Comcast to bring two-gigabit Internet service to Bay Area

[Roy]

http://www.techhive.com/article/2911793/comcast-to-bring-two-gigabit-internet-service-to-bay-area-boost-existing-tiers.html

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article

Post by Roy
http://www.techhive.com/article/2911793/comcast-to-bring-two-gigabit-internet-
service-to-bay-area-boost-existing-tiers.html

That "up to" speed. Comcast's contract is quite explicit in stating
that only your minimum payment and contract term are guaranteed. It
could degrade to 2 Mbps every evening and you'd still be stuck paying
for 2 Gbps.

I'll sign up for Comcast when they produce a reasonable contract.

[sms]

Post by Kevin McMurtrie
In article

Post by Roy
http://www.techhive.com/article/2911793/comcast-to-bring-two-gigabit-internet-
service-to-bay-area-boost-existing-tiers.html

That "up to" speed. Comcast's contract is quite explicit in stating
that only your minimum payment and contract term are guaranteed. It
could degrade to 2 Mbps every evening and you'd still be stuck paying
for 2 Gbps.
I'll sign up for Comcast when they produce a reasonable contract.

AT&T had a booth at the Cupertino Cherry Blossom Festival. Since almost
no residential customer has a need for 1Gb/s service, they were pushing
their 300 MB/s service, which is $80 with spying, $110 without spying.

I have a hard time understanding the need of anyone not running a server
farm at their house for even 300Mb/s, Even if you had a multiple 4K TVs
and were streaming the highest resolution video possible, you would not
need 300Mb/s. a 4K stream is about 15Mb/s. Even just 50 Mb/s would be
sufficient. I have two bonded channels from Comcast and get 59 MB/s
(advertised as 50MB/s service) for $40/month. They offered me 100 Mb/s
for $5 more but I declined. This includes basic TV which I didn't care
about. Every year I will need to do something to keep a promotional
rate, but that's well worth the few minutes of effort.

[n***@sbcglobal.net]

Post by sms

Post by Kevin McMurtrie
In article

Post by Roy
http://www.techhive.com/article/2911793/comcast-to-bring-two-gigabit-internet-
service-to-bay-area-boost-existing-tiers.html

That "up to" speed. Comcast's contract is quite explicit in stating
that only your minimum payment and contract term are guaranteed. It
could degrade to 2 Mbps every evening and you'd still be stuck paying
for 2 Gbps.
I'll sign up for Comcast when they produce a reasonable contract.

AT&T had a booth at the Cupertino Cherry Blossom Festival. Since almost
no residential customer has a need for 1Gb/s service, they were pushing
their 300 MB/s service, which is $80 with spying, $110 without spying.
I have a hard time understanding the need of anyone not running a server
farm at their house for even 300Mb/s, Even if you had a multiple 4K TVs
and were streaming the highest resolution video possible, you would not
need 300Mb/s. a 4K stream is about 15Mb/s. Even just 50 Mb/s would be
sufficient. I have two bonded channels from Comcast and get 59 MB/s
(advertised as 50MB/s service) for $40/month. They offered me 100 Mb/s
for $5 more but I declined. This includes basic TV which I didn't care
about. Every year I will need to do something to keep a promotional
rate, but that's well worth the few minutes of effort.

Like many things in tech like 4K TVs it's about "bragging rights". People will like to brag that they have 1Gb/s service. The other thing is that video compression keeps getting better. I only have 12 mbps from ATT but that's plenty to get near BD quality with VUDU's HDX.

[Roy]

Fill in the blank

No one will need more than _______________

Previous predictions:

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"


"640K ought to be enough for anyone."

[(null)]

Post by Roy
Fill in the blank
No one will need more than _______________
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"
"640K ought to be enough for anyone."

There are only 6 million cones and 120 million rods in the human eye.
Figure the cones are 32bit color channels while the rods are 12bit.
Most human eyes can't resolve more than something in the 60-120hz range
and the rods are probably closer to 10hz. Most human ears can't go beyond
20kHz and there are only 2 of them. There are only 24 hours in a day and
maybe 1/3 is spent sleeping. Plugging the numbers, factoring in lossless
compression and assuming a sufficiently large RAM buffer I figure a
typical human can only consume about 3.5Gbps using today's technology.
Maybe figure about 4-5Gbps after you add in gustatory, olefactory,
kinesthetics and a fudge factor.

That said, perhaps we'll exceed that number during the precursor to the robot
uprising. I'm sure the machines will need streaming data to plan their revolt.

[Steve Pope]

Post by (null)
There are only 6 million cones and 120 million rods in the human eye.
Figure the cones are 32bit color channels while the rods are 12bit.
Most human eyes can't resolve more than something in the 60-120hz range
and the rods are probably closer to 10hz. Most human ears can't go beyond
20kHz and there are only 2 of them. There are only 24 hours in a day and
maybe 1/3 is spent sleeping. Plugging the numbers, factoring in lossless
compression and assuming a sufficiently large RAM buffer I figure a
typical human can only consume about 3.5Gbps using today's technology.
Maybe figure about 4-5Gbps after you add in gustatory, olefactory,
kinesthetics and a fudge factor.

At Eastman Kodak (who studied these things), the conclusion was that
the human visual system could capture 10 Gb/sec of signal.
(This is without assuming fractional factors for lossless compression
or for time spent sleeping, so modulo these factors your estimate
seems pretty close to that of the illustrious ... I mean, bankrupt
Eastman Kodak Company.)


Steve

[Kevin McMurtrie]

Post by (null)

Post by Roy
Fill in the blank
No one will need more than _______________
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"
"640K ought to be enough for anyone."

There are only 6 million cones and 120 million rods in the human eye.
Figure the cones are 32bit color channels while the rods are 12bit.
Most human eyes can't resolve more than something in the 60-120hz range
and the rods are probably closer to 10hz. Most human ears can't go beyond
20kHz and there are only 2 of them. There are only 24 hours in a day and
maybe 1/3 is spent sleeping. Plugging the numbers, factoring in lossless
compression and assuming a sufficiently large RAM buffer I figure a
typical human can only consume about 3.5Gbps using today's technology.
Maybe figure about 4-5Gbps after you add in gustatory, olefactory,
kinesthetics and a fudge factor.
That said, perhaps we'll exceed that number during the precursor to the robot
uprising. I'm sure the machines will need streaming data to plan their revolt.

This still incorrectly assumes that the customer is the only user. I
share photos and video with friends and family so the demand on my
Internet connection is much larger than me surfing the web and watching
Netflix.

And no, I don't want to juggle files around with an external hosting
service based on what fits there and what might be popular.

[(null)]

Post by Kevin McMurtrie

Post by (null)

Post by Roy
Fill in the blank
No one will need more than _______________
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"
"640K ought to be enough for anyone."

There are only 6 million cones and 120 million rods in the human eye.
Figure the cones are 32bit color channels while the rods are 12bit.
Most human eyes can't resolve more than something in the 60-120hz range
and the rods are probably closer to 10hz. Most human ears can't go beyond
20kHz and there are only 2 of them. There are only 24 hours in a day and
maybe 1/3 is spent sleeping. Plugging the numbers, factoring in lossless
compression and assuming a sufficiently large RAM buffer I figure a
typical human can only consume about 3.5Gbps using today's technology.
Maybe figure about 4-5Gbps after you add in gustatory, olefactory,
kinesthetics and a fudge factor.
That said, perhaps we'll exceed that number during the precursor to the robot
uprising. I'm sure the machines will need streaming data to plan their revolt.

This still incorrectly assumes that the customer is the only user. I
share photos and video with friends and family so the demand on my
Internet connection is much larger than me surfing the web and watching
Netflix.
And no, I don't want to juggle files around with an external hosting
service based on what fits there and what might be popular.

What you describe is in the upstream (opposite) direction. That's a
whole different argument. But presumably you aren't streaming your
life in real time, hence there are practical limits to how much
data you generate. Or are you? Do you anticipate >5Gbps 24/7? What kind of
LAN do you run at home?

[Kevin McMurtrie]

Post by (null)

Post by Kevin McMurtrie

Post by (null)

Post by Roy
Fill in the blank
No one will need more than _______________
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"
"640K ought to be enough for anyone."

There are only 6 million cones and 120 million rods in the human eye.
Figure the cones are 32bit color channels while the rods are 12bit.
Most human eyes can't resolve more than something in the 60-120hz range
and the rods are probably closer to 10hz. Most human ears can't go beyond
20kHz and there are only 2 of them. There are only 24 hours in a day and
maybe 1/3 is spent sleeping. Plugging the numbers, factoring in lossless
compression and assuming a sufficiently large RAM buffer I figure a
typical human can only consume about 3.5Gbps using today's technology.
Maybe figure about 4-5Gbps after you add in gustatory, olefactory,
kinesthetics and a fudge factor.
That said, perhaps we'll exceed that number during the precursor to the robot
uprising. I'm sure the machines will need streaming data to plan their revolt.

This still incorrectly assumes that the customer is the only user. I
share photos and video with friends and family so the demand on my
Internet connection is much larger than me surfing the web and watching
Netflix.
And no, I don't want to juggle files around with an external hosting
service based on what fits there and what might be popular.

What you describe is in the upstream (opposite) direction. That's a
whole different argument. But presumably you aren't streaming your
life in real time, hence there are practical limits to how much
data you generate. Or are you? Do you anticipate >5Gbps 24/7? What kind of
LAN do you run at home?

I run a 1000 Mbps LAN at home behind a 900 Mbps dual-wan router. An
ancient Drobo limits file serving to 250 Mbps but I wouldn't mind
upgrading it. WiFi is good for 150 Mbps. All that comes to a screaming
halt at a bonded Sonic.net modem doing 7/2 Mbps. From what neighbors
say, that's better than Comcast in the evening.


It's not about 24/7 bandwidth for homes. It's more about an occasional
hour or two of high bandwidth.

If Comcast could guarantee some kind of performance, even if it's very
relaxed, I'd go for it. I could ditch one of the two Sonic Fusion lines
and add Comcast Business with plain Internet service.

[(null)]

Post by Kevin McMurtrie

Post by (null)

Post by Kevin McMurtrie

Post by (null)

Post by Roy
Fill in the blank
No one will need more than _______________
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"
"640K ought to be enough for anyone."

There are only 6 million cones and 120 million rods in the human eye.
Figure the cones are 32bit color channels while the rods are 12bit.
Most human eyes can't resolve more than something in the 60-120hz range
and the rods are probably closer to 10hz. Most human ears can't go beyond
20kHz and there are only 2 of them. There are only 24 hours in a day and
maybe 1/3 is spent sleeping. Plugging the numbers, factoring in lossless
compression and assuming a sufficiently large RAM buffer I figure a
typical human can only consume about 3.5Gbps using today's technology.
Maybe figure about 4-5Gbps after you add in gustatory, olefactory,
kinesthetics and a fudge factor.
That said, perhaps we'll exceed that number during the precursor to the robot
uprising. I'm sure the machines will need streaming data to plan their revolt.

This still incorrectly assumes that the customer is the only user. I
share photos and video with friends and family so the demand on my
Internet connection is much larger than me surfing the web and watching
Netflix.
And no, I don't want to juggle files around with an external hosting
service based on what fits there and what might be popular.

What you describe is in the upstream (opposite) direction. That's a
whole different argument. But presumably you aren't streaming your
life in real time, hence there are practical limits to how much
data you generate. Or are you? Do you anticipate >5Gbps 24/7? What kind of
LAN do you run at home?

I run a 1000 Mbps LAN at home behind a 900 Mbps dual-wan router. An
ancient Drobo limits file serving to 250 Mbps but I wouldn't mind
upgrading it. WiFi is good for 150 Mbps. All that comes to a screaming
halt at a bonded Sonic.net modem doing 7/2 Mbps. From what neighbors
say, that's better than Comcast in the evening.
It's not about 24/7 bandwidth for homes. It's more about an occasional
hour or two of high bandwidth.

I don't see that as a need for infinite bandwidth. I see that as a result
of the combination of both your current method of media distribution
and the limitations of today's tools and protocols. Improve the tools
and protocols or change your method of distribution (or both) and
the bandwidth requirements go down.

Remember, the original argument was that the statement
"No one will need more than X Gpbs" is false. I maintain that it is true
because it is a function of the amount of data a person can both produce
and consume, if by "one" we're talking about a person and not a machine-entity.

[sms]

Post by n***@sbcglobal.net
Like many things in tech like 4K TVs it's about "bragging rights". People will like to brag that they have 1Gb/s service. The other thing is that video compression keeps getting better. I only have 12 mbps from ATT but that's plenty to get near BD quality with VUDU's HDX.

<snip>

My brother was saying that at XMAS, when his kids and grand kids are
around, there can be 15-20 devices going at once, and then his 25Mb/s
service from AT&T bogs down.

One thing that would make sense is if 3-4 neighbors pitched in and got a
1Gb/s line and split the cost and bandwidth. But the data caps that AT&T
has might make that impractical.

[Steve Pope]

Post by sms
My brother was saying that at XMAS, when his kids and grand kids are
around, there can be 15-20 devices going at once, and then his 25Mb/s
service from AT&T bogs down.

Grankids must tether to one of their parents. No exceptions.

Steve

[David Kaye]

Post by sms
My brother was saying that at XMAS, when his kids and grand kids are
around, there can be 15-20 devices going at once, and then his 25Mb/s
service from AT&T bogs down.

And <sigh> 30 years ago I was at Stacey's bookstore on Market in SF asking
what books they had that were Unix or Internet related. The helpful
salesclerk had heard about Unix and they had a few books, but the Internet?
What's that? I told him, within about 5 years that's all anybody is going
to be talking about. He seemed puzzled. Believe me, I told him, by the
year 2000 (we always called it "the year 2000") most people will own
computers and they'll be connected to each other. Again he was puzzled.
"Why?" Heh...why...sometimes I wonder about that myself.

And today the kids and grandkids have 15 to 20 devices online at one time.
Why?




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[Kevin McMurtrie]

Post by sms

Post by Kevin McMurtrie
In article

Post by Roy
http://www.techhive.com/article/2911793/comcast-to-bring-two-gigabit-intern
et-
service-to-bay-area-boost-existing-tiers.html

That "up to" speed. Comcast's contract is quite explicit in stating
that only your minimum payment and contract term are guaranteed. It
could degrade to 2 Mbps every evening and you'd still be stuck paying
for 2 Gbps.
I'll sign up for Comcast when they produce a reasonable contract.

AT&T had a booth at the Cupertino Cherry Blossom Festival. Since almost
no residential customer has a need for 1Gb/s service, they were pushing
their 300 MB/s service, which is $80 with spying, $110 without spying.
I have a hard time understanding the need of anyone not running a server
farm at their house for even 300Mb/s, Even if you had a multiple 4K TVs
and were streaming the highest resolution video possible, you would not
need 300Mb/s. a 4K stream is about 15Mb/s. Even just 50 Mb/s would be
sufficient. I have two bonded channels from Comcast and get 59 MB/s
(advertised as 50MB/s service) for $40/month. They offered me 100 Mb/s
for $5 more but I declined. This includes basic TV which I didn't care
about. Every year I will need to do something to keep a promotional
rate, but that's well worth the few minutes of effort.

People who say that nobody needs fast Internet have no imagination. If
you were still using the early 1990 AOL portal, you might argue that
nobody needs 1Mbps. The Internet right now is a slightly modernized
version of that that dumb 1990 AOL portal: Web pages, crude online file
hosting sites, and low grade videos. Peer to peer doesn't work, remote
file access doesn't work, telecommuting doesn't work, and getting a
video call working reliably is still as magical and rare as it was in 15
years ago.

[David Kaye]

Post by Kevin McMurtrie
People who say that nobody needs fast Internet have no imagination. If
you were still using the early 1990 AOL portal, you might argue that
nobody needs 1Mbps. The Internet right now is a slightly modernized
version of that that dumb 1990 AOL portal: Web pages, crude online file
hosting sites, and low grade videos.

Back in "the day" I spent a boadload of money each month paying Compuserve
for dial-up access via my Commodore 64. I annoyed my housemate with my
all-night tap tap tapping of the keyboard. The best we got with graphics
was little cartoons drawn with the Commodore shifted character set, which of
course was useless on other computers, since they all had different
character sets.

Heck, even back before that I remember Community Memory, with the 150 baud
printers at the Berkeley Co-op, the Mission branch library in SF, and a few
other places. The fact that we could post want ads and have them seen in 4
or 5 different places was astounding! Baud? Who needs baud? 150 was
plenty.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[n***@sbcglobal.net]

Post by David Kaye

Post by Kevin McMurtrie
People who say that nobody needs fast Internet have no imagination. If
you were still using the early 1990 AOL portal, you might argue that
nobody needs 1Mbps. The Internet right now is a slightly modernized
version of that that dumb 1990 AOL portal: Web pages, crude online file
hosting sites, and low grade videos.

Back in "the day" I spent a boadload of money each month paying Compuserve
for dial-up access via my Commodore 64. I annoyed my housemate with my
all-night tap tap tapping of the keyboard. The best we got with graphics
was little cartoons drawn with the Commodore shifted character set, which of
course was useless on other computers, since they all had different
character sets.
Heck, even back before that I remember Community Memory, with the 150 baud
printers at the Berkeley Co-op, the Mission branch library in SF, and a few
other places. The fact that we could post want ads and have them seen in 4
or 5 different places was astounding! Baud? Who needs baud? 150 was
plenty.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

I guess if we're going to have "personal holodecks" then we will definitely need more speed. And maybe even more with "personal transporters". But I think at the moment the telecoms know that people except gamers are suckers for more speed on residential service that they can soak you for.

Yesterday I got some new tires and while waiting watched a 52 minute TV episode on Netflix via T-Mobile. Of course it's on my 5" phone with 1280x720p but the data shown for the session was only 355 MB. So it was undoubtedly SD but looked fine on the phone. Nice to have that option.

[David Kaye]

Post by n***@sbcglobal.net
Yesterday I got some new tires and while waiting watched a 52 minute TV
episode on
Netflix via T-Mobile.

When I'm in a place I don't usually go, I don't go online at all. I take in
the ambience of the place where I am. In the case of waiting for tires, the
last time I did that I sat in the waiting room for a time and chatted with
someone, then I went for a walk around the block and discovered a cafe I'd
never heard of (the Flying Pig on South Van Ness in SF), and enjoyed a nice
meal.

For me, I'll watch video when I'm home and am doing something on the
computer anyway. So, I'll do whatever I'm doing on the computer and put up
a window for cable or stream or whatever.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[n***@sbcglobal.net]

Post by David Kaye

Post by n***@sbcglobal.net
Yesterday I got some new tires and while waiting watched a 52 minute TV
episode on
Netflix via T-Mobile.

When I'm in a place I don't usually go, I don't go online at all. I take in
the ambience of the place where I am. In the case of waiting for tires, the
last time I did that I sat in the waiting room for a time and chatted with
someone, then I went for a walk around the block and discovered a cafe I'd
never heard of (the Flying Pig on South Van Ness in SF), and enjoyed a nice
meal.
For me, I'll watch video when I'm home and am doing something on the
computer anyway. So, I'll do whatever I'm doing on the computer and put up
a window for cable or stream or whatever.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Let me bring you up to date then. For the record I didn't even see any wifi bars at the tire shop but I had 4 bars on T-Mobile. Using T-Mobile wireless is very safe. I don't use wifi anywhere with the phone except for home. In fact

[b***@MIX.COM]

Post by sms
a 4K stream is about 15Mb/s.

Perhaps. I record 1080p video at 175Mb/s. This is 24 frames per second.
Going to 30 (I wish I could, heh) bumps it to 220Mb/s. I could compress
the crap out it, and record at 36Mb/s, and it'd still look kind of ok, at
least on small displays.

I'm wondering what 4k at 15Mb/s would look like, but I would guess not
so hot...

Billy Y..

[n***@sbcglobal.net]

Post by b***@MIX.COM

Post by sms
a 4K stream is about 15Mb/s.

Perhaps. I record 1080p video at 175Mb/s. This is 24 frames per second.
Going to 30 (I wish I could, heh) bumps it to 220Mb/s. I could compress
the crap out it, and record at 36Mb/s, and it'd still look kind of ok, at
least on small displays.
I'm wondering what 4k at 15Mb/s would look like, but I would guess not
so hot...
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number

Depends on the codec. I've compressed HD video using h.265 and it was half the size of the h.264 encode but looked identical. However MPEG-LA wants too much money for h.265 so there is a consortium formed for an open source high-efficiency codec.

Wave (was Astound) is offering 110 mbps service in Martinez for $40 a month (first 12 months). I would jump ship from ATT if they came down my block but so far they're only north of HWY 4 though their feeder cable from Pleasant Hill is on the next block over.

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article

Post by Roy
http://www.techhive.com/article/2911793/comcast-to-bring-two-gigabit-internet-
service-to-bay-area-boost-existing-tiers.html

I just had an online chat with Comcast Business to verify the terms of
their contract. They are, in fact, asking you to enter a 1 to 3 year
contract to pay for a specific speed tier with absolutely no guarantee
of any speed.

No deal.