Report: Cable exec says 1Gbps Internet is only good for piracy

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.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Best Buy and NewEgg.com argue over "Geek"

Next Story

EA wins over John Dillinger estate over Godfather game

122 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

My dad once told me that I would never need more than 8MB of ram in my computer. This was back when the 486 was still king. My brother had just received a brand spanking new Hewlett Packard computer with a multimedia Compact Disk player. It was an amazing piece of hardware. Fast forward 20 years and my ram is now at 8GB. The reality is that you people don't see the use because your brains are thinking about what it can be used for today, not what it could be used for in the future. Imagine that all games are cloud based, you no longer store them in your computer but rather you run them in RAM but you download them in seconds rather than hours. Right now, the majority of HD video that is streamed is actually far inferior to the quality in a BD. Just watch any Netflix movie that is dark, the quality is absolutely ****ty. This is due to all the compression in order to be able to stream the content. What's going to happen when we have computer screens taking up entire walls, streaming several channels at once? And what about the ability to record those streams for viewing later on? Our data digestion has increased leaps and bounds, anyone saying there is no use for this type of speed is simply making the mistake my father made.

He has a point. Pretty much all of the things people listed would not make use of a 1GBps connection. There is absolutely no difference between watching a Netflix HD movie on a 1Gbps connection and a 50Mbps connection. A 2 hour movie is going to take exactly 2 hours to play on either connection. Same thing applies to VOIP, online gaming etc. A faster connection is useless in those cases as the extra bandwidth will not be used.

The point is 1gps may be deemed only good for piracy NOW but how does Captain dumbass know if we will need it in the future?

Back in the day dial up was pretty adequate because the content served was designed for its capability. Today, applications require faster and faster connections. Possibly we will be using 100GBps in the near fututre, maybe even TBs?

The point is, who cares. Make use of the fact you CAN offer a 1gbps service. People will pay for it, you make money. hell in NZ we pay more than $2 a gb, with my ISP its $50 NZD for 12GB ADSL.

People who back up their computers offsite could use the GBPS as well as a bunch of other things

Stupid blind progress halter

All hear say, nothing more. The article doesn't even name the pirate executive. Jack Sparrow? Was he born in Somalia? Must be with Comcast competition. Hope I am long gone before the "cloud" rains down on us all. South Korea +1

lmao. awesome. The only use for exotic/fast cars is speeding too. Same with people who use a lot of power - they grow drugs...

Grow up and LOOK at how the US is shaping the internet to remove the 'basic cable TV' from the living room.. theres more streaming media sites that are free than I have TV stations on basic cable, best part is its all On-Demand.

Im also sure if the company does VOD, VoIP, or HD services they would enjoy being able to tap off this extremely fast speed too.

At the moment he is probably right...
Imagine 5 users downloading their legal ISOs from a web server using 1gbps. You will be limited by the throughput of the server itself (standard 2* 1gbps).
I don't know about the US, but over here most parts of the isp networks are running at 1gbps. So one use could use the full capacity of an interconnect. Bad things will happen to the network, users will start complaining.
Most of todays Internet applications can easily be used with 100mbps (max), and then we're talking about tv, voip and Internet SIMULTANEOUSLY. Ofc, you could star streaming insane huge uncompressed video's and call in plain raw format while torrenting your favorite four Linux distros and you will saturate your line.
<sarcasm>But yes, 10gbps hardware is dirt cheap these days so actually all isps should upgrade their complete network, not to mention the transit uplinks and international backbones. Right? I'm pretty sure you all have high-end raid setups capable of pumping all that incoming data to your hard drives in seconds.</sarcasm>
So maybe the statement is more of "We can't" instead of "We don't want to", and he's just trying to give an explanation we all understand?

Oh and let's face it, provide your users with a higer cap and more bandwidth and you'll see more illegal activity. I know some providers who have to battle piracy to maintain network stability. And no we're not talking about some crappy isp, we're talking about long distance wireless data-communication and people still have the nerve to complain their movie is downloading to slow (they should actually be happy they can browse the web).
(Trust me, I do have experience in the isp field...)

So the couple of gigabytes wow requires every month is piracy now ?

Soon you will be a pirate even when you pay for a game.

Most hard drive wouldnt be able to use 1Gbps connections anyway cus maximum sustained transfer rate is usually 80-90MB/s and if it's maxing it out your computer would be virtually useless cus there'll be no bandwidth available for opening applications and stuff. Youll need raid configs or SSD's to fully use it me thinks

psionicinversion said,
Most hard drive wouldnt be able to use 1Gbps connections anyway cus maximum sustained transfer rate is usually 80-90MB/s and if it's maxing it out your computer would be virtually useless cus there'll be no bandwidth available for opening applications and stuff. Youll need raid configs or SSD's to fully use it me thinks

My HDD maxes out at 100MB/s, so to actually reach that it would still require an 800Mbps connection. That being said, computers won't always have HDDs with a max of 80-100MB/s anyway.

psionicinversion said,
Most hard drive wouldnt be able to use 1Gbps connections anyway cus maximum sustained transfer rate is usually 80-90MB/s and if it's maxing it out your computer would be virtually useless cus there'll be no bandwidth available for opening applications and stuff. Youll need raid configs or SSD's to fully use it me thinks
Maybe true today, but who cares. Next few years they would catch up easily. If there is a market for it, it will happen faster.

psionicinversion said,
Most hard drive wouldnt be able to use 1Gbps connections anyway cus maximum sustained transfer rate is usually 80-90MB/s and if it's maxing it out your computer would be virtually useless cus there'll be no bandwidth available for opening applications and stuff. Youll need raid configs or SSD's to fully use it me thinks

Most computer wouldn't be able to achieve this speed because the network adapter, most PC use a 10/100 network connection. And USB 2.0 and Wifi-n is not a option


I doubt it, it will only make it better for those who already does that sort of thing but for other that are streaming more and more everyday its something that really necessary. Especially when I'm trying to download my student bundle without waiting so long.

Oh please. This kind of thinking is so dated, we live in a world of streaming and uploading completely legitimate things all the time. True, maybe people don't need as much as 1Gbps at this stage, but why even think to limit internet speeds? Or cap user bandwidth? And then say only pirates would use that kind of tool?

All the different levels of speed and bandwidth usages these ISPs have only go to show the greed behind these companies.

If we bet 1 gbps speeds, there will be many legitimate applications that it will end up enabling.

Pirates will pirate. Even if they don't have 1 gbps.

But I want to be able to stream 1080p (or higher in the future) HD 3D video in one room, while my wife does the same in another room, while the kid does the same in another room. And be able to browse the web at the same time without any load times.

I would argue, we don't need idiots, but then again, he'll probably think the opposite

We do need it ... maybe not solely for the internet but other systems

and besides, piracy is just a small percentage

watching/downloading pron while playing check
letting the server get the juice off special sites on the net check
tv upstairs getting netflix check
boy upstairs practicing his backswing like his dad did when young check
daughter chatting with some guy while researching the universe check

that amounts to a lot of traffic

Whether it's 1gbps or 56k, it won't stop people from pirating. It'll only shorten the amount of time that their download/seed window is open.

They need to accept the fact that they can't do anything to stop piracy and trying to do so will just **** off the rest of the honest customer base. In the end, everybody would lose, so they should just move on and keep counting their Benjamins.

Astra.Xtreme said,
Whether it's 1gbps or 56k, it won't stop people from pirating. It'll only shorten the amount of time that their download/seed window is open.

They need to accept the fact that they can't do anything to stop piracy and trying to do so will just **** off the rest of the honest customer base. In the end, everybody would lose, so they should just move on and keep counting their Benjamins.

agreed!

you know, somewhat unrelated, but I was watching an episode of Star Trek Enterprise (season 2) the other day, and the Captain told Hoshi to download some movies from their database and give it to an alien race... I found it funny that a TV studio was promoting inter-specie pirating...

Downloading Windows 7 SP1 in 2 seconds? Check. Streaming HD content? Check. Downloading games from Steam in seconds? Check. Apart from that the rest is torrents - the guy is right. But so what? Piracy existed when we're still using 14,400 bps modems, will exist when we move to 10Gbps.

MaSx said,
This punk is living in the dial-up era that's for sure. Ignorant and stupid!
I'm sure he wishes everyone was still living with him too.

It will help us do things more quicker and efficiently...
If i can download a movie faster, why not.
Music, why not.
Video games - why not.
I think this will make me more interested in Onlive to be honest...That game is lagged up as hell with 40mbps

auziez said,
It will help us do things more quicker and efficiently...
If i can download a movie faster, why not.
Music, why not.
Video games - why not.
I think this will make me more interested in Onlive to be honest...That game is lagged up as hell with 40mbps

You do realise you could have 1gbps bandwidth, but if your latency is high, you'll still lag.

Just like back in the day when they said computers will never need more than a few mb of RAM?

Honestly, it scares me to realize how of out-of-touch some of these executives for technology companies really are...

Piracy will be piracy no matter what the speed...this guy is a moron! I would LOVE to be able to have all my computers in my house being able to stream video, music, pictures, XBOX Live, etc. all while NOT lagging each other out. That way I can get rid of Cable TV all together and not have to deal with stupid cable companies other than for my internet connection Eastern Washington State has a HUGE fiber backbone that is being used for TV broadcasting, internet connections, phone service, Power monitoring on peoples homes, ect. A lot of jobs have been created by Public Utility Departments installing fiber and gigabit internet connections everywhere. GO FIBER! Down with the conglomerate cable companies. I think what this exec was really thinking was "Oh S*#T! We need to hurry up and change our business model so we can stay competitive in this new market of super high speed internet or I'm going to take it in the shorts." LOL

Korea is very small country it is much easier to get faster speeds to more people. I wish people had the brains to stop using these kind of comparisons.

willard27 said,
Korea is very small country it is much easier to get faster speeds to more people. I wish people had the brains to stop using these kind of comparisons.

And I wish people had the brains to use the reply feature correctly. That being said, I agree with your first statement. There are too many idiot posters here from countries smaller than a typical US state who don't understand the vast difference between wiring a small, densely populated country for broadband and wiring a huge but sparsely populated one.

roadwarrior said,

And I wish people had the brains to use the reply feature correctly. That being said, I agree with your first statement. There are too many idiot posters here from countries smaller than a typical US state who don't understand the vast difference between wiring a small, densely populated country for broadband and wiring a huge but sparsely populated one.

And yet with the population density of New York, L. A., Miami, Chicago, S. F., etc, etc, ad naseum, there is NO US city that compares to what Korea is doing.

roadwarrior said,

And I wish people had the brains to use the reply feature correctly. That being said, I agree with your first statement. There are too many idiot posters here from countries smaller than a typical US state who don't understand the vast difference between wiring a small, densely populated country for broadband and wiring a huge but sparsely populated one.

Check the facts about Finland: population density, offered services etc. etc.

And I agree: too many ignorants post without making their homeworks first.

Honestly, the <20mbps connections enable people to pirate more media, software, and games faster than anyone can enjoy any of it. But that doesn't mean it is "only good for piracy".

I would like to see a better latency over increased bandwidth. Maybe increasing broadband
to 10mbps or 15mbps for both upload and download. An decreasing the latency with better
routers and switches. Juniper and Cisco will need a improve the packet routing and improve
the way routing tables are handled. Basically new core routers and improved switches.

I think streaming high quality BD movies requires about 60Mbit.

But if 4k video will become more popular - that is 4 times the pixel count of a 1080p video, one would need more than 100Mbit!

Same goes if two people on one connection decide to watch a movie simultaneously.

Udedenkz said,
I think streaming high quality BD movies requires about 60Mbit.

But if 4k video will become more popular - that is 4 times the pixel count of a 1080p video, one would need more than 100Mbit!

Same goes if two people on one connection decide to watch a movie simultaneously.

Can't wait for 4k to become the norm, will kick ass!

rdburke said,
He only uses the Internet to check his AOL Mail!!!!!!!!
I doubt he even knows what e-mail is

I don't understand why South Koreans already can get a monthly subscription of up to 2Gb quite easily yet many other "developed" countries (UK, USA) are struggling with 100Mb.

drazgoosh said,
I don't understand why South Koreans already can get a monthly subscription of up to 2Gb quite easily yet many other "developed" countries (UK, USA) are struggling with 100Mb.

Government subsidies are why.

While the government does not own the ISPs in the ROK (Republic of Korea), it does subsidize their bandwidth (national interest). The ROK likely makes tradeoffs that we would not put up with (and are not disclosed) - consider investigating that.

The grass may be greener - but is it growing over a broken septic tank?

PGHammer said,

Government subsidies are why.

While the government does not own the ISPs in the ROK (Republic of Korea), it does subsidize their bandwidth (national interest). The ROK likely makes tradeoffs that we would not put up with (and are not disclosed) - consider investigating that.

The grass may be greener - but is it growing over a broken septic tank?

Our company main office is based in Milan, Italy. They have 1GB connection for Euro100/month and the service is not subsidized. Note that it is a business connection so with static IP, no Port 25 blocked etc. etc.
Here in the US we pay AT&T a similar amount of money for...... 3MB.

For them, everything is pirating if the content doesn't come for them. Why? because they don't make money out of it. It's as simple as that.

you know what. I've got an idea. I think this guy's a moron, and heres why. If everyone had faster internet, there might actually be MORE free bandwidth available. Think about it. If everyone in your neighborhood on cable was downloading something at once @ say, 5Mbps, it'd slow down for you. But if everyone had faster internet, they'd be able to get what they were downloading faster, thus freeing up that bandwidth. Unless your pirating, more bandwidth would sit unused faster, instead of everyone maxing their lines 24x7 due to slow speeds.

Sounds reasonable at first, but the flaw in that logic (which has been shown over and over again with increasing speeds), is that people will simply download more and more as the speeds increase.

Cable companies that are also internet providers don't want to see other companies profit over their connection. They want to be "content providers" and not "bit providers" and they know that if they offer these high speed connections without being able to "lock in" subscribers, that is all they will become.

It's all about money......if they're a corporation, it's only about money not about what they can or will do, only about how much money they can get.

T

With online backups, Dropbox, and other cloud services on the rise this statement is completely inaccurate. Besides, the connections available are already sufficient for pirating. So maybe now it will take 20 minutes to download a movie instead of 2, but it can still be done so this guy's point doesn't mean much.

What he really means is that providing more bandwidth for Netflix/Hulu services is only good for destroying his aging and historically overpriced business.

I agree to some extent on his remark. Besides no one really needs 1Gbps unless you own a big company. Residential use is just not necessary imo. Heck even 100Mbps that I finally am on is more than enough to get everything done including 1080p vids and raw photo uploads. Most of these offers are only offering the 1Gbps as download but we'd have to see how much upload they're actually offering.

Really shouldn't make a difference what speed a person has, arbitrarily saying one speed is only good for piracy is just silly. If a person is going to pirate, he's going to do it regardless of he has 1Gb, a cheap 768K DSL, or a 56K modem. Shoot piracy has been around even on the old 300b acoustics. The only difference is how long it takes. Who is he to decide what's good enough for everybody?

Morisato said,
I agree to some extent on his remark. Besides no one really needs 1Gbps unless you own a big company. Residential use is just not necessary imo. Heck even 100Mbps that I finally am on is more than enough to get everything done including 1080p vids and raw photo uploads. Most of these offers are only offering the 1Gbps as download but we'd have to see how much upload they're actually offering.

People were probably saying similar things about the speeds we enjoy today a decade or so ago.

Jen Smith said,
Really shouldn't make a difference what speed a person has, arbitrarily saying one speed is only good for piracy is just silly. If a person is going to pirate, he's going to do it regardless of he has 1Gb, a cheap 768K DSL, or a 56K modem. Shoot piracy has been around even on the old 300b acoustics. The only difference is how long it takes. Who is he to decide what's good enough for everybody?
Finally, someone with some common sense.

For those (include that stupid cable exec) who don't see why faster speeds are useful (much less needed), try not being so short-sighted. Quit living in fear of pirates---restricting the pipe is NOT how you address the problem, and it's ridiculous to even think that would help. You people who think that media doesn't need 1Gbps speed are assuming that we'll forever be using the resolution & format that we currently enjoy. As it is, you can rarely get FULL HD over the internet for EVERYONE who wants it. And as augmented reality and 3D become more commonplace, I don't doubt at all that more bandwidth and higher speeds will be necessary. We still have such a small percentage fully demanding data across networks of all types, that as more people jump into demand market what we have simply won't hold up. Another thing to remember is that if it takes a LOT less time to pull data/media then you won't have as many choking the system at the same time. Faster is better, period.

If the cable industry didn't have such a poor product piracy would be lessened.

Why can I get a better selection of movies from Netflix for $7.99 a month than what I get from on-demand and premiums that cost me $40 a month?

He's pointing his finger at the wrong fail.

I don't know what any of you are talking about. I have FIOS here, the highest service tier available from them and I have absolutely no troubles at all watching hulu, netflix and the occasional Godzilla movie on Crackle. Although I agree this "executive" if he even is one, is a giant ******* more likely than not - I'm going to go ahead and say 1 gigabit probably only benefits people downloading Duke Nukem from Piratebay.

pzykotic said,
I'm going to go ahead and say 1 gigabit probably only benefits people downloading Duke Nukem from Piratebay.

Or people who download updates for their OS, games, applications. Or DLC. Or legitimate ISO's, be it Linux, from TechNet, etc etc. Or transfer work related data. Or on-line based backup solutions. The list goes on and on. The "broadband=piracy" idea is nothing but more antipiracy rhetoric.

pzykotic said,
I don't know what any of you are talking about. I have FIOS here, the highest service tier available from them and I have absolutely no troubles at all watching hulu, netflix and the occasional Godzilla movie on Crackle. Although I agree this "executive" if he even is one, is a giant ******* more likely than not - I'm going to go ahead and say 1 gigabit probably only benefits people downloading Duke Nukem from Piratebay.

Yep, because my Steam downloads wouldn't benefit either, only the thieves. My Xbox and PlayStation downloads wouldn't be legal either would they? I guess only the pirates need high speed. None of those media companies that want me to download / stream their movies would benefit either would they? Hell, why don't we just roll everything back to 56k to protect everyone from the pirates?

Makes sense, let's stop all technological advances because faster computers are only used to rip movies faster

Yet Sony and Microsoft want to go all digital where you expected to download Gigs of data every time you buy a new game.

If 1 Gbps Internet becomes mainstream, applications for it will appear. I'd love to be able to watch 1080p content on Netflix with less compression applied (as it is, looks pretty crappy in high-motion scenes).

Aaron44126 said,
If 1 Gbps Internet becomes mainstream, applications for it will appear. I'd love to be able to watch 1080p content on Netflix with less compression applied (as it is, looks pretty crappy in high-motion scenes).

And as others have already stated, even 100Mbps is more than enough for that (enough for 2 or 3 full HD 1080p streams simultaneously, actually). Unless you are trying to supply 20-30 devices with different full HD content at the same time, 1Gbps is extreme overkill.

roadwarrior said,
Unless you are trying to supply 20-30 devices with different full HD content at the same time, 1Gbps is extreme overkill.
No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer.

I made a full HD 1080p, 30 minute video that weighed in at a couple hundred KB. Granted it was just a black screen to see how small I could get it. Why should people not want better-than-disc versions streamed to them?
Additionally, why should people not want some kind of cloud-OS, where your PC by default only has whats needed to access the cloud OS? Fast speeds would be required unless you enjoy waiting for everything to be loaded each time you perform an operation.
The point I'm trying to make is, without faster speeds enabling more data to be transferred in a shorter time, things involving heavier data usage and or requiring very fast load times won't have the opportunity to ever reach their potential.

There was no need to name the company as it's plainly obvious that said exec was from Time Warner. Comcast exec won't slag off his own company like that and Verizon are in the fast Internet business. Elementary, my dear Watson!

I should be able to let my wife watch Netflix in the bedroom while I play Call of Duty online in the living room, and my kid watches Hulu Plus in his room, and not have to worry about one or the other lagging. This guy is a moron.

CoMMo said,
I should be able to let my wife watch Netflix in the bedroom while I play Call of Duty online in the living room, and my kid watches Hulu Plus in his room, and not have to worry about one or the other lagging. This guy is a moron.

You shouldn't have lag if you have QoS setup correctly. Even on a 1.5Mb/256Kb connection. CoD doesn't have high bandwidth demands.. it has low latency demands.

BS

with netflix and hulu sucking up bandwidth left and right and about 30 devices on a home users wifi that kind of thinking is just old.

There are alot of legit reason ot have as fast as possible a connection for home, Voip, TV streaming from various legit sources, having a ton of devices hooked up to your wifi connection, etc.

Pretty soon just about every electric device in your house will have some type of wifi connection for something and we are going to need more bandwidth.

swanlee said,

about 30 devices on a home users wifi

who the hell has "30" devices at home all on their wifi that isn't using a captive portal and selling bandwith to their neighbors?

SirEvan said,

who the hell has "30" devices at home all on their wifi that isn't using a captive portal and selling bandwith to their neighbors?

I would hope he meant '3' and just typoed. Or something.
When your whole home is internet aware (in like 5-8 years), 30 devices will probably be realistic. But that time isn't here yet. And once it is, 1GBPS will be far in the rearview mirrir.

swanlee said,
BS

with netflix and hulu sucking up bandwidth left and right and about 30 devices on a home users wifi that kind of thinking is just old.

There are alot of legit reason ot have as fast as possible a connection for home, Voip, TV streaming from various legit sources, having a ton of devices hooked up to your wifi connection, etc.

Pretty soon just about every electric device in your house will have some type of wifi connection for something and we are going to need more bandwidth.

I run a Half-Life 2 Deathmatch server myself on my Fios connection. What about those those want to run a game server, web server to serve webpages, watch HD videos, download files, play a game online or browse the web while sharing the connection with other members in the household and any web enabled devices without lagging the connection? Also the ability to download any file near instantly (not necessarily for downloading copyrighted content) makes 1Gbps appealing.

SirEvan said,

who the hell has "30" devices at home all on their wifi that isn't using a captive portal and selling bandwith to their neighbors?

While 30 seems excessive, it's easy to have 10 devices connected to a home internet connection during the course of a day - A couple of laptops, a desktop/server, blu-ray player, DirecTV receiver (or Dish, but really, who uses Dish? ), your Xbox 360/PS3/Wii (maybe more than one), a couple of cell phones and an iPod Touch/iPad or two.

And when so much content is being pushed online (How many times do you hear - 'See this entire episode online at www.[insertaddress].com?), it makes sense that faster connections to the home are needed. 1Gbps may be a bit much, but up to 250Mbps doesn't seem unreasonable to at least offer.

Xtreme2damax said,

I run a Half-Life 2 Deathmatch server myself on my Fios connection. What about those those want to run a game server, web server to serve webpages, watch HD videos, download files, play a game online or browse the web while sharing the connection with other members in the household and any web enabled devices without lagging the connection? Also the ability to download any file near instantly (not necessarily for downloading copyrighted content) makes 1Gbps appealing.

I almost forgot about downloading games with Steam, D2D, Origins etc.. at the same time. At least I know it would be near impossible to saturate the line doing all those things at one while other members in the household use the connection.

Xtreme2damax said,

I almost forgot about downloading games with Steam, D2D, Origins etc.. at the same time. At least I know it would be near impossible to saturate the line doing all those things at one while other members in the household use the connection.

"game server, web server to serve webpages" That is against TOS for every single ISP. Home usage I'm talking about of course. I doubt even if you get a 1gbps will they allow it. Highly Highly doubt it!! Not that you cant technically do that right now now course.

war said,
That is against TOS for every single ISP.

WRONG! While there are limits in most cases, it is not against the TOS for many ISPs, including mine. Although they do have restrictions such as http servers must be password protected and limits on the number of connections for a game server etc. But not in all cases.

The whole point of the internet is that every node is potentially a server.

bugsbungee said,

WRONG! While there are limits in most cases, it is not against the TOS for many ISPs, including mine. Although they do have restrictions such as http servers must be password protected and limits on the number of connections for a game server etc. But not in all cases.

The whole point of the internet is that every node is potentially a server.

Well, I'll disagree with you there. The FAP on DirecPC basically said "fair access" for all and even though they didn't tell you you couldn't, they basically forced your connection down when you hit 200MB up/dowm total a day. It might not be a specific TOS but it was damn near close.

Partially true, but he's probably just as worried at the thought of higher bitrate content that could be offered over 1 Gbps connections, then what most people have now (10-30 Mbps?), and that could affect the usage of VOD or even cable itself.

The other question are the bandwidth caps...250 GB/month on Comcast isn't much anymore.

could that very senior exec be working for time warner? the company that has been dragging its feet going to DOCSIS3? The same company that wants to put in caps and overcharges so freaking bad?

Stewart Gilligan Griffin said,
could that very senior exec be working for time warner? the company that has been dragging its feet going to DOCSIS3? The same company that wants to put in caps and overcharges so freaking bad?
Don't really matter who he works for. They are all the same in my book!!

That perhaps is what gets me about faster internet: people uploading massive amounts of info which really doens't need to be online. I'm sure your 10 min 1080p vid is earth-shatteringly essential, but most people's just take up space. We need an international e-cull day. Clear out your e-crud

dancedar said,
That perhaps is what gets me about faster internet: people uploading massive amounts of info which really doens't need to be online. I'm sure your 10 min 1080p vid is earth-shatteringly essential, but most people's just take up space. We need an international e-cull day. Clear out your e-crud

You seem to be discussing faster internet as if it affects the amount of space we have (and that that space is limited)? I agree there is TONS of useless **** online, the majority of the internet is a waste of time and people's media/comments (like this) that really just do not matter. Cleaning it? Good luck, ever uploaded an image? Still have that temporary deletion link? Just an example.

He has a point because it is very hard to innovate and come up with new and exciting things when the internet sucks. Build it and they will come.

asdavis10 said,
Forget about the speed. Remove the caps. I'd settle for 25meg with no cap over 1gig and some ridiculously low cap.

I second this. I'm on 20meg Comcast, and while i have no issues with the speed, it's the cap that ****es me off.

I love reading on their FAQs about caps, and how customers asked for them. I never got asked if i wanted a cap, nor did anyone in my neighborhood. So where the hell do they get this information? They make up some BS, and then say the customers asked for it.

Un4given said,
So where the hell do they get this information?

They presented questions to people in the form of "Would you be in favor of caps it that guaranteed you had the full bandwidth of your connection available at all times?"

And, of course, people answered "Yes."

But that question is a baldfaced lie. Caps do NOTHING to protect bandwidth usage.

I'm sure if they asked the question, "Would you be in favor of our company spending what's necessary on infrastructure to remain competitive with the rest of the world, even if that means our stockholders make 3 cents less per share next quarter?" I'm sure the people would also answer, "YES." 8)

sullysnet said,
I would never in a million years expect Comcast to ever get or want to be at this speed

Why not? businesses would want it, they do business services at that speed now with enterprise services, just over Fiber to the Premises (yes comcast does have that, look up enterprise class)... its $25,000 to install it though, and about $5,000 a month for a good speed

Stewart Gilligan Griffin said,

Why not? businesses would want it, they do business services at that speed now with enterprise services, just over Fiber to the Premises (yes comcast does have that, look up enterprise class)... its $25,000 to install it though, and about $5,000 a month for a good speed

I meant home users and I imagine that is what the article talks about. I know business is another different

sullysnet said,
I would never in a million years expect Comcast to ever get or want to be at this speed
Indeed, none of them do.

They'd be happy to still have everyone on 28kbps modems.

I think he is MOSTLY true, but there are also plenty of legitimate applications for a super fast internet speed including HD Netflix.

This is also one of those things that you need to have super fast internet speed before you can find uses for it.

For example, if Netflix wanted to stream 1080p movies, they couldn't do it UNTIL there was widespread super high speed internet.

DukeEsquire said,
I think he is MOSTLY true, but there are also plenty of legitimate applications for a super fast internet speed including HD Netflix.

This is also one of those things that you need to have super fast internet speed before you can find uses for it.

For example, if Netflix wanted to stream 1080p movies, they couldn't do it UNTIL there was widespread super high speed internet.

I would think the 4GB, Fedora 64bit ISOs I seed on bittorrent and the multitudes like me would completely disagree. I am tired of having to wait 8, 10, 16 hours to download an ISO.

Companies need to stop punishing me because of the actions of others. What he really meant to say is "I don't want my bonus being affected by providing anything better than what I think my customers need." It is probably an AT&T executive who thinks we asked for caps.

DukeEsquire said,
I think he is MOSTLY true, but there are also plenty of legitimate applications for a super fast internet speed including HD Netflix.

This is also one of those things that you need to have super fast internet speed before you can find uses for it.

For example, if Netflix wanted to stream 1080p movies, they couldn't do it UNTIL there was widespread super high speed internet.

you don't need 1Gbps for HD video, heck HD on a TV only maxes out at 32 Mbit, usually 12 to 22 Mbit depending on the type of channel

Stewart Gilligan Griffin said,

you don't need 1Gbps for HD video, heck HD on a TV only maxes out at 32 Mbit, usually 12 to 22 Mbit depending on the type of channel

Or 5.7Mbps on U-Verse... but that's another story.

Stewart Gilligan Griffin said,

you don't need 1Gbps for HD video, heck HD on a TV only maxes out at 32 Mbit, usually 12 to 22 Mbit depending on the type of channel

Seriously. I think people have a hard time wrapping their heads around how fast 1Gbit/S is. I agree with the exec that there is not need for this sort of speed other then piracy. I find the 100Mb/100Mb service WAY more exciting.

ermax said,

Seriously. I think people have a hard time wrapping their heads around how fast 1Gbit/S is. I agree with the exec that there is not need for this sort of speed other then piracy. I find the 100Mb/100Mb service WAY more exciting.

True. 100/100 is just perfect. With good infrastructures ( fiber ) and as low as possible latency, you don't need anything else for the next 15-20 years. Then, who knows.

schubb2003 said,
I would think the 4GB, Fedora 64bit ISOs I seed on bittorrent and the multitudes like me would completely disagree. I am tired of having to wait 8, 10, 16 hours to download an ISO.

16 hours to download 4GB? There is a slight difference between 1Gbps and 512Kbps. While we're at it, I personally wouldn't call the half a dozen people that use linux worldwide a "multitude".

jellio said,

16 hours to download 4GB? There is a slight difference between 1Gbps and 512Kbps. While we're at it, I personally wouldn't call the half a dozen people that use linux worldwide a "multitude".

Grow up with the Linux crap, I have Mac, Linux and Windows in my house because I am not some whiny fanboy.

ermax said,

Seriously. I think people have a hard time wrapping their heads around how fast 1Gbit/S is. I agree with the exec that there is not need for this sort of speed other then piracy. I find the 100Mb/100Mb service WAY more exciting.

And what company is going to want to deploy semi-expensive 100/100 service when they can deploy nearly the same cost 1000/20 or 1000/50 service for nearly the same price and have room for growth? Big providers don't do incremental in most cases, they do generational.

schubb2003 said,

And what company is going to want to deploy semi-expensive 100/100 service when they can deploy nearly the same cost 1000/20 or 1000/50 service for nearly the same price and have room for growth? Big providers don't do incremental in most cases, they do generational.

ComCast demoed 100/100 at the same time. That is what I was referring to.

Soulsiphon said,
I'm don't think Netflix and Hulu feel that way. Silly cable 'execs'.

Oh he just conveniently forgot about them...you know, the future of HIS entire dying industry...ahem.

He kind of has a point, but in todays world where there is youtube, flickr, and other sites where you share insane amounts of data, faster internet is needed. I have to leave my PC on overnight to upload a 10 minute 1080p video to youtube. If I have some high quality jpegs from a vacation, it takes overnight to upload to flickr.

Time made "You" the person of the year. Give us faster upload speeds so we can share more easily. Piracy will go with that.

The future is everyone in the family watching their own favorite shows on Netflix (etc.) in high-def (and higher, coming soon!) all the time. That'll eat up that bandwidth quite nicely thank you very much!

Why not remove the monopolies everyone is restricted by now and let the market REALLY decide what they want to pay for and how much? I think people will want high speed with no caps at reasonable prices.

And since bandwidth costs about a penny per gigabyte, I bet there's a company out there that could make money off of that business model...if the shackles on competition were lifted.

Edited by excalpius, Jun 21 2011, 5:51am :

blahism said,
What a dumb ass

Indeed. Also, in a properly competitive marketplace WHY WOULD HE CARE? AT&T doesn't care what you use their phone lines for, because of Common Carrier protections.

The answer is simple. Since the major ISPs are owned by, own, or are in bed with the big 5 studios, they aren't really neutral common carriers, now are they?

Instead they are just middle men in vertically integrated media empires which don't really compete with one another. They just act as divisions of the same entertainment creation and distribution monopoly.