Grandprix
join:2002-10-23
Warren, MI
| reply to BadHat
Re: Awesome
I'm using Wideopenwest in Michigan, And they now have a package for 4m down 500 up. I'm only on the 2 down 300 up right now, but it would be nice. Also, SBC in my area is going to offer "Firewire DSL" which is going to have 5m down and 500 up. Comcast however is still at the bottom of the barrel. The only benefit they have around here is reliable connections. |
|
_
| reply to some_UDP_guy
Windows Media Encoder(realtime video feeds) uses TCP. ShoutCast(usually audio, does work with video, just a pain to set up) uses TCP. Almost all on-demand streaming is accomplished through http over TCP, simply by downloading the file as it's playing. UDP is used mostly for online games and netconferencing(which can include video) and old RealVideo streams. But we all know that RealVideo is a fading format, don't we? Also, I would like to point out that depending on packet size, the bandwidth used by ACKs varies. Obviously, bigger packets means fewer ACKs, but more retransmission if a packet gets lost. Usually the ACKs for downloading at 1.5mbps amount to a total of about 5KBps(or 40kbps). It's not a major factor on your connection, however enough to cause your downloads to seriosuly slow down by a saturated upstream. nklb's estimates are way out of proportion. A 3mbps/128kbps connection would work just fine for *just downloading*. But don't try to upload at the same time -- it will kill your download speed.
But back to the original topic, the real question is when connections like Starpower(RCN)'s 3.5mbps/768kbps with as much of that upload available as you could possibly want per month(trust me, I know people who have tested this...^.~) will become standard. |
|
some_UDP_guy
@nokia.com | reply to nklb
But in streaming video, UDP is used instead of TCP, so there aren't Acks. |
|
indy0365
join:2001-08-25
Franklin, IN | reply to KnightDreams
I have no promlems watching videos 3/128 |
|
SexyGirl0
join:2003-11-04 |  reply to BadHat
i hope comcast raises theirs too! |
|
KnightDreams
Coming Back Is Slow But Coming.
join:2002-05-08
Saint Charles, MO
clubs: | reply to nklb
I have no problem watching videos online, and I download at 2.7mbps and upload at 187kbps.
--
Frank Amo |
|
nklb
Premium
join:2000-11-17
Ann Arbor, MI
clubs:
| reply to KnightDreams
said by KnightDreams  :
Not to throw a wrench but what does upload have to do with "watching" videos.
It has plenty to do. In TCP/IP, a packet's receipt has to be acknowledged, so by downloading full on at 1.5mbps, you would need about 128kbps up just for the return packets. Now that speeds are 3mbps down, you would need even more upload.
--
for all your Linux questions |
|
KnightDreams
Coming Back Is Slow But Coming.
join:2002-05-08
Saint Charles, MO
clubs: | reply to chrisbmoore
Not to throw a wrench but what does upload have to do with "watching" videos.
--
Frank Amo |
|
chrisbmoore
join:2003-08-28
Frederick, MD
| reply to BadHat
They need to start making these speeds constant for both up and downstream, that would be the major improvement. I like to watch videos over launch.com and I found until Adelphia just raised their cap on upload to 256k it was impossible to watch the videos, leadign me to conclude that upstream is almost as important if not moreso than downstream. |
|
BadHat
Hook'M Horns
Premium
join:2003-10-14
Rosa's Place
clubs:  | I am running about 360 upstream now, but I could handle more. I would have to break down and do my happy dance. |
|
