 |
 |  chrisbmoore
join:2003-08-28 Frederick, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Awesome 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. | |
|
 |  |   KnightDreams Coming Back Is Slow But Coming.
join:2002-05-08 Saint Charles, MO clubs: | Re: Awesome Not to throw a wrench but what does upload have to do with "watching" videos. -- Frank Amo | |
|
 |  |  |   nklb Premium join:2000-11-17 Ypsilanti, MI clubs:
| Re: Awesome 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: | Re: Awesome I have no problem watching videos online, and I download at 2.7mbps and upload at 187kbps. -- Frank Amo | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  indy0365
join:2001-08-25 Franklin, IN | Re: Awesome I have no promlems watching videos 3/128 | |
|
 |  |  |  |   some_UDP_guy
@nokia.com | But in streaming video, UDP is used instead of TCP, so there aren't Acks. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   _
| Re: Awesome 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. | |
|
 |  SexyGirl0
join:2003-11-04 | i hope comcast raises theirs too! | |
|
 |  Grandprix
join:2002-10-23 Warren, MI
| 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. | |
|
  morbo Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22 00000 clubs: | lucky, lucky bastards drool... | |
|
 |   Omega Displaced Ohioan Premium join:2002-07-30 Santa Maria, CA clubs:  | Re: lucky, lucky bastards I'm only on 128k, i would love to have it highered (256 is all I want). -- "The doctor's X-Rayed my head and found nothing" | |
|
 |  |   bky Premium join:2002-07-05 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: lucky, lucky bastards Oh what a Christmas present! I'm glad Timer Warner is stepping forward and enforcing this cap. Hopefully others such as Comcast and Adelphia will follow in suite. -- Write that down. http://www.fanglan.org | |
|
 |  |   mikesb A Bottle Of Carbonated Love
join:2001-11-07 Pittsburgh, PA | I'm still on 128 too. And it looks like I will be for awhile. Why isn't at least 256 the standard? -- Be will rise again. | |
|
 |   maartena Obama 2008
join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Nothing has happened.... YET. And TWC has yet to confirm it officially of course.
I would not object though! -- »www.deanforamerica.com - You have the power to make a change! Support Howard Dean 2004 | |
|
  StudioTech More clear QAM channels, please
join:2001-10-10 Edison, NJ | Don't get too happy yet. While they may offer you higher upload, they may start doing what OOL does which is cap you for excessive uploading. | |
|
 |  |
 |  |  gpancner
join:2001-09-27 Nine Mile Falls, WA | Re: Don't get too happy yet.
it is amazing how all of the whiners will never be happy | |
|
 |  |  |  |
  rideboarder welcome to the social Premium join:2003-07-28 Snohomish, WA clubs: edited
| Wake up Verizon! That's nice and all, but i wish verizon would finally wake up and give us more upstream than the horrible 128k we have now...which isn't even broadband to begin with.. | |
|
 |   TheHelpful1 Premium join:2002-01-11 Upper Marlboro, MD
·EarthLink
| Re: Wake up Verizon! I could go for some 256 or 512 upload speed. Right now i'm at 784/128 and all my server can manage is a little over 3 clients provided they too are broadband.
1500/512 with Earthlink's no down/upload limit...mmmmmmm............ -- "Not that you would, but you could" | |
|
 |  |  Brisk Qwest's Spirit Of Service Inaction
join:2003-07-11 Colorado Springs, CO clubs:
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: Wake up Verizon! Earthlink HAS that plan? Where? I Want it.
When I called them asking for an upload increase, they brushed me off and said it was static unless I wanted Covad's $69 1500/384 business plan, which isn't worth it IMHO, because I could get 1500/768 with Speakeasy (and two static IPs) for $79. But ISPs are afraid to switch me because of my awe-inspiring 23K ft. loop distance, plus it would mean a month downtime to re-adjust the line.
I'm stuck in a walled-in dark alley. | |
|
 |  |  |   TheHelpful1 Premium join:2002-01-11 Upper Marlboro, MD
·EarthLink
| Re: Wake up Verizon! i was speaking hypothetically. Earthlink couldnt offer that service if they wanted to.
Here in MD i am limited by my local telco Verizon, who limit earthlink to giving me speeds above 784/128, while speaking out the other side of their [verizon] mouth and offering me 1.5/256 or something.
I too asked about the speed increase and they said the same thing they told you, calling it their "Business package". Then the guy told me it would be a waste of money because verizon won't pass along that speed through their network. So paying for 1.5/384 but only getting 784/128 is a BIG waste of money - thank you verizon...
Also, i'm about your same distance from my telco. Took me THREE years of pestering verizon to install my DSL from someone else. Those 3 years weren't all spent with Earthlink, just the last 3 months. -- "Not that you would, but you could" | |
|
 |  |  |  Skornzbolt23
join:2003-09-07 Hilton, NY edited
| i use rr, and right now i get 2800/380, so i can't complain..... especially when i pay 40 bucks a month for it, woot woot! lol | |
|
 |  |
 |   cmptrblder
join:2001-01-16 Altoona, PA
| If you have Verizon (like I do) you can pay for numerous other packages on there business page, they'll let you get those accounts for home use. Mine is 1.5 down / 384K up for 79.00. ya, its more than cable or even Verizons cheap residential package but the added upstream and constant speed is well worth it. I noticed that VoIP like vonage works great with the higher upstream and VPN flys as well. I'm still foaming at the mouth over Verizon's 7.1 Down / 784K Up package but the 205.00 monthly price tag is enough to drive you to drink......  | |
|
 |  |   insomniac84
join:2002-01-03 Schererville, IN
| Re: Wake up Verizon! said by cmptrblder : Mine is 1.5 down / 384K up for 79.00.
WOW, SBC has the same thing for 40 a month. | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |
  Thrawn2 Grand Admiral Thrawn Premium join:2001-04-09 Davenport, IA | poor me same im still on 128. What cable companies other then Mediacom still only have 128k uploads? | |
|
 |  See 9 replies to this post |
|
  Straphanger Express is Back Premium,Mod join:2001-12-08 Jackson Heights, NY clubs: | Worth the Money Maybe now I'll get my $60 worth from RR...3000 down is very nice and I wouldn't mind 512 up. | |
|
 |  phrizz
join:2003-07-16 Riverside, CA
| Re: Worth the Money said by Straphanger : Maybe now I'll get my $60 worth from RR...3000 down is very nice and I wouldn't mind 512 up.
ya man 384 upload is hardly worth $60!! Give me a break. What other ISP the size of rr offers that upload? Comcast nor charter do, well comcast doesnt for that price. | |
|
  Xzibit Wtf Mate? Premium join:2002-04-19 Santa Clara, CA clubs: | Doubt comcast will follow Seeing how cheap and stingy comcast is, i doubt they'll follow. | |
|
  Stewy85 Premium join:2003-01-16 Sharon, WI clubs: | Oh Man! Holy cow I would love more upstream than 128! | |
|
  mrchris No more bailouts Premium join:2002-10-01 North Babylon, NY | Doesn't beat OOL's 1mb up..
Unless your upstream is capped at 128kbps... | |
|
 |   Vamp 5c077 Premium join:2003-01-28 MD edited
| Re: Doesn't beat OOL's 1mb up.. all I want for christmas is more upstream ..
but then again all isp's over sell there bandwidth anyway, the more they give the less youll get | |
|
 |  |   mrchris No more bailouts Premium join:2002-10-01 North Babylon, NY | Re: Doesn't beat OOL's 1mb up.. I want a digital camera, another hard drive and another stick of 512mb RAM  | |
|
 |  |  poehl
join:2003-09-10 O Fallon, MO
| said by Vamp : all I want for christmas is more upstream ..
but then again all isp's over sell there bandwidth anyway, the more they give the less youll get
I'm quoted 2.0 down, 128 up and I average 2.7 and 200, respectively. http://www.belowwholesaleautos.org -- »www.belowwholesaleautos.org | |
|
 |   visio
join:2001-08-29 Clifton, NJ
| You kind of have to wonder though, if OOL can afford to let users have a 10mbps/1mbps cable network, and theyre a smaller company in comparison, with a smaller userbase, how come larger companies with more subscribers cant/wont do the same? If OOL was large enough to acquire the other companies, alot of people wouldnt mind payign the avg $50 price a month....until they complain about a monopoly. Personally I've had OOL for a few years, I've been capped two-three times, and granted I dont like the drop of my upstream, its still either the same or better than others have with their cable companies. I also wouldnt mind (now) paying more money to not be capped, if they offered something like that. | |
|
 |
 |   rideboarder welcome to the social Premium join:2003-07-28 Snohomish, WA clubs:
| Re: Higher speeds, but said by Tomek :
Verizon, bring us 256k at least
at the VERY least...but i'd still be happy with 256... | |
|
 |   dvd536 as Mr. Pink as they come Premium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ
| said by Tomek : Are servers restricted (like in OOL TOS)?
I dont know of ANY cable company where running servers ISNT a TOS violation. -- You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
 |   mrchris No more bailouts Premium join:2002-10-01 North Babylon, NY | Yes, you can't run servers. | |
|
  DSL987
join:2000-03-22 Helotes, TX clubs: | Not bad I'm pretty happy with the 3000/384 I currently get from Road Runner, but 512 would be even nicer. | |
|
 |  AgentOrange9
join:2002-04-22 North Yarmouth, ME clubs: | Re: Not bad I'm happy also with my 3150/355 from maine.rr | |
|
  Teriwyn Neko Girl Premium join:2002-06-06 Germantown, MD
| Good enough for others.... Higher uploads are good enough for other ISPs. I'm surprised this hasn't happened before, since OOL and RCN/Starpower both offer better uploads as standard. (1m up on OOL and .8 up on RCN/Starpower).
It's about time the other companies jump on the bandwagon. | |
|
  dvd536 as Mr. Pink as they come Premium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ
| Time Warner I know time warner can do 512kbps upstream because when they had their decent speeds (8000/768) the upload was 256kbps higher than what they are going to be 'trialling'. -- You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
 |  tonekilla Pipe Dreams Premium join:2003-07-26 Gunnison, MS clubs:
| Re: Time Warner They had far less users then, as well. And as we all know, they dont invest in their infrastructure the way they *should* to maintain the reliable cable connections we all wish for. I have Earthlink in Houston, and it is already OVERSOLD for bandwidth. How could we possibly add another 128kbit/sec to an already overcrowded pipe?! pfft. | |
|
  Agent 86
| Meter the bandwidth, remove the caps! The only reason we have these stupid caps is to limit the "damage" that the 24/7 uploaders do. Broadband is being held back by the flat rate pricing mentality. It made sense for dial-up, but it doesn't make sense for broadband. There's too much variation between users, with some people running servers and others just checking their email.
So we have idiocies like speed caps, bandwidth warning letters, and TOS restrictions. Enough! Time for fresh thinking. | |
|
 |  See 6 replies to this post |
|
 hroo772 Darkness Fears Me Premium join:2002-04-05 Mclean, VA clubs: | Cox should follow TWC I hope that cox would follow this and a least get the NOVA area out of 192kbps upload and put it with the rest of cox that has 256kbps upload at least. That would be a start. --
| |
|
 tdkyo
join:2002-12-07 Rochester, NY | I'm cool Bla, I am happy with my 3000/382 DSL connection. Anything over that will have happy bandwidth hogs that will piss the ISP off which will lead to bandwidth caps.  | |
|
  DataRiker Premium join:2002-05-19 Metairie, LA clubs: | cox needs this i have 256k upload now and would love at least 384-512k. cox has already introduced an extreme tier with 384k upload but its not available where i am and its too expensive anyway. | |
|
 |  ezmanga
join:2002-08-30 Henderson, NV | Re: cox needs this Cox won't be doing this, they're getting ready to roll out their extreme plan everywhere. | |
|
  TexasGuy 49 States And Texas Premium join:2002-12-02 Houston, TX
| I see people testing their speed now! I bet many of you went from reading the article right to the speed tests to see if by some miracle it is being tested in your area.
I am right, am I? -- Who drank has died, who drinks will die. Is he immortal who is sober? | |
|
 |  |
  Eat Me
join:2002-09-25 Sussex, NJ clubs: | Why do you need higher upload? To run servers?
How are the companies going to sell business class connections then? | |
|
 |   asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Re: Why do you need higher upload? Reliability, service level agreements/guaranteed uptime.
Four or five 9's uptime and swift resolution of service problems 24 hours a day should be the primary selling point for anything classed as business service, not attempts to dictate use or tos limitations. | |
|
 |   91439306 15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16 New Milford, CT
edited
| said by Eat Me : To run servers?
How are the companies going to sell business class connections then?
Simple: sell the real business accounts with higher bandwidth (you can're really run a corporate web site on a mere 384 or 512 upstream) and the ability to resell that bandwidth as a web provider/host.
It's absurd that residential users have to put up with the likes of Tripod, Geocities et al to share their stuff with the world. And now that the ninnies and sissies at these web providers are scared of everything, they banned the use of ANY media other than JPEG images, so no more family videos, travel albums, etc. THe no server rule actually increases upload usage. For instance, I have to buy space on an external server (never mind that I have a terabyte of server space right here in the house ) I rent a 100MB space on an off-site server, and then spend nearly 24/7 uploading my content to that server. If it were here locally-served, the only bandwidth usage would be when a user plays one of our videos. Instead, due to this idiocy in rule-making, my ISP gets to see the upload usage nailed to the ceiling, as I refresh the content on several off-site servers. Stupid, very stupid policy. | |
|
 |   maartena Obama 2008
join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Higher upload is desirable for the following reasons:
- VOIP (Voice over IP). People can now ditch their landline and switch their phoneservice to an IP based subscription. VOIP works with 128 kbit/s, but if you also want to use the internet its a pain in the ass. You can't always run to the computer and stop your upload when the phone rings.....
- Video Conferencing. Video telephone is getting more and more popular. In Belgium they are already selling IP based video phones that you can hook up to the Internet and use as video phone. A good webcam will of course also do the trick.
- Families with more then one computer. Many of us have families. 3, 4 computers in a household is getting more common every day. The kids need to do research on the web, and of course chat their arses off on MSN with all their buddies The Parents use Internet as well, and with some smart programs like BandWidthController you can give each kid 128 kbit/s dedicated upload so they don't clog it up for everyone.
- Piracy. The most controversial one. The topic we should not be naming. But hey, its the truth. People want more upload so they can share their stuff on the internet faster. Some people claim that more upload will increase piracy, but being from the BBS age myself where peer-2-peer meant that you downloaded software at 2400bps from one bps and then uploaded it to another I can tell you that piracy was always there, and will always be there - regardless of technology restrictions. I download the occasional MP3, and every now and then a piece of software with a crack, but thats as far as my piracy goes.... And I don't share 
As far as "servers" go: No business will be running a WEBSERVER on the RoadRunner network. They have hosting companies with 1 Gbit/s backbones for that. Business subscriptions have higher uploads because they usually have more then one computer connected the the Internet, and they have a higher volume of e-mail (incoming and outgoing) then an average home user does. They are allowed to run servers, because many of them run e.g. a "WebAccess" server where employees can access their Groupwise and/or Exchange e-mail boxes on the road, or perhaps even a Terminal Server and a VPN node to connect to the business network from home.
Businesses don't run complete websites or ftp sites from their roadrunner connection, but the ability to run servers is there. But mostly for totally other purposes  -- »www.deanforamerica.com - You have the power to make a change! Support Howard Dean 2004 | |
|
 |  |  |
  Captain_Avat
join:2001-09-06 Harpers Ferry, WV
| VOIP needs this!
128k up is fine for VOIP, but then that's about all you can do when you're talking. You start surfing, share files, shoutcast, or run FTP/webserver then it cramps your style big time. I would love to video chat at 640x480 resolution, 30fps and in FM quality voice too. | |
|
 | |