looks like Americans are not the only ones facing bandwidth caps

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Evadman
930 GB a month upload? I do that in a week according to iometer.

:Q
what behemoth files do you upload to reach nearly 1TB upload a week?!

how fast is your internet connection?

how massive is your harddrive?

otherwise i call shens.

 

[ballmode]

I'm mad I dont have fiber!

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Scouzer
Canada has had bandwidth caps for years. Standard cable service is usually 60GB download, and the premium cable internet services are 100GB.

You sure about that? I've never been told I had a bandwidth cap, but I'm not on cable, so maybe that's why.

KT

Shaw is 60GB for regular cable internet, and 100GB for xtreme-i

Telus is 60GB for regular DSL

 

[RbSX]

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Scouzer
Canada has had bandwidth caps for years. Standard cable service is usually 60GB download, and the premium cable internet services are 100GB.

You sure about that? I've never been told I had a bandwidth cap, but I'm not on cable, so maybe that's why.

KT

Shaw is 60GB for regular cable internet, and 100GB for xtreme-i

Telus is 60GB for regular DSL

Really? I've gone over many times for Shaw then and never been charged.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: destrekor
do people not realize the extreme difference in land size between the US and most of the world. Russia, even if it were in a similar position of wealth as the US, would be on the same level as the US for broadband. Japan is tiny, the European countries are also small in comparison to the US. It's tough stringing expensive communication systems across the US to deliver that kind of bandwidth, and is partly why bandwidth is expensive at the moment, because those profits help fund the cost of communications upgrades to increase speeds.

+

Which means all urban areas where boxes are should have comparable speeds right?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: destrekor
do people not realize the extreme difference in land size between the US and most of the world. Russia, even if it were in a similar position of wealth as the US, would be on the same level as the US for broadband. Japan is tiny, the European countries are also small in comparison to the US. It's tough stringing expensive communication systems across the US to deliver that kind of bandwidth, and is partly why bandwidth is expensive at the moment, because those profits help fund the cost of communications upgrades to increase speeds.

+

I thought profits went to stockholders & huge bonuses for executives? Not to re-investment in infrastructure in modern businesses.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: destrekor
do people not realize the extreme difference in land size between the US and most of the world. Russia, even if it were in a similar position of wealth as the US, would be on the same level as the US for broadband. Japan is tiny, the European countries are also small in comparison to the US. It's tough stringing expensive communication systems across the US to deliver that kind of bandwidth, and is partly why bandwidth is expensive at the moment, because those profits help fund the cost of communications upgrades to increase speeds.

+

I thought profits went to stockholders & huge bonuses for executives? Not to re-investment in infrastructure in modern businesses.

profits are for stockholders & huge bonuses for executives

government subsidies for infrastructure inprovement are for stockholders & huge bonuses for executives

 

[Xavier434]

Since population density appears to be such a big issue, I thought I would point out a few facts:

Japan's average population density:

Density 337/km² or 872.8/sq mi



A long list of select US cities and their population densities. I am sure a full list can be found elsewhere.

Union City, New Jersey 20,454/km² 52,978/mi²
West New York, New Jersey 17,124/km² 44,352/mi²
Hoboken, New Jersey 11,675/km² 30,239/mi²
New York, New York 10,173/km² 26,348/mi² Manhattan (25,550/km² or 66,173/mi²)
Somerville, Massachusetts 7,194/km² 18,633/mi² [1] [2]
Paterson, New Jersey 6,826.4/km² 17,675.4/mi²
San Francisco, California 6,349/km² 16,443/mi²
Chelsea, Massachusetts 6,211/km² 16,086/mi²
Jersey City, New Jersey 6,120/km² 15,852/mi²
Central Falls, Rhode Island 5,973/km² 15,471/mi² [3]
Chicago, Illinois 4,866/km² 12,603/mi² Edgewater (13,800/km² or 35,743/mi²)
Miami Beach, Florida 4,830/km² 12,502/mi²
Santa Ana, California 4,751/km² 12,306/mi²
Boston, Massachusetts 4,697/km² 12,166/mi² Back Bay/Beacon Hill (11,463/km² or 29,690/mi²)
Hialeah, Florida 4,544/km² 11,768/mi²
Hamtramck, Michigan 4,537/km² 11,750/mi²
Newark, New Jersey 4,459/km² 11,548/mi²
Miami, Florida 4,407/km² 11,534/mi²
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 4,190/km² 10,852/mi²
Yonkers, New York 4,162/km² 10,780/mi²
Washington, District of Columbia 3,502/km² 9,070/mi²
Los Angeles, California 3,078/km² 7,972/mi²
Baltimore, Maryland 2,970/km² 7,693/mi²
Buffalo, New York 2,786/km² 7,217/mi²
Oakland, California 2,724/km² 7,054/mi²
Minneapolis, Minnesota 2,691/km² 6,969/mi²
Seattle, Washington 2,563/km² 6,639/mi²
New Haven, Connecticut 2,527/km² 6,554/mi² Downtown New Haven (5,633/km² or 14,590/mi²) [4]
Detroit, Michigan 2,470/km² 6,398/mi²
Cleveland, Ohio 2,353/km² 6,095/mi² Lakewood (3,895/km² or 10,088/mi²)
St. Louis, Missouri 2,199/km² 5,696/mi² University City (2,457/km² or 6,363.1/mi²)
Mechanicville, New York 2,091/km² 5,577/mi²
San Jose, California 1,953/km² 5,059/mi²
Cincinnati, Ohio 1,612/km² 4,174/mi²
Portland, Oregon 1,503/km² 3,894/mi²
Atlanta, Georgia 1,425/km² 3,690.5/mi²
Denver, Colorado 1,396.4/km² 3,642/mi²
Dallas, Texas 1,348/km² 3,492/mi² Vickery Meadows (22,354/km² or 57,897/mi²)[14]
Columbus, Ohio 1,307/km² 3,384/mi²
Houston, Texas 1,287/km² 3,333/mi²
Phoenix, Arizona 1,061/km² 2,749/mi²


So ya...can we please get fiber and FIOS now at a reasonable price in at least all of these densely populated areas? Obviously there is money to be made when you compare Japan's density.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Scouzer
Canada has had bandwidth caps for years. Standard cable service is usually 60GB download, and the premium cable internet services are 100GB.

You sure about that? I've never been told I had a bandwidth cap, but I'm not on cable, so maybe that's why.

KT

Shaw is 60GB for regular cable internet, and 100GB for xtreme-i

Telus is 60GB for regular DSL

I'm not on either of those. I'd be pretty annoyed if I had a cap. Novus fibre optic FTMFW!

KT

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Since population density appears to be such a big issue, I thought I would point out a few facts:

Japan's average population density:

Density 337/km² or 872.8/sq mi



A long list of select US cities and their population densities. I am sure a full list can be found elsewhere.

Union City, New Jersey 20,454/km² 52,978/mi²
West New York, New Jersey 17,124/km² 44,352/mi²
Hoboken, New Jersey 11,675/km² 30,239/mi²
New York, New York 10,173/km² 26,348/mi² Manhattan (25,550/km² or 66,173/mi²)
{snipped}


So ya...can we please get fiber and FIOS now at a reasonable price in at least all of these densely populated areas? Obviously there is money to be made when you compare Japan's density.

Thank You and proves the point that American cities are ripe for fiber. Go FiOS!!!

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Since population density appears to be such a big issue, I thought I would point out a few facts:

Japan's average population density:

Density 337/km² or 872.8/sq mi



A long list of select US cities and their population densities. I am sure a full list can be found elsewhere.

Union City, New Jersey 20,454/km² 52,978/mi²
West New York, New Jersey 17,124/km² 44,352/mi²
Hoboken, New Jersey 11,675/km² 30,239/mi²
New York, New York 10,173/km² 26,348/mi² Manhattan (25,550/km² or 66,173/mi²)
{snipped}


So ya...can we please get fiber and FIOS now at a reasonable price in at least all of these densely populated areas? Obviously there is money to be made when you compare Japan's density.

Thank You and proves the point that American cities are ripe for fiber. Go FiOS!!!

the reason its not in more cities in the US is because all the lines are underground and it costs a shit ton to pull all that fiber from scratch

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Since population density appears to be such a big issue, I thought I would point out a few facts:

Japan's average population density:

Density 337/km² or 872.8/sq mi



A long list of select US cities and their population densities. I am sure a full list can be found elsewhere.

Union City, New Jersey 20,454/km² 52,978/mi²
West New York, New Jersey 17,124/km² 44,352/mi²
Hoboken, New Jersey 11,675/km² 30,239/mi²
New York, New York 10,173/km² 26,348/mi² Manhattan (25,550/km² or 66,173/mi²)
{snipped}


So ya...can we please get fiber and FIOS now at a reasonable price in at least all of these densely populated areas? Obviously there is money to be made when you compare Japan's density.

Thank You and proves the point that American cities are ripe for fiber. Go FiOS!!!

The problem is converting the current infrastructure...

 

[EKKC]

930GB is nothing when maxed out you can download 150GB+ a day on those fiber optic networks

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: Evadman
930 GB a month upload? I do that in a week according to iometer.

how massive is your harddrive?

Big. And one is for sale too.

But besides that, check your meter; it needs new batteries.

 

[rh71]

What the hell are you downloading that's going to come close to 930GB/mo? It's definitely the upload/sharing. Been there, but only 1/3 of the way there on a full-time FIOS link. 930GB is nucking futs.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: rh71
What the hell are you downloading that's going to come close to 930GB/mo? It's definitely the upload/sharing. Been there, but only 1/3 of the way there on a full-time FIOS link. 930GB is nucking futs.

Think about how amazing it would be if all video were able to be streamed in 1080p or better? Fiber alone may not be able to do that. I'm not sure to be honest, but it is most certainly a step in the right direction.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Thank You and proves the point that American cities are ripe for fiber. Go FiOS!!!

The problem is converting the current infrastructure...

That is true but the point I am trying to make is that there is a lot of money to made in the long run by doing so in select areas. It's well worth it.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Japan is small with a recent communications network- meaning it's modern and can handle speeds like that. The US, Canada, Europe, etc have older communications systems and a lot more area to cover- meaning it is cost prohibitive to roll out a new giant highspeed network. We'll probably have one in a decade or two, but the transition is going to be slow.

Japan's network is about as old as any in Europe. The problem is not age, but more or less government subsidies on communication infrastructure and cost. In the United States, government considers everything handled by the private sector to be untouchable... which is why it takes us forever to establish a common digital TV standard and implementation.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Scouzer
Canada has had bandwidth caps for years. Standard cable service is usually 60GB download, and the premium cable internet services are 100GB.

I live in Canada and I've never had a bandwidth cap. I upload at 50KB/s all day and night, and I've never had any fees or warnings to stop. My provider is Telus DSL.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: EKKC
930GB is nothing when maxed out you can download 150GB+ a day on those fiber optic networks

Upload is capped at 930GB, there are no download caps.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Thank You and proves the point that American cities are ripe for fiber. Go FiOS!!!

The problem is converting the current infrastructure...

That is true but the point I am trying to make is that there is a lot of money to made in the long run by doing so in select areas. It's well worth it.

But lines capable of holding that much constant data streaming in those population densities have to be installed as new infrastructure, and then there's the issues that since the internet is not in a central location, only providing fast data access to certain cities isn't going to do much in the long run, because everywhere kind of needs to come up at the same time.

All new infrastructure essentially has to be installed nationwide, and interconnects overhauled drastically. It'll happen, and it'll happen in basically one fell swoop. As Verizon's FIOS expands, others are going to see the limitations in copper across the cities.
Just providing everyone with fiber lines is not the answer though. Because if everyone has fiber, bandwidth still can't necessarily increase until the backbones are upped to new levels, because the backbones at the moment likely cannot handle millions of customers using up 50gb's of bandwidth apiece.
Now, if anyone has any links that provide detailed information regarding the backbones and interconnects, that would be awesome. But I don't know if that kind of information is freely available.

+

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: destrekor
do people not realize the extreme difference in land size between the US and most of the world. Russia, even if it were in a similar position of wealth as the US, would be on the same level as the US for broadband. Japan is tiny, the European countries are also small in comparison to the US. It's tough stringing expensive communication systems across the US to deliver that kind of bandwidth, and is partly why bandwidth is expensive at the moment, because those profits help fund the cost of communications upgrades to increase speeds.

+

Land size is not a factor in fiber rollout. Verizon has been doing it and it hasn't bankrupted the company like lame corporate propagandist were squawking it would. There is no reason Chicago, New York, Los Angeles or any big city can't be wired up with fiber.

It's just greedy cable and telephony companies want to keep milking their cash cow as long as they can.

Fiberoptic is very very and very expensive compared to copper wire. Given that, saying "Land size is not a factor in fiber rollout" is very, very, very, and very stupid.

Originally posted by: RyanSengara

Originally posted by: Scouzer
Canada has had bandwidth caps for years. Standard cable service is usually 60GB download, and the premium cable internet services are 100GB.

Whatchu talkin bout willis?

When I was with TekSavvy I had no bandwidth cap.

Now that I'm with shaw I probably download in the area of 150-200gb a month, never had a problem.

Speak for yourself guys but Canadian internet service providers seem to be lightyears ahead of American ISPs in terms of offered speeds and comparative costs and bandwidth caps despite our sparse and very spread out population.

Most of Canadian ISPs do have bandwidth caps. The range is usually 60gb - 100 gb per month. However, for some reasons, they don't really care if you go over the limit. In 3 years of going way over the limit, I've had mine suspended only once.

 

[13Gigatons]

Fiberoptic is very very and very expensive compared to copper wire. Given that, saying "Land size is not a factor in fiber rollout" is very, very, very, and very stupid.

Yes it is but it's a long term investment that will pay back for decades. Other companies are doing it and it is being done in other countries as well. Telcoms are just making excuses and it's going to take forever for them to catch up when others are cruising at 200mbps and the US is struggling at 10mbps. Only Verizon will be ready with their glimmer of hope called FiOS.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Fiberoptic is very very and very expensive compared to copper wire. Given that, saying "Land size is not a factor in fiber rollout" is very, very, very, and very stupid.

Yes it is but it's a long term investment that will pay back for decades. Other companies are doing it and it is being done in other countries as well. Telcoms are just making excuses and it's going to take forever for them to catch up when others are cruising at 200mbps and the US is struggling at 10mbps. Only Verizon will be ready with their glimmer of hope called FiOS.

There are many other companies doing passive optical networks in the US that verizon calls "fios".

It's the cable companies that are going to offer the 100 meg service because guess what? They have the cables already in the ground. Can we please stick to facts instead of the old misinformed "but, but, those evil corporations are being corporationy!"

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Fiberoptic is very very and very expensive compared to copper wire. Given that, saying "Land size is not a factor in fiber rollout" is very, very, very, and very stupid.

Yes it is but it's a long term investment that will pay back for decades. Other companies are doing it and it is being done in other countries as well. Telcoms are just making excuses and it's going to take forever for them to catch up when others are cruising at 200mbps and the US is struggling at 10mbps. Only Verizon will be ready with their glimmer of hope called FiOS.

There are many other companies doing passive optical networks in the US that verizon calls "fios".

It's the cable companies that are going to offer the 100 meg service because guess what? They have the cables already in the ground. Can we please stick to facts instead of the old misinformed "but, but, those evil corporations are being corporationy!"

It's not misinformed, telcom is a monopoly in America that is only interested in making billion's of dollars with little or no competition. That's not good for consumers.