for me to use a USB 480mbps connection at about 33mb/sec throughput speed.

Maybe you are use to waiting hours or even days to complete a large download why wait when it can take only a few min? eh? isn't that better?

Most of us are crawling on a small pipe and trying to squeeze as much out of it as possible which is like defining the law of gravity to a new level... the copper line is a limitation. if we have a cat5 like connection
100mbps or 1000mbps is not an impossibility.

Pretty soon my friend 6mbps, 10mbps, 15,mbps or 30mbps will be a thing of the past.

don't you say so?

look at dialup, it hit a ceiling at 53kbps.

If you feel that way there's dsl from att for 12.99
1.5/384
seems to me you're not very happy about broadband being fast for you.. to download music you only need dialup
yes i agree it is an overkill if all ya do is surf the web...
so be my guess and go back to dialup heck its probably a little laggy on that kind of connection but for me speed is fun and its like having a fast car...
I think what you say conflicts with your interest...
You prefer pages loading faster yes? so even 1.5mbps is still too slow for ya. so not to sound retarded or anything like that...btw, tell that to aol user.. I'm sure they only read email, surf the web and do nothing else...
nm...

Yes, we will eventually get metered access as long as there is no competition in the broadband market. This is the next logical step for a monopoly that will attempt to extract every last bit of money from the service they control.

All of this crap basically comes down to the same thing - lack of competition. It's got to be embarrassing when you can get better and cheaper broadband in France than the U.S.

I have 15/2....and I only know 2 sites I can get full speed from.
Adobe
Apple

Rarely do I get faster than 600kbps on a dl, Apple shreds tho, full 1800+kbps.

If they find know use for the higher broadband speeds then fine. But what right do they have to call into questions what businesses want to offer and what consumers are obviously willing to pay for? Sounds like a writer needing to prove his continued employment.

Personally, I would love to get 20-30Mbps of good bandwidth so I can start pandering content creaters to get directly video content. I don't want Comcast or BellSouth or DirecTV for my video. I'd rather gut the middlemen and get my video directly from EPSN, Discovery Channels, etc.

Oh yeah, this smeckens of a la carte.

these articles are a joke, both of them. many technologies and ideas havent been explored because of the slow speeds many have. the more speed we get the more we can do with it. I wonder if the reporters are writing these articles on typewriter.

It's not about video thieves. Its about downloading from sources such as movielink and netflix, it's also about the telcos adding video to their services. Also their is HD content to come and that requires more bandwidth as well. I don't believe the internet will crash or any of the drivel these reporters spew out these days.I do want higher uploads also.

For the average user the current high speed broadband is over kill. I thinking about the average Joe who uses the internet to check e-mail or to download pictures of the grand kids. Even if HD video is offered .Perhaps some type of variable speed broadband is needed where the speed is set to 758k and can be temporally boosted to >3M as needed.

As for HD video, I agree the net will choke if something is not done. Net Neutrality is not the answer. Like most government regulation any attempt to regulate the tacos is a sure way to ensure nothing gets done. A two tire network will be needed.

Web page content is getting too rich for dial-up in this day and age, but 1.5Mbps or even 768Kbps connections are absolutely fine for the average user. They are still fast enough to experience most of what the web has to offer, but can be offered at a cheap price.

In my opinions, 30Mbps connections in the home are for bragging rights more than anything else. I can definately see this kind of speed being necissary in a workgroup setting where there is a heavy bandwidth requirement, but is the average teenage geek going to really benefit with 30Mbps over say 10Mbps?