Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > "broadband" - a couple of interesting articles

Reply
Thread Tools

"broadband" - a couple of interesting articles

 
 
-=rjh=-
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2005
Arstechnica refer to Om Malik's article and add an interesting
perspective here:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051226-5846.html

Om Malik's article:

http://gigaom.com/2005/12/20/need-for-speed/

where he questions the point of going from 15Mbps to 30Mbps (we should
be so lucky).

And another article which quite relevant:

http://gigaom.com/2005/08/29/p2p-the...d-application/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2005
-=rjh=- wrote:
> Arstechnica refer to Om Malik's article and add an interesting
> perspective here:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051226-5846.html
>
> Om Malik's article:
>
> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/20/need-for-speed/
>
> where he questions the point of going from 15Mbps to 30Mbps (we should
> be so lucky).
>
> And another article which quite relevant:
>
> http://gigaom.com/2005/08/29/p2p-the...d-application/


Interesting reading, thanks. Makes me wish I'd stuck with my 256k unlimited
from Orcon. I'm getting 20kB/s at best at 3am on bittorrent of late anyway,
and paying a lot more for it now on 2M/pay-for-data than I was before.
--
~misfit~


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
kriskirk@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2005
>From Om Malik's article:

> Can your eyes tell the difference between a web-page loading in one second or 0.27 seconds. I guess not.


Ummm, I would say yes! Especially if you are jumping from link to link,
a 3 fold increase in loading time would be noticeable I would've
thought.

> If you can download a music file in 1.08 seconds, does that really mean you will be buying music all the
> time. No you perhaps will be buying better quality, and perhaps marginally more music.


It means you can listen to the music sooner.

> There is the other option, but its just easier to pay! Sure at 30 Mbps you can download DVD quality
> The Bourne Identity in 11 minutes, but its still going to take you 2 hours to watch it.


Maybe I'm missing the point of his argument, but to me I would rather
spend 11 minutes downloading a DVD which takes 2 hours to watch, than
waiting 30 minutes for the same DVD.

 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2005
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> From Om Malik's article:

>
>> Can your eyes tell the difference between a web-page loading in one
>> second or 0.27 seconds. I guess not.

>
> Ummm, I would say yes! Especially if you are jumping from link to
> link, a 3 fold increase in loading time would be noticeable I would've
> thought.
>
>> If you can download a music file in 1.08 seconds, does that really
>> mean you will be buying music all the time. No you perhaps will be
>> buying better quality, and perhaps marginally more music.

>
> It means you can listen to the music sooner.
>
>> There is the other option, but its just easier to pay! Sure at 30
>> Mbps you can download DVD quality
>> The Bourne Identity in 11 minutes, but its still going to take you 2
>> hours to watch it.

>
> Maybe I'm missing the point of his argument, but to me I would rather
> spend 11 minutes downloading a DVD which takes 2 hours to watch, than
> waiting 30 minutes for the same DVD.


I think the point is that you plan a little. You know, download one while
you're watching the other, don't just act on impulse, organise yourself. You
can download four more DVDs while you watch the one that way.

You don't have to sit there and watch your downloads you know. Something I
learned early having Orcon as an ISP.
--
~misfit~


 
Reply With Quote
 
kriskirk@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2005
> You don't have to sit there and watch your downloads you know. Something I
> learned early having Orcon as an ISP


No, but I'd still rather have a DVD downloaded in 10 mins than in 30
(though 30 would still be awesome compared to what we'd have to wait
now!).

The same argument about faster broadband could be used for LAN speeds -
do we really need 100mbps? Couldn't be just live with a 2mbps network?
Probably, I mean you wouldn't have to sit there and watch files
transferring, but I'm sure the speed difference would be noticeable.

 
Reply With Quote
 
-=rjh=-
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2005
~misfit~ wrote:
> -=rjh=- wrote:
>
>>Arstechnica refer to Om Malik's article and add an interesting
>>perspective here:
>>
>>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051226-5846.html
>>
>>Om Malik's article:
>>
>>http://gigaom.com/2005/12/20/need-for-speed/
>>
>>where he questions the point of going from 15Mbps to 30Mbps (we should
>>be so lucky).
>>
>>And another article which quite relevant:
>>
>>http://gigaom.com/2005/08/29/p2p-the...d-application/

>
>
> Interesting reading, thanks. Makes me wish I'd stuck with my 256k unlimited
> from Orcon. I'm getting 20kB/s at best at 3am on bittorrent of late anyway,
> and paying a lot more for it now on 2M/pay-for-data than I was before.


From what I've been hearing, there seems little point in moving to a
faster plan, and I'm certainly hoping I won't be forced to. What I have
now is good enough.

You probably won't want to look at http://tinypic.com/j9va00.png because
you'll only get ****ed off, but that is how that particular torrent
looked most of the day yesterday - although it was very slow when it
started - the screenshot was taken about 5 minutes ago. Interesting how
the download speed is so much higher than the swarm average.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mutley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2005
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>> You don't have to sit there and watch your downloads you know. Something I
>> learned early having Orcon as an ISP

>
>No, but I'd still rather have a DVD downloaded in 10 mins than in 30
>(though 30 would still be awesome compared to what we'd have to wait
>now!).
>
>The same argument about faster broadband could be used for LAN speeds -
>do we really need 100mbps? Couldn't be just live with a 2mbps network?
>Probably, I mean you wouldn't have to sit there and watch files
>transferring, but I'm sure the speed difference would be noticeable.


Last nite I watched a 5 minute download of a news clip from CDC
(Canada) on broadband in South Korea. One point was made that at one
uni only 20% of students have TVs in their rooms the rest watch TV via
their BB service and it's a service that is growing fast.

Under the present set up here in NZ we may see this at the turn of
this century
 
Reply With Quote
 
-=rjh=-
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2005
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>From Om Malik's article:

>
>
>>Can your eyes tell the difference between a web-page loading in one second or 0.27 seconds. I guess not.

>
>
> Ummm, I would say yes! Especially if you are jumping from link to link,
> a 3 fold increase in loading time would be noticeable I would've
> thought.


Even when browsing on the home network, I doubt that pages are loading
as fast as 0.27 seconds; there's just so many other factors involved,
rather than network speed. And out on the public network, more time is
spent just waiting for adservers to respond, the webserver to assemble
the page, etc. Your browser only makes a small number of connections so
there is quite a delay pulling down all the various parts of the web
page, then assembling them.

PCWorld did a comparison, last year I think, and concluded that for web
browsing, the improvements in real speed weren't noticeable above about
512Mbps.

>
>
>>If you can download a music file in 1.08 seconds, does that really mean you will be buying music all the
>>time. No you perhaps will be buying better quality, and perhaps marginally more music.

>
>
> It means you can listen to the music sooner.


But I already have more music than I can listen to, so I don't even care
if it takes all night to download more. Hell, some of the stuff I get
arrives once a week, so a few hours difference is nothing.

>
>
>>There is the other option, but its just easier to pay! Sure at 30 Mbps you can download DVD quality
>>The Bourne Identity in 11 minutes, but its still going to take you 2 hours to watch it.

>
>
> Maybe I'm missing the point of his argument, but to me I would rather
> spend 11 minutes downloading a DVD which takes 2 hours to watch, than
> waiting 30 minutes for the same DVD.
>


I'd rather pay less, and watch the previous download while the current
one is downloading. Doesn't really take much planning.

For me, speed is relatively unimportant, but having the connection
affordable and always on is very important.

Maybe we should get affordable basic broadband into every NZ home that
wants it, with good upload speeds - say, 256/256/no cap before we even
look at faster options. It seems that our current infrastructure can't
even deal with 2Mbps at present. Maybe the illusion of faster plans
could be used to subsidise the basic plans.
 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2005
-=rjh=- wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>> -=rjh=- wrote:
>>
>>> Arstechnica refer to Om Malik's article and add an interesting
>>> perspective here:
>>>
>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051226-5846.html
>>>
>>> Om Malik's article:
>>>
>>> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/20/need-for-speed/
>>>
>>> where he questions the point of going from 15Mbps to 30Mbps (we
>>> should be so lucky).
>>>
>>> And another article which quite relevant:
>>>
>>> http://gigaom.com/2005/08/29/p2p-the...d-application/

>>
>>
>> Interesting reading, thanks. Makes me wish I'd stuck with my 256k
>> unlimited from Orcon. I'm getting 20kB/s at best at 3am on
>> bittorrent of late anyway, and paying a lot more for it now on
>> 2M/pay-for-data than I was before.

>
> From what I've been hearing, there seems little point in moving to a
> faster plan, and I'm certainly hoping I won't be forced to. What I
> have now is good enough.
>
> You probably won't want to look at http://tinypic.com/j9va00.png
> because you'll only get ****ed off, but that is how that particular
> torrent looked most of the day yesterday - although it was very slow
> when it started - the screenshot was taken about 5 minutes ago.
> Interesting how the download speed is so much higher than the swarm
> average.


Holy Mother of God that's annoying! I've been trying to download a couple of
files with Orcon 2M Autosense plan for the last few days and am averaging
100MB a night!! I happened to be playing with a PC last night that hadn't
been fired up for a while and needed to download some updates (AV etc.).
They came down at between 220kB/s and 250kB/s while Azureus was (doggedly)
getting the other 10kB/s or so. You'd think that, with them claiming that a
large number of their customers are P2P users, they'd look after them a bit
better. You can't tell me that they need 99% of their bandwidth for HTTP at
3am. Or, if they do then they should damn well stop selling new
subscriptions until they get it sorted.
--
~misfit~


 
Reply With Quote
 
kriskirk@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2005
~misfit~ wrote:

> They came down at between 220kB/s and 250kB/s while Azureus was (doggedly)
> getting the other 10kB/s or so. You'd think that, with them claiming that a
> large number of their customers are P2P users, they'd look after them a bit


Are you sure it's Orcon that's causing the slow speeds? It's just that
I'm on the 256k plan and I get huge variations in speed with various
torrents, ranging from 1k/sec to 30k/sec. I've always just put it down
to the other PC's that I'm downloading from or something to do with the
P2P connection rather than Orcon....

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interesting series of articles on building custom PCs and overclocking thingy NZ Computing 5 03-29-2008 02:56 PM
couple of new python articles on onlamp Jeremy Jones Python 2 06-04-2005 04:08 AM
Interesting Articles TechNews Computer Support 0 06-01-2004 11:11 PM



Advertisments