If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BGR)   City puts out a call for vendors to provide a gigabit internet service. Time Warner's response? No, you don't really want that   (bgr.com) divider line 102
    More: Obvious, Time Warner Cable, internet service  
•       •       •

5978 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Feb 2014 at 1:39 PM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-12 01:00:29 PM  
Here's a list of the companies that responded to Louisville's RFI:

Ohivey, of Sandy, Utah
Level 3, of Louisville
AT&T, of Louisville
Fibertech Networks, of Rochester, N.Y.
twtelecom, of Littleton, Co.
Zayo Group, of Louisville, Co.
COS Systems Inc., of Newport, R.I.
SciFi Networks, (Location not listed)
 
2014-02-12 01:21:26 PM  
TV vendors finding it harder and harder to deliver product (viewers like you and me) to their advertisers.

Ok, serious question not really related to the above statement. Why is it that businesses find it so incredibly difficult to change their business model to fit changing technology? We see this over and over and over again, going back who knows how many years encompassing who knows how many different technology advances. Instead of changing with the times, they try to get laws enacted and design consumer agreements (like I can't just have FIOS internet without basic cable service from Verizon) and take other measures that attempt to keep the status quo as long as possible. It doesn't seem rational. Yes, there's risk, but hasn't history proven over time that there's more risk by sticking with old technology when new comes available?
 
2014-02-12 01:38:43 PM  

SurfaceTension: TV vendors finding it harder and harder to deliver product (viewers like you and me) to their advertisers.

Ok, serious question not really related to the above statement. Why is it that businesses find it so incredibly difficult to change their business model to fit changing technology? We see this over and over and over again, going back who knows how many years encompassing who knows how many different technology advances. Instead of changing with the times, they try to get laws enacted and design consumer agreements (like I can't just have FIOS internet without basic cable service from Verizon) and take other measures that attempt to keep the status quo as long as possible. It doesn't seem rational. Yes, there's risk, but hasn't history proven over time that there's more risk by sticking with old technology when new comes available?


Because despite what their salaries indicate, the people who make the decisions at these companies really aren't the best and the brightest. They're just the socially well-connected.
 
2014-02-12 01:46:24 PM  

SurfaceTension: ... like I can't just have FIOS internet without basic cable service from Verizon ...


Is that true? I currently have cable and internet from FIOS but am considering dropping the former. Nothing on the website indicates I am required to take cable to get the internet.
 
2014-02-12 01:50:49 PM  
We're getting Google fiber here in Austin, so Time Warner can take a flying fark.
 
2014-02-12 01:53:54 PM  
I'd comment but *buffering*
 
2014-02-12 01:57:02 PM  

Maud Dib: We're getting Google fiber here in Austin, so Time Warner can take a flying fark.


If you live south Grande is also a choice (cheaper than TWC)
 
2014-02-12 01:58:51 PM  
TW's position is still assinine, but I think they're being somewhat misquoted here.  What TW is probably looking at is usage data from their subs.  The vast majority of subscribers use a tiny bit of bandwidth, likely just email, facebook etc.. With a small percentage using more than that.  So they're thinking...why spend money on all this bandwidth when (relatively) no one is using it?

Of course that's short sighted.  But that's the other side of this argument for what its worth.
 
2014-02-12 02:00:43 PM  
b.vimeocdn.com
 
2014-02-12 02:01:09 PM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: Here's a list of the companies that responded to Louisville's RFI:

Ohivey, of Sandy, Utah
Level 3, of Louisville
AT&T, of Louisville
Fibertech Networks, of Rochester, N.Y.
twtelecom, of Littleton, Co.
Zayo Group, of Louisville, Co.
COS Systems Inc., of Newport, R.I.
SciFi Networks, (Location not listed)


If Level 3 and ATT are responding to an RFI, it just proves that TWC is more full of shiat. You don't operate a a gigantic telecom provider if you throw around unnecessary money.
 
2014-02-12 02:01:57 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: SurfaceTension: TV vendors finding it harder and harder to deliver product (viewers like you and me) to their advertisers.

Ok, serious question not really related to the above statement. Why is it that businesses find it so incredibly difficult to change their business model to fit changing technology? We see this over and over and over again, going back who knows how many years encompassing who knows how many different technology advances. Instead of changing with the times, they try to get laws enacted and design consumer agreements (like I can't just have FIOS internet without basic cable service from Verizon) and take other measures that attempt to keep the status quo as long as possible. It doesn't seem rational. Yes, there's risk, but hasn't history proven over time that there's more risk by sticking with old technology when new comes available?

Because despite what their salaries indicate, the people who make the decisions at these companies really aren't the best and the brightest. They're just the socially well-connected.


That and planning for an uncertain future doesn't fit the 'thinking about quarterly reports and stock value' way of doing things.  Real long range planning is required and the 'job creators' don't have the guts to wait for something to pay off.  At least not as a group.
 
2014-02-12 02:02:27 PM  
Want faster for cheaper? Change the model. Declare communicationways a public commodity and force private firms to LEASE them, rather than own them, and use sticks (lease termination) and carrots (extended or discounted leases) to encourage structural maintenance and improvement. Until that happens, quality will not change.

Cue the "property rights" crowd in 3... 2... 1...
 
2014-02-12 02:02:29 PM  

Kimpak: TW's position is still assinine, but I think they're being somewhat misquoted here.  What TW is probably looking at is usage data from their subs.  The vast majority of subscribers use a tiny bit of bandwidth, likely just email, facebook etc.. With a small percentage using more than that.  So they're thinking...why spend money on all this bandwidth when (relatively) no one is using it?

Of course that's short sighted.  But that's the other side of this argument for what its worth.


Are you suggesting that Time Warner saw an opportunity to charge a bunch of money for bandwidth that probably wasn't going to get used and they decided to forego that in favor of honesty?
 
KIA
2014-02-12 02:02:41 PM  
Seems the @ssholes who nearly killed AOL by claiming that nobody would ever want broadband have continued their idiocy at Time-Warner.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-02-12 02:05:00 PM  
I agree with the actual statement, not the spin: "Not everybody needs that type of capacity that a direct fiber network would provide, and that is what we are trying to balance out."

The actual business decision involves lots of other factors, like the odds of getting an exclusive franchise.
 
2014-02-12 02:07:17 PM  

Maud Dib: We're getting Google fiber here in Austin, so Time Warner can take a flying fark.


Word. Here in KC they are slowly working their way through the suburbs. My brother in law has it and says it is amazing. He is a huge gaming nerd and claims he has essentially zero lag.
 
2014-02-12 02:08:05 PM  

Kimpak: TW's position is still assinine, but I think they're being somewhat misquoted here.  What TW is probably looking at is usage data from their subs.  The vast majority of subscribers use a tiny bit of bandwidth, likely just email, facebook etc.. With a small percentage using more than that.  So they're thinking...why spend money on all this bandwidth when (relatively) no one is using it?

Of course that's short sighted.  But that's the other side of this argument for what its worth.


Does anyone at TW (or with an IQ north of 30) actually see internet usage leveling off? More and more gaming is done online, likewise media consumption. Even if the demand today does not justify this level of service you'd have to be more myopic than a cave fish not to see that as every day passes demand will increase.
 
2014-02-12 02:09:22 PM  

SurfaceTension: TV vendors finding it harder and harder to deliver product (viewers like you and me) to their advertisers.

Ok, serious question not really related to the above statement. Why is it that businesses find it so incredibly difficult to change their business model to fit changing technology? We see this over and over and over again, going back who knows how many years encompassing who knows how many different technology advances. Instead of changing with the times, they try to get laws enacted and design consumer agreements (like I can't just have FIOS internet without basic cable service from Verizon) and take other measures that attempt to keep the status quo as long as possible. It doesn't seem rational. Yes, there's risk, but hasn't history proven over time that there's more risk by sticking with old technology when new comes available?


The problem is money.  Everyone is clamoring to cut the cord, which is great.  Relatively free TV right?  Well..take that to the extreme.  Say a majority of people switch to say Netflix and Hulu rather than a traditional cable/satellite company.  Now the network has dramatically less money to spend on buying and/or producing new programs.  Cable companies collectively pay a lot of money to the content providers, which is what funds them making shows.  Ad revenue plays a part of course, but if you're streaming, you're likely not looking at ads or not very many ads.  That's not going to be enough to produce a TV show that costs millions of dollars per episode to make.

So then what?  Content providers try to charge Netflix more to carry their content.  Then Netflix has to charge more to the customer, and it all starts over again, only now Netflix is the new TWC.  Or Hulu, whatever.  Alternately, TV shows would have to start producing content at drastically reduced budgets.  That could be a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it.

One thing's for sure.  The way we watch TV is going to change one way or another within the next 5 years.
 
2014-02-12 02:10:13 PM  
Fark TWC right in the ear. They bought out Louisville's cable provider a few months ago, and now the service sucks.

Netflix quality has gone down the drain, and I get much higher latency in games now.

I'm just glad I dumped the cable TV part of it before they did. I heard some horror stories from people who ditched their cable after the takeover, and said their service degraded even more than mine did. I wouldn't put it past TWC to throttle those who switch to streaming services instead of the $150 digital cable package. As far as they know I've only ever had internet from them.
 
2014-02-12 02:13:03 PM  

Wellon Dowd: SurfaceTension: ... like I can't just have FIOS internet without basic cable service from Verizon ...

Is that true? I currently have cable and internet from FIOS but am considering dropping the former. Nothing on the website indicates I am required to take cable to get the internet.


Technically not, but it's actually like $25/mo cheaper to just have basic cable with internet. I did that about 2 months ago, but I haven't really watched TV in over a year so my life hasn't changed much. I watch a lot of movies and there's all kinds of content available for streaming now. Definitely worth it.
 
2014-02-12 02:16:51 PM  

Maud Dib: We're getting Google fiber here in Austin, so Time Warner can take a flying fark.


AT&T responded pretty quickly once Google said they were coming to town, but I'm a little surprised at the lack of response by TWC.
 
2014-02-12 02:18:06 PM  

Tyrosine: Does anyone at TW (or with an IQ north of 30) actually see internet usage leveling off? More and more gaming is done online, likewise media consumption. Even if the demand today does not justify this level of service you'd have to be more myopic than a cave fish not to see that as every day passes demand will increase


That's why I said its short sighted.  I also used a bad statistic.  Speed /= bandwidth.  As it is right now, you don't need gigE to stream 1080p from Netflix.  You don't need gigE to play any online game.  Most households are going to have an average of 3-4 people. With maybe 2 of them using a connection at the same time.  Still not an issue if you've got a good backbone network.  If you had a LAN party and had 8+ computers trying to share a 15mb connection, then you might start seeing some problems depending on whats going on.

All these activities will consume a lot of bandwidth (gigs per month), but don't necessarily need a high speed to do it.

Don't flame me too bad though, I'm just playing devil's advocate though.  My personal belief is that this is short sighted.  As more people get access to higher speeds (which will eventually have to happen, even if we have to drag the TWC's of the world kicking and screaming), then online services will adapt and provide content that takes advantage of that.  We might not need even close to GigE right now, but will definitely in the future.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-02-12 02:21:56 PM  
I have FiOS without TV. I also have a stack of envelopes from Verizon trying to pitch me the upgrade to TV as well as internet and phone. I get one or two new envelopes every month. I used to get phone calls that often until I told them to stop calling. They're spending $2 per month trying to sell me a $10 per month upgrade.
 
2014-02-12 02:26:59 PM  

Kimpak: SurfaceTension: TV vendors finding it harder and harder to deliver product (viewers like you and me) to their advertisers.

Ok, serious question not really related to the above statement. Why is it that businesses find it so incredibly difficult to change their business model to fit changing technology? We see this over and over and over again, going back who knows how many years encompassing who knows how many different technology advances. Instead of changing with the times, they try to get laws enacted and design consumer agreements (like I can't just have FIOS internet without basic cable service from Verizon) and take other measures that attempt to keep the status quo as long as possible. It doesn't seem rational. Yes, there's risk, but hasn't history proven over time that there's more risk by sticking with old technology when new comes available?

The problem is money.  Everyone is clamoring to cut the cord, which is great.  Relatively free TV right?  Well..take that to the extreme.  Say a majority of people switch to say Netflix and Hulu rather than a traditional cable/satellite company.  Now the network has dramatically less money to spend on buying and/or producing new programs.  Cable companies collectively pay a lot of money to the content providers, which is what funds them making shows.  Ad revenue plays a part of course, but if you're streaming, you're likely not looking at ads or not very many ads.  That's not going to be enough to produce a TV show that costs millions of dollars per episode to make.

So then what?  Content providers try to charge Netflix more to carry their content.  Then Netflix has to charge more to the customer, and it all starts over again, only now Netflix is the new TWC.  Or Hulu, whatever.  Alternately, TV shows would have to start producing content at drastically reduced budgets.  That could be a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it.

One thing's for sure.  The way we watch TV is going to change one way or anothe ...


Agreed. For one I'm glad. I'd rather pay the content provider directly (like we do with movies in theaters) than the way the relationship is structured now (where viewers are the product that content providers deliver to advertisers). I'd be willing to pay $35/mo or so to Netflix to be able to stream everything. Probably wouldn't pay Hulu, but that's just personal preference. I'm sure a lot of people would. Same with ESPN (which actually streams all their content if you have an associated cable provider). CNN and BBC are good news outlets. Al Jazeera World News was great until they came to America, and now you can't stream at all unless you go through a proxy (I don't).
 
2014-02-12 02:27:06 PM  

ZAZ: I agree with the actual statement, not the spin: "Not everybody needs that type of capacity that a direct fiber network would provide, and that is what we are trying to balance out."

The actual business decision involves lots of other factors, like the odds of getting an exclusive franchise.


Exactly, few people needs this fast internet service which is why we, as the major ISP and TV providers, have banned together in order for the FCC to allow to throttle all that bandwidth that our users are sucking down from Netflix, BT, Hulu because they are never going to use that bandwidth.
 
2014-02-12 02:27:44 PM  

SurfaceTension: Wellon Dowd: SurfaceTension: ... like I can't just have FIOS internet without basic cable service from Verizon ...

Is that true? I currently have cable and internet from FIOS but am considering dropping the former. Nothing on the website indicates I am required to take cable to get the internet.

Technically not, but it's actually like $25/mo cheaper to just have basic cable with internet. I did that about 2 months ago, but I haven't really watched TV in over a year so my life hasn't changed much. I watch a lot of movies and there's all kinds of content available for streaming now. Definitely worth it.


Aah, right. That's why I still have a landline from them; it only costs me $5 more than just cable and internet would. When my contract ends in October I'll have to decide what to do next.
 
2014-02-12 02:28:12 PM  

Kimpak: So then what?  Content providers try to charge Netflix more to carry their content.  Then Netflix has to charge more to the customer, and it all starts over again, only now Netflix is the new TWC.  Or Hulu, whatever.  Alternately, TV shows would have to start producing content at drastically reduced budgets.  That could be a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it.

One thing's for sure.  The way we watch TV is going to change one way or another within the next 5 years.


One endgame: Netflix starts producing their own high budget, original content.  Oh, wait, they already are.  HBO is already online with their own service.  You may see a shift in who's producing the stuff, but there's a market for good entertainment and it's not going away.   One thing I'm waiting for is the movie studios to realize that they might lose to streaming TV shows- the new stuff like Game of Thrones/House of Cards and the rest is top notch, often better than what the local blockbuster of the day is, and they're available via streaming while movies often aren't.

/No cable for years.  Finally broke down and got Roku/Chromecast/Netflix and we've got far more to watch than we could ever want.
 
2014-02-12 02:29:02 PM  

Kimpak: That's why I said its short sighted.  I also used a bad statistic.  Speed /= bandwidth.  As it is right now, you don't need gigE to stream 1080p from Netflix.  You don't need gigE to play any online game.  Most households are going to have an average of 3-4 people. With maybe 2 of them using a connection at the same time.  Still not an issue if you've got a good backbone network.  If you had a LAN party and had 8+ computers trying to share a 15mb connection, then you might start seeing some problems depending on whats going on.

All these activities will consume a lot of bandwidth (gigs per month), but don't necessarily need a high speed to do it.

Don't flame me too bad though, I'm just playing devil's advocate though.  My personal belief is that this is short sighted.  As more people get access to higher speeds (which will eventually have to happen, even if we have to drag the TWC's of the world kicking and screaming), then online services will adapt and provide content that takes advantage of that.  We might not need even close to GigE right now, but will definitely in the future.


I think TWC's whole thing on this is that if they upgraded the entire town to fiber, they'd still have to charge around the same rates, but have to pay the upgrade fees.  Granted, they should be upgrading anyways, but they are all about the bottom line.

As far as both bandwidth and speed goes, the ideal setup is you don't notice limitations on your network connections.  Having too much bandwidth is much much better than not having nearly enough.
 
2014-02-12 02:29:23 PM  
"Nobody needs more than 640k of memory14.4k connectivity" ~Bill GatesRAND PAUL
 
2014-02-12 02:31:02 PM  
So what they said was "How can we keep customers while maintaining our high profit margins if we do that?"
 
2014-02-12 02:32:00 PM  

Kimpak: why spend money on all this bandwidth when (relatively) no one is using it?

Of course that's short sighted. But that's the other side of this argument for what its worth.


From their viewpoint it certainly isn't.

Our argument is that by having massive network bandwidth available at an affordable/cheap price NOW, God only knows what kind of technology or service might be developed to use it. Sure, the common user doesn't need that kind of bandwidth, according to their usage stats, so the build-out doesn't make sense.

But, if in five years, UltraGoogleNetFlix with 4k content delivered across the net becomes reality (to pick something/make something up out of whole cloth) and becomes a driving factor, TW can then claim that the massive network infrastructure upgrade required to deliver this content is staggeringly expensive and thus the cost must be passed on to the consumer.

ie: Higher rates, higher profits.
 
2014-02-12 02:35:38 PM  

dramboxf: Kimpak: why spend money on all this bandwidth when (relatively) no one is using it?

Of course that's short sighted. But that's the other side of this argument for what its worth.

From their viewpoint it certainly isn't.

Our argument is that by having massive network bandwidth available at an affordable/cheap price NOW, God only knows what kind of technology or service might be developed to use it. Sure, the common user doesn't need that kind of bandwidth, according to their usage stats, so the build-out doesn't make sense.

But, if in five years, UltraGoogleNetFlix with 4k content delivered across the net becomes reality (to pick something/make something up out of whole cloth) and becomes a driving factor, TW can then claim that the massive network infrastructure upgrade required to deliver this content is staggeringly expensive and thus the cost must be passed on to the consumer.

ie: Higher rates, higher profits.


^^ yep
 
2014-02-12 02:40:35 PM  

fang06554: I think TWC's whole thing on this is that if they upgraded the entire town to fiber, they'd still have to charge around the same rates, but have to pay the upgrade fees.  Granted, they should be upgrading anyways, but they are all about the bottom line.


One other thing occured to me too.  TWC is a cable ISP, cable modems are not capable of gigE connections.  I think a fully unthrottled DOCSIS 3 cable modem in a lab has a max of something like 300mbps.   I know there's companies developing faster speeds for HFC networks but its not commercial yet.  Now I'm sure TWC has direct fiber to business services that would be Gigabit+, but I'm sure those cost something in the relm of $1,000/mo. If they used the same connections to residential but charged even $100/mo for it I'm sure all the businesses are going to be pissed.  That, in my opinion, would be hilarious.

Parusing the list that ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha had of the respondent companies, of the ones I recognize they're all fiber providers already so they wouldn't have to make much network changes.
 
2014-02-12 02:46:25 PM  

Kimpak: TW's position is still assinine, but I think they're being somewhat misquoted here.  What TW is probably looking at is usage data from their subs.  The vast majority of subscribers use a tiny bit of bandwidth, likely just email, facebook etc.. With a small percentage using more than that.  So they're thinking...why spend money on all this bandwidth when (relatively) no one is using it?

Of course that's short sighted.  But that's the other side of this argument for what its worth.


Yep, because as we rely on it more and more, and more people use more bandwidth, they're gonna back them into the same corner that the cell phone companies were in when they spent 5 years with "unlimited" plans and then realized just how much data was getting used. Normally, I don't have much sympathy for corporations, but I sincerely believe that they didn't quite realize the monster they had created, and I see TW ending up in the same boat.
 
2014-02-12 02:52:24 PM  

Glockenspiel Hero: Kimpak: So then what?  Content providers try to charge Netflix more to carry their content.  Then Netflix has to charge more to the customer, and it all starts over again, only now Netflix is the new TWC.  Or Hulu, whatever.  Alternately, TV shows would have to start producing content at drastically reduced budgets.  That could be a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it.

One thing's for sure.  The way we watch TV is going to change one way or another within the next 5 years.

One endgame: Netflix starts producing their own high budget, original content.  Oh, wait, they already are.  HBO is already online with their own service.  You may see a shift in who's producing the stuff, but there's a market for good entertainment and it's not going away.   One thing I'm waiting for is the movie studios to realize that they might lose to streaming TV shows- the new stuff like Game of Thrones/House of Cards and the rest is top notch, often better than what the local blockbuster of the day is, and they're available via streaming while movies often aren't.

/No cable for years.  Finally broke down and got Roku/Chromecast/Netflix and we've got far more to watch than we could ever want.


Vudu is pretty good too. One of their features is converting your DVD/Blue Ray library to digital. If you convert in bulk you get a nice discount too.
 
2014-02-12 02:54:02 PM  
I don't even own a tv. If I need entertained, I have a small theater group over to perform. They write their own plays, but they're kind of underground so you've probably never heard of them.
 
2014-02-12 02:55:49 PM  
 
2014-02-12 02:58:21 PM  

Mikey1969: Yep, because as we rely on it more and more, and more people use more bandwidth, they're gonna back them into the same corner that the cell phone companies were in when they spent 5 years with "unlimited" plans and then realized just how much data was getting used. Normally, I don't have much sympathy for corporations, but I sincerely believe that they didn't quite realize the monster they had created, and I see TW ending up in the same boat.


Well remember bandwidth does not equal speed.  Bandwidth is how much data you're using, speed is how fast you can use it.  Right now, if you had GigE, Netflix isn't going to look any better than someone using a 15mbit connection and  you'll still be using the same amount of data.  However, if/when Netflix starts doing 4k (or better?), then speed is going to be important as well as bandwidth.
 
2014-02-12 03:02:47 PM  

Kimpak: Well remember bandwidth does not equal speed.  Bandwidth is how much data you're using, speed is how fast you can use it.  Right now, if you had GigE, Netflix isn't going to look any better than someone using a 15mbit connection and  you'll still be using the same amount of data.  However, if/when Netflix starts doing 4k (or better?), then speed is going to be important as well as bandwidth.


umm...no... bandwidth=speed
data usage is..well data usage..
 
2014-02-12 03:08:53 PM  

Kimpak: fang06554: I think TWC's whole thing on this is that if they upgraded the entire town to fiber, they'd still have to charge around the same rates, but have to pay the upgrade fees.  Granted, they should be upgrading anyways, but they are all about the bottom line.

One other thing occured to me too.  TWC is a cable ISP, cable modems are not capable of gigE connections.  I think a fully unthrottled DOCSIS 3 cable modem in a lab has a max of something like 300mbps.   I know there's companies developing faster speeds for HFC networks but its not commercial yet.  Now I'm sure TWC has direct fiber to business services that would be Gigabit+, but I'm sure those cost something in the relm of $1,000/mo. If they used the same connections to residential but charged even $100/mo for it I'm sure all the businesses are going to be pissed.  That, in my opinion, would be hilarious.

Parusing the list that ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha had of the respondent companies, of the ones I recognize they're all fiber providers already so they wouldn't have to make much network changes.


Business users are already used to being charged much higher prices for the same service.  Even using TWC as an example, a "Business Class" data connection that is I think 50/5 is about $250/month.  The same for a consumer is about $70.  In my office we are paying about $900/month for a 10/10 EOC connection.  At home I have a 80/50 FiOS connection for $100.  FiOS's 'Business Class' also runs around $250, but it is having an extraordinarily slow rollout into NYC.
 
2014-02-12 03:10:58 PM  

Kimpak: Mikey1969: 

Well remember bandwidth does not equal speed.  Bandwidth is how much data you're using, speed is how fast you can use it.  Right now, if you had GigE, Netflix isn't going to look any better than someone using a 15mbit connection and  you'll still be using the same amount of data.  However, if/when Netflix starts doing 4k (or better?), then speed is going to be important as well as bandwidth.


That's what I meant about the cell phone companies, they handed out unlimited data plans like it was meth in Tennessee, and someone woke up one day and realized that every single person browsing the internet on their phone while streaming music and movies was adding up to a large portion of the available bandwidth. As far as speed, it's stupid to hold off until the last minute if they are already making other infrastructure changes.

And yeah, I haven't really been impressed with my internet speeds in the last 10 years or so. Sure, when I first got cable in 2000 or so, it was amazing, but I can't understand people who constantly crow about streaming everything they do. It either looks like crap, it buffers like crazy, or I have to get on at 2 am...
 
2014-02-12 03:17:35 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: Declare communicationways a public commodity


They are clamoring for you in Venezuela hombre! Get down there, stat!
 
2014-02-12 03:35:53 PM  

fang06554: Kimpak: fang06554: I think TWC's whole thing on this is that if they upgraded the entire town to fiber, they'd still have to charge around the same rates, but have to pay the upgrade fees.  Granted, they should be upgrading anyways, but they are all about the bottom line.

One other thing occured to me too.  TWC is a cable ISP, cable modems are not capable of gigE connections.  I think a fully unthrottled DOCSIS 3 cable modem in a lab has a max of something like 300mbps.   I know there's companies developing faster speeds for HFC networks but its not commercial yet.  Now I'm sure TWC has direct fiber to business services that would be Gigabit+, but I'm sure those cost something in the relm of $1,000/mo. If they used the same connections to residential but charged even $100/mo for it I'm sure all the businesses are going to be pissed.  That, in my opinion, would be hilarious.

Parusing the list that ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha had of the respondent companies, of the ones I recognize they're all fiber providers already so they wouldn't have to make much network changes.

Business users are already used to being charged much higher prices for the same service.  Even using TWC as an example, a "Business Class" data connection that is I think 50/5 is about $250/month.  The same for a consumer is about $70.  In my office we are paying about $900/month for a 10/10 EOC connection.  At home I have a 80/50 FiOS connection for $100.  FiOS's 'Business Class' also runs around $250, but it is having an extraordinarily slow rollout into NYC.


I use Comcast business because the first month or so of cutting the cable I was approaching their data limit 250GB/month.  I read somewhere that they send you 1 warning then cut you off for a year.

I pay for 12/5 I get between 15 and 20 down/5 up but no data limits.

I always though speed was throughput and bandwidth was data usage.
 
2014-02-12 03:40:04 PM  

PluckYew: fang06554: Kimpak: fang06554: I think TWC's whole thing on this is that if they upgraded the entire town to fiber, they'd still have to charge around the same rates, but have to pay the upgrade fees.  Granted, they should be upgrading anyways, but they are all about the bottom line.

One other thing occured to me too.  TWC is a cable ISP, cable modems are not capable of gigE connections.  I think a fully unthrottled DOCSIS 3 cable modem in a lab has a max of something like 300mbps.   I know there's companies developing faster speeds for HFC networks but its not commercial yet.  Now I'm sure TWC has direct fiber to business services that would be Gigabit+, but I'm sure those cost something in the relm of $1,000/mo. If they used the same connections to residential but charged even $100/mo for it I'm sure all the businesses are going to be pissed.  That, in my opinion, would be hilarious.

Parusing the list that ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha had of the respondent companies, of the ones I recognize they're all fiber providers already so they wouldn't have to make much network changes.

Business users are already used to being charged much higher prices for the same service.  Even using TWC as an example, a "Business Class" data connection that is I think 50/5 is about $250/month.  The same for a consumer is about $70.  In my office we are paying about $900/month for a 10/10 EOC connection.  At home I have a 80/50 FiOS connection for $100.  FiOS's 'Business Class' also runs around $250, but it is having an extraordinarily slow rollout into NYC.

I use Comcast business because the first month or so of cutting the cable I was approaching their data limit 250GB/month.  I read somewhere that they send you 1 warning then cut you off for a year.

I pay for 12/5 I get between 15 and 20 down/5 up but no data limits.

I always though speed was throughput and bandwidth was data usage.


Crap, forgot to tell you, I pay about $100/month for that, 5 static IPs, and a land line.
 
2014-02-12 03:41:30 PM  

PluckYew: I always though speed was throughput and bandwidth was data usage


nope
 bandwidthnetwork bandwidthdata bandwidth, or  digital bandwidth is a measurement of of available or consumed data communication resources expressed in bits per second or multiples of it (bit/s, kbit/s, Mbit/s, Gbit/s, etc.).

The  accurate phrase used for this meaning of a maximum amount of data transfer each month or given period is  monthly data transfer.
 
2014-02-12 03:41:51 PM  

redmid17: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: Here's a list of the companies that responded to Louisville's RFI:

Ohivey, of Sandy, Utah
Level 3, of Louisville
AT&T, of Louisville
Fibertech Networks, of Rochester, N.Y.
twtelecom, of Littleton, Co.
Zayo Group, of Louisville, Co.
COS Systems Inc., of Newport, R.I.
SciFi Networks, (Location not listed)

If Level 3 and ATT are responding to an RFI, it just proves that TWC is more full of shiat. You don't operate a a gigantic telecom provider if you throw around unnecessary money.


Time Warner is trying to exit the Louisville market.   They're using Insight as a giant tax write-off and intentionally running everyone off.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-02-12 03:44:50 PM  
I always though speed was throughput and bandwidth was data usage.

The more precise use of "bandwidth" means instantaneous data rate. See Shannon's law.

In popular culture, "bandwidth" can be an aggregate number of bits, bytes, or blobs over a month.
 
2014-02-12 03:44:53 PM  
Another story making me love my ISP even more.  Locally owned phone company delivering fiber to a completely rural area.  $50/month for 50/20 speeds and I get a landline too (which is never used).  Mine is definitely the exception and not the norm, I'm sure.
 
2014-02-12 03:46:49 PM  

ZAZ: I agree with the actual statement, not the spin: "Not everybody needs that type of capacity that a direct fiber network would provide, and that is what we are trying to balance out."

The actual business decision involves lots of other factors, like the odds of getting an exclusive franchise.


Not everybody needs it, that's true.  But the percentage that do need it will only grow with time.  When Netflix starts streaming 4k movies, for example, do you think Time Warner's 20Mbps product will keep up?
 
2014-02-12 03:53:59 PM  

GanjSmokr: Another story making me love my ISP even more.  Locally owned phone company delivering fiber to a completely rural area.  $50/month for 50/20 speeds and I get a landline too (which is never used).  Mine is definitely the exception and not the norm, I'm sure.


What ISP if you don't mind me asking?
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report