10mbps is theoretical upper limit of regular DLS internet cables. Anyone that still has to have DSL cables should be getting that as a minimum. Also no scamming with upstreams either. Its 10/10. Anyone that has fiber optics should never be limited to as low as 10mbps though. And considering most of earth is covered with fiber optics now.....
Also FCC doing something reasonable? what sorcery is this?
Alpha Maeko said:
4K Video streamed at constant 30Mb last time I tried it on Youtube.
Things are progressing quickly to a place where 4Mb isn't going to be capable of anything outside of email.
Sigh. this is sad. A good quality 1080p stream would take more than mbps, and youtube compresses 4k to 30 mbps. no wonder raw 480p look better than youtube 1080p.
ObsidianJones said:
So, someone knowledgable please explain to me what actual strain this would put on At&T and Verizon's infrastructure? I remember reading about south Korea's broadband and... well
snip
There was a internet outage/distruption couple weeks back that pretty much was felt by anyone connecting to US servers. It was caused by one of the large internet privoders there. A person who refused to disclose which company he worked for for safety reasons explained why it happened. To keep technical info out of the way, basically they were using devices that were over two decade old and the buffer size was limited to 100bits per buffer on those devices. now two decades ago that meant they were very powerful, however couple weeks ago the buffer exceeded that size and the devices basically crashed. thing is, they KNEW it was coming, they KNEW
for years with projections and plans to avoid it but they did
nothing to prevent that because that would mean actually spending money, however to quickly eliminate crash they needed massive (think thousands of devices) orders quickly and paid premium for it - spending even more money, to avert the damage.
The main point - the people running those companies are grossly incompetent.
Kmadden2004 said:
So consumers want (nay, demand) faster internet, ISPs tell them faster internet isn't necessary...
Sorry, I admit economics isn't my thing, but isn't that scenario the direct opposite of the free market ideology the Republicans keep telling us is the solution to all our problems?
Ah, see, but for free market you need one thing: perfect competition. which means that every user has to know EVERYTHING there is to know about the item and can switch between different providers at absolutely no cost or time spent for the switch. Now, as you will be quick to point out - this is not possible in reality. hence, free market cannot work in reality.
LordMithril said:
*stunned* seriously?
I just checked to be sure. The slowest connection I can get with my cable provider is 50Mbit. THE SLOWEST!
On DSL I can go as low as.. brace yourselves.. 10Mbit.
have you check the wireless internet carriers (the ones that basically work like cell internet)? those seem to ask double the money for as slow as 2mbps, i wonder who uses them.
Ed130 The Vanguard said:
The more I read about your ISP actions, the more convinced I am that your country is a corrupt shithole.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with your legislative branches?
The problem with legislative branch is that it is comprised of people that said corrupt companies bought rather than actual legislators.
V4Viewtiful said:
But I have to ask, with the sheer audacity of this - whatever this is - how are they still even making money? In Britain if our services are or have become sub-par we switch
and thats the difference. you can switch. in US everyone you can switch to - does exactly the same. There is noone to switch to. Google tried to make competition, got slapped with lawsuits because "its unfair that big company competes with them". Google lost the case in court. apparently competition is illegal in US.
Johnson McGee said:
I have cable internet (provided through my rental agreement) which has about 40 Mbs download... and an incredibly unstable .2 Mbs upload.
please change your provider. stop feeding those morons. noone should suffer upload speeds lower than download speeds.
LarsInCharge said:
Well, we have something called an "Ogliopoly", in which multiple cable companies agree to not compete against one another in order to overcharge and underprovide for the customers. Which should be illegal, but those companies have dozens of "lobbyists" whose job it is to bribe government officials to look the other way.
Actually Oligopoly means that there are few big companies in firce competition with eachother. what you got is a "Cartel" and is in fact illegal.
Steve the Pocket said:
It's enough for 1080p video, apparently, so that probably is plenty for most people right now, especially people who live alone. And it's not like this definition of "broadband" is preventing anything higher from being available (Time Warner, our local provider, offers six tiers of service; four of them are between 15 and 50 Mbps, and the other two are clearly aimed at people who used to be content with dial-up), nor would this proposed change force them to lower their prices any (which is the bigger concern, given that every ISP has been constantly raising their rates over the past few years).
its not even close. Incompressed 1080p is a 230mbps stream. the 10mbps 1080p streams (like netflix) look worse than uncompressed 480p. It is not plenty for most people, its just that people adapt and get by with horrible internet, just like homeless get used to sleeping outside. they get used to it, does not make it a confortable thing though.
Steam games would take ages to download :S
