SG Broadband Community. Everything you'd like to know about Cable Modems, DSL, Satellite, Networking, Security, Wireless, Routers and more.
https://www.speedguide.net/forums/
Yeah but what do you call "Affordable"? To me and in this area affordable is no more than $60mo for say 100/50 which still isn't near average for many other countries that have much cheaper and faster connections.Leatherneck wrote:I'm sure it will be a while before consumers see these speeds at an affordable price. It's coming though. Along with this kind of speed comes many other changes and I can't see a 250GB being feasible.
But other countries where you claim it's affordable...it's wise to look at the whole picture. If the gov't is subsidizing 33% (or more in some countries) of the internet, common sense tells you that it's not a direct comparison of say...phone bill vs phone bill. You have to factor in that that other portion that got covered by gov't subsidy was already paid for (a few times over) by ripping higher taxes out of the citizen.Sava700 wrote:Yeah but what do you call "Affordable"? To me and in this area affordable is no more than $60mo for say 100/50 which still isn't near average for many other countries that have much cheaper and faster connections.
Population a bit higher actually. But...with that number growing by 1 birth every 8 seconds..and not scrubbed off by 1 death every 13 seconds, do you expect every baby to be paying 1 or 2 bucks per year the second they are born? That number includes all members of a household...do you expect all members to pay? I'd say 1x household pays for internet. Scratch a percentage for the elderly, those in nursing homes, those in hospitals, those in prison, the homeless, apartment complexes sharing 1x connection, gotta chop at least 1/3 off of that. And then cut remaining number into households. So yeah, far far from 614 million.Sava700 wrote:I'd pay a extra $1 or $2's a year for better internet..and I say that amount cause if everyone was forced to pay that amount just think of what it adds up to!!
The Current US Population is 307Million people.... so 307 x $1 = 307 Million $$ to go towards better internet.. or 307 x $2 = 614Million towards better internet and so on.
Yes and no. Taxes are unavoidable. Your Comcast bill can be trimmed down GREATLY. So I wish there were a tax. It would force people to make a choice. By dropping the useless premium channels and going to basic cable, most folks on average save around $100 a month. By keeping that and the HSI, you can then stream from Hulu & Netflix. Both sit at $8 a month. To me, it's an easy choice.Leatherneck wrote:This country would have a cow if a high speed internet tax was imposed on them. Many can't see the future or just don't care enough to invest in it. Maybe if it came with free extra large sodas & stretchy pants.
I'm trying to picture a balance good for all.
I'm dropping Starz in a few months once my free year expires cause I get the same thing off Netflix thru their starzplay. I'll prob drop HBO at the same time cause I just can't find anything on it worth watching anymore that I can't catch on Netflix either by blue-ray/dvd form or streaming. The tax would be small but considering it would hit EVERYONE so we all share the same amount to go into it I don't see where it would be that big of an issue considering 5-10years time of saving that tax up you could have everyone close enough to a fiber line to hook right into!JawZ wrote:Yes and no. Taxes are unavoidable. Your Comcast bill can be trimmed down GREATLY. So I wish there were a tax. It would force people to make a choice. By dropping the useless premium channels and going to basic cable, most folks on average save around $100 a month. By keeping that and the HSI, you can then stream from Hulu & Netflix. Both sit at $8 a month. To me, it's an easy choice.
Sava700 wrote:What we need is a war on our own turf to destroy everything and we can rebuild from the ground up
We have been reporting a lot on how more ISPs in the US have been trying to offer faster and faster Internet speeds to its customers. Much has been reported on Google's plans to offer 1 Gbps Internet access to the residents of Kansas City sometime in 2012. We have also reported on small ISP Sonic.net which plans to offer a few customers 1 Gbps Internet speeds in a small California town for the price of just $70 a month. Last week Comcast demoed a 1 Gpbs Internet connection even though the company doesn't have plans to offer such service anytime soon.
But it looks like at least one cable executive doesn't care for giving customers fast and cheap Internet speeds. Multichannel News reports that after the Comcast demo at the Cable Show trade show in Chicago last week a "very senior cable-tech exec, discussing the Comcast 1-Gbps demo, said bluntly, 'I just don’t see any other application for that other than piracy.'" The reporter didn't name the exec or what company he worked for because "the conversation was not a formal interview, and he wasn’t expecting to be quoted."
If that quote is indeed true it shows the attitude that cable operators and other ISPs have on offering faster Internet access to customers. The US as a whole is well behind much of the rest of the industrial world in terms of Internet speeds. South Korean ISPs want to offer up 1 Gpbs net speeds to every single person in the country by the end of 2012.
I don't really think 1Gbps is overkill at all. Look at the possibilities of much faster frame rates of video usage alone!! As for Piracy, it exists now with what we have and will continue to exist which doesn't mean it should be a excuse to not go forward with this type of speed for every US home.Leatherneck wrote:While we certainly need to "catch up" on speeds, 1Gbps speed is overkill for today's applications no? He is spot on by saying that piracy would have a hay day.
Leatherneck wrote:While we certainly need to "catch up" on speeds, 1Gbps speed is overkill for today's applications no? He is spot on by saying that piracy would have a hay day.
I have absolutely no problem with people having this type of service at a great price. Competition is certainly needed. While this is a small, trial environment who knows what it might lead to.JawZ wrote:As of today, 1Gbps is now possible via Sonic.net for only $70.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... ca-yup.ars
Focus on the bit regarding "artificial limits".
Do you have a DOCSIS 3 modem?Sava700 wrote:I was about to give Comcast a positive check mark after getting a email saying they raised my speeds but I've tested 3 times and then reset everything and tested 3 more times..still the same results as I've been getting so must be a smoke screen.
yep a SB 6120Leatherneck wrote:Do you have a DOCSIS 3 modem?
http://www.neowin.net/news/netflix-slam ... dband-capsThe streaming video company Netflix has said more than once that the idea of ISP putting broadband data caps on their service is little more than a money grab on their part. Now the company is using the editorial pages of a major newspaper to get their point across.The Wall Street Journal has an opinion piece today written by Netflix's general counsel David Hyman where he writes, "Bandwidth caps with fees piled on top are a lousy way to manage traffic."
In his editorial Hyman targets AT&T in particular for its use of broadband caps. Earlier in May AT&T announced that users of its DSL service would only get a 100 GB broadband cap while uses of the company's U-verse service get a 250 GB. AT&T charges its customers for going over that cap. However Hyman states that AT&T and other ISPs who have such caps claim that " ... bandwidth is a scarce resource and that imposing caps and overage fees will relieve pressure on high-speed networks."
Hyman, however, says that claims is simply not true, stating, "Wireline bandwidth is an almost unlimited resource due to advances in Internet architecture. Adding more capacity is easy. The marginal cost of providing an extra gigabyte of data—enough to deliver one episode of "30 Rock" from Netflix—is less than one cent, and falling." He adds, "All of the costs of supplying residential broadband are for supporting peak usage. Bandwidth consumed off-peak is completely free. If Internet service providers really wanted to manage traffic efficiently, they would limit speeds at peak times."
Netflix would obviously like to see ISPs do away with such data caps so its customers would not have to worry about overage fees or possibly being banned altogether while watch movies and TV shows from its service. A recent survey showed that Netflix is now the single biggest source of net traffic in the US.