Internet Speed has to increase with a factor of 1000 the next fitheen years ! ;)

wrote:

Internet delivery of TV is going to need it.


One of the people who helped invent the internet (ArpNet) says the
current infrastructure of the internet is not good enough for such
things as TV over the internet. And my ISP won't even allow me to
download that much data per month anyway. Hell, sometimes I get pauses
just playing ****ty low res videos at youtube etc. so how do they figure
the internet is good enough for streaming TV? They should put down the
crack pipes and get back to reality.

tony h wrote:

maybe time to change to a decent ISP then?


Pretty much all high speed ISP's have a cap. And how do propose we
switch ISP's when our only choices are ADSL or cable? Each area has a
choice of one or the other and not a multitude to choose from. Where I
live ADSL cap is 30gb per month and cable is 80gb per month. All you
people who think the internet is good enough for streaming TV and HD
movies are out of touch with reality. Build a newer and better internet
and then I might take you seriously. Until then you are a bunch of
jokers living a pipe dream.

'John Adams' wrote:
| Pretty much all high speed ISP's have a cap. And how do propose we
| switch ISP's when our only choices are ADSL or cable? Each area has a
| choice of one or the other and not a multitude to choose from. Where I
| live ADSL cap is 30gb per month and cable is 80gb per month. All you
| people who think the internet is good enough for streaming TV and HD
| movies are out of touch with reality. Build a newer and better internet
| and then I might take you seriously. Until then you are a bunch of
| jokers living a pipe dream.
_____

Perhaps you confuse a Usenet download cap before throttling with a total
bandwidth delivery?

Phil Weldon

"John Adams" wrote in message
. ..
| tony h wrote:
|
| maybe time to change to a decent ISP then?
|
|
| Pretty much all high speed ISP's have a cap. And how do propose we
| switch ISP's when our only choices are ADSL or cable? Each area has a
| choice of one or the other and not a multitude to choose from. Where I
| live ADSL cap is 30gb per month and cable is 80gb per month. All you
| people who think the internet is good enough for streaming TV and HD
| movies are out of touch with reality. Build a newer and better internet
| and then I might take you seriously. Until then you are a bunch of
| jokers living a pipe dream.

In article ,
John Adams wrote:
tony h wrote:

maybe time to change to a decent ISP then?

Pretty much all high speed ISP's have a cap. And how do propose we
switch ISP's when our only choices are ADSL or cable? Each area has a
choice of one or the other and not a multitude to choose from. Where I
live ADSL cap is 30gb per month and cable is 80gb per month. All you
people who think the internet is good enough for streaming TV and HD
movies are out of touch with reality. Build a newer and better internet
and then I might take you seriously. Until then you are a bunch of
jokers living a pipe dream.

You are probably talking about the "high speed ISP's" in your region, but
overhere, very few to none have a hard cap on the amount of data you're
allowed to download.

So, if you have one in your neighbourhoud who doesn't have a cap, vote
with your wallet and move over to them. If there's one with a higher cap,
do the same. Perhaps they will see the light.

Regards,

Patrick.

'Patrick Vervoorn' wrote:
| You are probably talking about the "high speed ISP's" in your region, but
| overhere, very few to none have a hard cap on the amount of data you're
| allowed to download.
|
| So, if you have one in your neighbourhoud who doesn't have a cap, vote
| with your wallet and move over to them. If there's one with a higher cap,
| do the same. Perhaps they will see the light.
_____

The so-called cap must not be common 'over here' either. It certainly does
not exist for any large ISPs. Not to mention that several Internet
businesses deliver for-pay movies via the Internet.

Phil Weldon

"Patrick Vervoorn" wrote in
message . ..
| In article ,
| John Adams wrote:
| tony h wrote:
|
| maybe time to change to a decent ISP then?
|
| Pretty much all high speed ISP's have a cap. And how do propose we
| switch ISP's when our only choices are ADSL or cable? Each area has a
| choice of one or the other and not a multitude to choose from. Where I
| live ADSL cap is 30gb per month and cable is 80gb per month. All you
| people who think the internet is good enough for streaming TV and HD
| movies are out of touch with reality. Build a newer and better internet
| and then I might take you seriously. Until then you are a bunch of
| jokers living a pipe dream.
|
| You are probably talking about the "high speed ISP's" in your region, but
| overhere, very few to none have a hard cap on the amount of data you're
| allowed to download.
|
| So, if you have one in your neighbourhoud who doesn't have a cap, vote
| with your wallet and move over to them. If there's one with a higher cap,
| do the same. Perhaps they will see the light.
|
| Regards,
|
| Patrick.

John Adams wrote:
wrote:

Internet delivery of TV is going to need it.


One of the people who helped invent the internet (ArpNet) says the
current infrastructure of the internet is not good enough for such
things as TV over the internet. And my ISP won't even allow me to
download that much data per month anyway. Hell, sometimes I get pauses
just playing ****ty low res videos at youtube etc. so how do they figure
the internet is good enough for streaming TV? They should put down the
crack pipes and get back to reality.

"Current structure" is not good enough to do it right, but AT&T is
offering tv over the internet in some areas, ADSL-style I think. The
selection of channels is limited (30 or 40 I think rather than 150
or 200) and I do not know if they offer HD tv, but investment cost
and cost to the user are much lower that the fiber alternative
and it is doable now. Being done now.

Fiber will provide the bandwidth. It will require investment to
install it, and the associated equipment to send and control the
traffic. The money will be available (bread and circus has been
a requisite since Roman times, and fiber offers a huge circus),
but there is some hazard regarding how much to spend when for
what. Those that botch the decisions may go bankrupt; those that
get them right get to play another round in the game. Put your money
on the table and spin the wheel...

Verizon is offering tv, internet, and VoIP for roughly $100 a
month. With an average capital investment maybe around $2,000 per
customer to support that (general guesstimate, based on what I have
read in the newspapers), it is financially doable though the
payback will not go into the black for a few years.

Cheers!

jim b.

--
UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.

tony h wrote:
"Jethro" wrote in message
...
Chris S. wrote:
My current FiOS Speeds:
Last Result:
Download Speed: 15509 kbps (1938.6 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 1880 kbps (235 KB/sec transfer rate)

Chris

snip

And yet with all this awesome speed the ISP's keep throttling BitTorrent
traffic and put restrictions on how much you can download.
Sure you can download fast.. it just means you will reach your cap in less
time.


maybe time to change to a decent ISP then?



Haha.. unfortunately I only have 1 choice. Fixed wireless. Well actually
there are now 2 wireless providers but the other is worse than mine.
Here in the backass of nowhere, choice is not an option. No cable, no DSL.
I am not specifically mentioning my provider as they don't throttle
anything... but I only have 1Mbps and 10Gb per month allowed so I'm only
"throttled" by how much I can download.

--
Jethro[AGHL] aka Phat_Jethro
Reply Email: jethro86 (at) gmail (dot) com

Phil Weldon wrote:


Perhaps you confuse a Usenet download cap before throttling with a total
bandwidth delivery?

No, the caps I listed are for total bandwidth. Oh, and here's an article
that backs up what I say.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/11...city/index.php

Patrick Vervoorn wrote:

You are probably talking about the "high speed ISP's" in your region, but
overhere, very few to none have a hard cap on the amount of data you're
allowed to download.

So, if you have one in your neighbourhoud who doesn't have a cap, vote
with your wallet and move over to them. If there's one with a higher cap,
do the same. Perhaps they will see the light.

Regards,

Patrick.

I already have the one with the higher cap and there is only one other
to choose from. You sure you don't have a cap? It's not something they
like to advertise but will soon let you know if you go over it. In one
town where I lived there was only one choice for high speed internet and
their cap was a lousy 10GB down and 3GB up.

Phil Weldon wrote:

The so-called cap must not be common 'over here' either. It certainly does
not exist for any large ISPs. Not to mention that several Internet
businesses deliver for-pay movies via the Internet.

Where is over here exactly? I see you post via Supernews so I expect you
are either in the US or Canada but maybe not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_cap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_Shaping

Companies With Products Employing Traffic Shaping

* Cisco Systems
* Cogeco Cable
* Crescendo Networks
* F5 Networks
* Juniper Networks
* LogiSense Corporation
* MailChannels
* Nortel Networks
* Procera Networks
* Packeteer
* Radware
* Riverbed Technology
* Sandvine Incorporated
* Tellabs
* TurnTide, now part of Symantec

[edit] Major Internet Service Providers Using Traffic Shaping

* Cable & Wireless Panama
* Rogers Cable
* Bell Sympatico
* Clearwire
* Comcast Cable
* Shaw Cable
* Cogeco Cable
* Insight Communications
* Road Runner (Time Warner Cable)
* Pipex
* TM Net
* PlusNet
* Eclipse Internet
* BT Openworld
* Virgin Media
* Clearwire
* TalkTalk
* Telenet (Belgium)
* AOL UK
* CATVP
* UPC Romania