|
That video you're watching just might break the internet
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 18 June, 2008
Do you use your broadband internet connection for video? If so you might partly responsible for "breaking" the internet within the next few years according to more than half of the 372 telecommunications professionals surveyed by Tellabs and research firm IDC. More than 10% think it will happen within the next 2 years.
So what's the solution? It seems that nearly half of those surveyed ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
18. June 2008 @ 21:44 |
Link to this message
|
Its not we the consumers fault its cheap isp's relying on ageing infrastructure. This is comcast's HD TV all over again.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
amf0802
Junior Member
|
18. June 2008 @ 22:08 |
Link to this message
|
"Unless there is sufficient investment into new infrastructure, the increased bandwidth demands of new advanced services could well outstrip capacity."
Then why the hell is it the consumer's fault? It would be the providers fault for not investing in a more capable infrastructure. If I pay for limitless bandwidth, I expect that. If they don't have enough bandwidth to go around, then find a way to make more, i.e. build a better infrastructure. If they are so scared something so essential will 'break' then take the necessary steps, don't simply point fingers.
|
Junior Member
|
18. June 2008 @ 22:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
ppl will demand more as time goes by, i just this takes a long time so isp's all over the world can handle it
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
18. June 2008 @ 22:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
Junior Member
2 product reviews
|
18. June 2008 @ 23:21 |
Link to this message
|
Pay to get certain bandwidth, then pay some extra for actually using it. Makes perfect sense (not).
Yes, sure it's the consumers fault for demanding more quantity and quality. It's called "progress" but ISP's don't seem to be too familiar with it.
|
|
navi1199
Junior Member
|
19. June 2008 @ 00:09 |
Link to this message
|
with quality comes price, broadband isn't cheap i want to get what i paid for.
Quote:
"Unless there is sufficient investment into new infrastructure, the increased bandwidth demands of new advanced services could well outstrip capacity."
hey smart ass... people wants faster internet i see perfect investment opportunity there and plenty of money to be made. those guys are just lazy bums who want money by just sitting around offering us various things then blaming us for taking the offer. good job.
EDIT: hmm.. just noticed someone in here said the same thing xD
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. June 2008 @ 00:10
|
Junior Member
|
19. June 2008 @ 00:13 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by canuckerz:
Its not we the consumers fault its cheap isp's relying on ageing infrastructure.
qft
isp's should quit complaining and start making changes immediately.
|
|
DTN107
Member
|
19. June 2008 @ 00:16 |
Link to this message
|
I wish the idiots running North Carolina would make up their mind and allow Verizon Fios to be here.
Roadrunner (aka Comcast) is already showing signs of limiting bandwidth in the future.
|
|
jellaby
Newbie
|
19. June 2008 @ 00:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Just you watch...it will be cheaper to hire the lawyers and lobbyists to "regulate for consumer equal access" than it will be for these companies to make the necessary investments for the future, and the current congress we have will happily accomodate.
The ending of this story probably won't be good.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. June 2008 @ 01:52 |
Link to this message
|
the ISPs are doing it to them selfs
looky 50Mbps fios at a cheap rate
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/200...fios-party.html
----
The US is not helping itself letting the corporations run the net infrastructure they put off badly needed upgrades and are now crying they can't handle the bandwidth now its quite sad....they need to slow down and start charging more for bandwidth faster than 500KBPS and charge less for 300 and under.
it might suck to pay more but land lines are headed for over saturation like satlite net is,while its not that ridiculous yet (150$ a month for 200KBPS that switches to 5KBPS when you dare use it)
We are getting to a point where we need reasonable plan rates to distribute bandwidth for the entire populace for the coming decade until they either realize they HAVE to upgrade or invest in wireless.
|
|
nobrainer
Suspended permanently
|
19. June 2008 @ 04:22 |
Link to this message
|
as already stated its the isp's greed and faliure to upgrade that is causing this. we need many more isp's to create competition to force them to upgrade across the USA, here in the uk its not as bad as BT (uk telecom) was forced to unbundle the local loop, which was paid for by tax payers monies, so now many isp's offer an llu service of upto 24mbps and soon fiber will be more common place offering upto 100mbps.
the thing in the uk that really sucks, is net neutrality, as throttling, usage allowances, traffic shaping, deep packet inspection's are common place, so you have this unbelievably fast connection but you are not allowed to use it to protect isp's profits.
if you reside in the UK and your local exchange is unbundled BE Unlimited is by far the most net neutral isp out there.
UK exchange Performance checker: http://usertools.plus.net/exchanges/
Exchange Search services: http://www.samknows.com/broadband/search.php
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. June 2008 @ 04:27
|
Member
12 product reviews
|
19. June 2008 @ 04:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
where is my $100 + monthly bill for comcast going? They are rolling in the dough
|
Member
|
19. June 2008 @ 10:10 |
Link to this message
|
A. I've been saying this for five years. Glad somebody is finally realizing it.
B. The ISPs are lazy, cheap and greedy. It's their fault. Don't charge us more, just CREATE MORE BANDWIDTH! This moronic idea that charging people more for a resource they'll keep using anyway is the same stupid crock you get from the drooling cretins that argue for higher gas taxes. They're all either idiots who don't think, or they're just trying to cash in.
|
|
xempler
Newbie
|
19. June 2008 @ 10:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
How about the ISP's take action before problems occur. Instead of reacting to problems, be proactive.
The internet is constantly changing...with YouTube, Facebook, etc online useage is growing at a massive rate.
ISP's can't point the finger at the consumer for THEIR lack of insight to update their infrastructre to meet demand.
Here's a thought, how about spending those millions of dollars on advertisement stating how FAST, and RELIABLE their interenet is and actually use that money to lay down some pipes so we the consumer actually have FAST and RELIABLE service.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. June 2008 @ 10:54 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mspurloc:
A. I've been saying this for five years. Glad somebody is finally realizing it.
B. The ISPs are lazy, cheap and greedy. It's their fault. Don't charge us more, just CREATE MORE BANDWIDTH! This moronic idea that charging people more for a resource they'll keep using anyway is the same stupid crock you get from the drooling cretins that argue for higher gas taxes. They're all either idiots who don't think, or they're just trying to cash in.
and in order to do that they have to spend millions to build the infrastructure and in some cases millions more to rebuild it.
anyway you look at it they are going to have to start charging more money for bandwidth.
|
|
emugamer
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. June 2008 @ 11:53 |
Link to this message
|
If they advertise high speeds and that's what I am paying for, and I decide to use what I am paying for, then they shouldn't charge me more when I can't have it. They should cap my bandwidth and charge me less.
If they told everyone that it is going to cost more to use the bandwidth, and everyone pays more, thereby expecting to use all of their bandwidth, then we will all be in the same boat. Not enough bandwidth. First - they need to get a plan together for infrastructure upgrades, find out what the total cost will be, begin the upgrades and then spread the cost of increased bandwidth to the customers. They should only charge for what they actually have available. And they should only charge the customers who are actually tied to larger pipes. For example, if in a year they plan on opening up larger pipes for 500 of their customers, then they shouldn't be charging all 1,000 of their customers increased rates.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. June 2008 @ 11:56
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. June 2008 @ 12:00 |
Link to this message
|
emugamer
thats coming to be a huge problem they can not sale super high speeds on the cheap without the infrastructure to back it up for thousands if not millions of consumers.
They should slot off the KBPS to plan rate, under 300KBPS is under 20, over 1000KBPS is over 50$, slowing the rate of high speed user growth will help balance out the things for a while while they try and fix them.
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
19. June 2008 @ 12:01 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
the ISPs are doing it to them selfs
looky 50Mbps fios at a cheap rate
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/200...fios-party.html
----
The US is not helping itself letting the corporations run the net infrastructure they put off badly needed upgrades and are now crying they can't handle the bandwidth now its quite sad....they need to slow down and start charging more for bandwidth faster than 500KBPS and charge less for 300 and under.
it might suck to pay more but land lines are headed for over saturation like satlite net is,while its not that ridiculous yet (150$ a month for 200KBPS that switches to 5KBPS when you dare use it)
We are getting to a point where we need reasonable plan rates to distribute bandwidth for the entire populace for the coming decade until they either realize they HAVE to upgrade or invest in wireless.
I can't agree with that statement. All the service providers were giving money by the government (our money) for upgrades. I'm certain that part of the AT&T mergering back together deal hinged on this. If thats the case why is my dad only option for high speed internet is a crap 1.5 MB DSL connection when he lives in a suburb of Cleveland. The speeds here in the US are awful and some consider me lucky because I get 15MB down from Time Warner and that still sucks ass.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. June 2008 @ 12:17
|
Senior Member
|
19. June 2008 @ 12:05 |
Link to this message
|
Well considering that America is behind in technology, it's not surprising. In japan what we pay for dsl is what they pay for T1. And most other countries have a better infrastructure then America. It isn't the consumer's fault for demanding something that should already exist. In my opnion the internet should be free in the first place.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. June 2008 @ 12:24 |
Link to this message
|
plutonash
And because of lack of oversight that money has been mostly "misplaced" and they do not "have" to do a damn thing abotu the current situation and the way the can't see past today profits corps run they would rater scuttle the current infrastructure to the point they can charge 100 times as much for bandwidth, there is also a chance can use the "antaquitaed" infrastructure as a fulcrum to make the tiered net happen.
What I am suggesting is slow the growth of super high speed (anything above 20000KBPS) by making it more costly, on the back end of it lower the price for anything below 300KBPS, the US infrastructure needs to get rid of dailup more than it needs 30$ 10Mbps fios.......
Of coarse what will probably happen is they create caps and limits and remove the unlimited aspects from all services so they then can artificially create pro plans which are not so limited at 4X the cost.
Something bad is coming, a balancing act is better than all the main ISPs getting together and selecting the lube....
21Q
*head desk*
You do realize that Asia has a quarter or less of the surface area to pipe lines in, there is a logical reason why most of the Asian countries flogged using speed and serviceable areas in less than 5 years it dose not have anything to do with government or business you have a small area with huge population centers making it ahell of alot easier to do.
In the US not only to do you have large areas of nothing but sparace population centers, no one company has the money to put the pipes in to provide the services that are not there or under serviced right now, while they have screwed up the truth of the matter is they can not afford to keep giving away supper fast connections on the cheap.
There are MANY issues in the US net infrastructure one of the key things coming up is a balance of bandwidth, the cheaper you make the super high speed the more people will be on it and the quicker it will be used up.
I am not calling for metered rates or heavy caps or what not just anything over 1000KBPS needs to be over 50 a month, anything under 300KBPS needs be under 20 a month, you can't build infrastructure on the money you have for maintanace and what you run your business on.
They are greedy but only a bit more than sheeple and almost as dumb, but the fact remains we don't want them to move to something like Satilite DSL caps there needs to be a balance, and price plans to speeds will do it.
|
Member
|
19. June 2008 @ 12:59 |
Link to this message
|
Speaking as a UK user, we're being completely conned by our ISPs. The ISPs have absolutely no interest in what quality of service we get, just as long as they can keep the new 12 month contracts coming in (24 months in some cases) It's all about them making money by squeezing as many users into our already overcrowded networks and then making people feel guilty about using the bandwidth they paid for so that the networks don't go into complete meltdown.
So the next time your ISP gives you a load of bull***t saying that it's your fault, remember all the advertising about "Unlimited" bandwidth services that they used to suck you in.
Want somebody else to blame? All the UK's telecommunications network is owned and run (With the exception of Hull) by BT. They have invested none very little of their vast profits into making any major improvements in our telecoms infrastructure, so it's no wonder we're at the situation we are at now. Note also, that BT themselves are pushing Video-on-demand over the 'net.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. June 2008 @ 13:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
simpsim1
this is true to a point the main trouble right now if MAKING them deal with infrastructure issues from there money can be found but without a stick to flog them with its pointless.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
19. June 2008 @ 13:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
The Type SCSC 48 strand optic trunk cable that we use cost @ $11.00 per foot. Each splice box cost around $1,200.00 . Of course each house, block, road, etc does not need 48 strands. The cost of outfitting one small town is crazy. Some one has to pay for this. As ZippyDSM stated, a wireless future may be the way to go.
I live in a town with @ 220 homes. If everyone in my town decided that they wanted a fiber optic connection and a service provider decided to lay fiber optic cable and equipment in our town; for material alone just to get to each property, it would cost $387,000. That would have a ROI of over 7 years. You figure in the Lease of land lines, labor, equipment for burial, connection to your house, modems etc... The Return On Investment would be 20+ years. Banks are looking for a RIO of 3 to 5 years. What kind of monthly bill would you be willing to pay to make this feasible?
In a Large City where hundreds of people live in 1 building and multiple buildings per block, Fiber is feasible to install. For us who live in rural areas, we are out of luck. It may be that if larger cities convert to fiber, it will lift the load on copper land lines. Nothing is for free. Does not mater who foots the initial bill, the users and possibly non users through Taxes if the government pays for it.
|
Junior Member
|
19. June 2008 @ 13:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
haha..the first bad thing is to point the finger at the consumer..
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
SProdigy
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
19. June 2008 @ 15:31 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
the ISPs are doing it to them selfs
looky 50Mbps fios at a cheap rate
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/200...fios-party.html
----
The US is not helping itself letting the corporations run the net infrastructure they put off badly needed upgrades and are now crying they can't handle the bandwidth now its quite sad....they need to slow down and start charging more for bandwidth faster than 500KBPS and charge less for 300 and under.
it might suck to pay more but land lines are headed for over saturation like satlite net is,while its not that ridiculous yet (150$ a month for 200KBPS that switches to 5KBPS when you dare use it)
We are getting to a point where we need reasonable plan rates to distribute bandwidth for the entire populace for the coming decade until they either realize they HAVE to upgrade or invest in wireless.
I can't agree with that statement. All the service providers were giving money by the government (our money) for upgrades. I'm certain that part of the AT&T mergering back together deal hinged on this. If thats the case why is my dad only option for high speed internet is a crap 1.5 MB DSL connection when he lives in a suburb of Cleveland. The speeds here in the US are awful and some consider me lucky because I get 15MB down from Time Warner and that still sucks ass.
I can't agree more, being in NE Ohio myself. I have the Time Warner 15mb down, and sometimes I'm lucky to get 5-6 down, which is the STANDARD packages speeds. Honestly, these companies should know what's up when I pay them MORE MONEY for a FASTER connection: I'm going to use MORE of their service.
I'm not "Joe Consumer" that will see negligible differences in checking my email, and even if I were, I feel bad for those people, as they are being raped of $40-$50 a month for speed/bandwidth they do not use. In all, it SHOULD balance out, but these telcos are always looking for excuses to make a buck.
|
