The content that is expensive is video. If customers have huge Internet connections that are capable of HDTV, they will want to use them. With the current layout and cost of Internet transit (and for the foreseeable future for that matter), delivering free HDTV content is a non-starter.
Personally, I'd be surprised if delivering paid HDTV content anytime soon is a profit well.
If it takes "giving away" HD content - Yes, they most certainly will.
Perhaps. 20 years from now, at earliest. The ad revenue today cannot pay for video at drastically lower frame rates and with low quality audio. The video sites have been scrambling to stay online with no imminent hope of profitability (for the video divisions, at least). You make a highly uninformed statement, here.
You mean, like the rest of the 1st world (other than the US) has?
And another highly uninformed statement. There are pockets of very high bandwidth in some places, however that high bandwidth is a) typically only usable within a network segment (size of which varies), while the rest of the Internet is no quicker than you expect it in North America and much of it is slower because of distant network adjacency. Also, many places where you can get "100Mbps Ethernet," you are getting a 100Mbps shared connection to an oversold (which is not the bad word you probably think it is) transit point. Oh, it says 100Mbps on the sales brochure but you're not downloading your Liveleaks any faster than a guy in Alabama on a wireless access point.
Internet bandwidth fanboys are some of the most delusional, annoying people...
Best of luck getting the content producers to provide you free content at HDTV speeds. And best of luck actually switching that many packets per second at the NOCs.
It doesn't matter. It wasn't our generation, or our great great great great great grandparent's generation. But we're now paying for it like it was. And it's about time it stopped, because it is doing nobody any favours, least of all the native americans.
Oh my... in lots of only 1.5Mb I can't offer you that sort of pricing... you'll have to order at least 50Mbps for that sort of price. Sorry, I hate to misquote, but...!
You nailed it. To a degree, I have to disagree that Wi-Fi will ever be a good technology for blanketing a whole city, but I agree mostly on the concept of a properly done WiMax setup.
However, this is not without its problems either. Customers would have to buy Wimax equipment and also pay spectrum licensing fees, since it's far from free to buy it. And it doesn't work as well as the vendors would like us to believe.
Municipal wireless & fibre is no problem as long as it's open for competitive access. That's rarely the case, in which point it's an abuse of government funding. But let's not open that can of worms.
I'm entirely behind the concept of the municipalities running fibre and wireless networks, as long as they don't try to shrug existing providers aside and provide open competitive access to service providers using their network.
I operate a fixed wireless ISP with 40 towers and over 1,500 (deeply) rural customers. Just so we're clear on the level I'm speaking at.
Actually, you have several things wrong. Mesh radios CAN be set to low power modes but invariably they are not. They are set to blast at or near full power because nearby interference causes issues that only power output can solve. Sectorizing only solves so much. But even those that aren't set up that way still exhibit many issues. At a full 36db EIRP, 2.4Ghz will indeed go 20 miles line of site and beyond, if the noise floor is low enough and the radio is high enough. 5.2Ghz cannot use reflectors and only has a useful range of a few kilometers, but it's the lowest power of the available bands.
Take a look at the 2.4Ghz backhauls that go over 40 miles with standard EIRP. Not that PCMCIA cards will power that far, but the A.P.s will. One company makes a product that claims 216Mbps full duplex over 20 miles, in fact.
So the question to you: If mesh gear worked so well, why is everyone having trouble with them?
As for interference... 5.8Ghz noise levels are horrendous around here, 2.4Ghz is only good for backhaul links for towers that are way out in the middle of nowhere, for multipoint it's nearly unusable, and 5.2Ghz is moderately noisy as well. I'm hoping the 5.4G and 4.9G radios will be available really soon because I need them. Speaking of that, my damn Motorola OFDM radios still can't be set to 4.9G even though it says right on the box that they support that band.
Then there's 900Mhz... the interference in the top of the usable unlicensed band made it unusable and if two WISPs in an area decide to use 900Mhz, they'll both lose... and the beat goes on.
The only real way out of the mess is to go with proprietary WiMax type products, and if you see another one of my posts, that's not a completely infallable solution, either.
WiMax has its limitations too, and plenty of them. Chief amongst those is that it doesn't work as advertised (3 miles non line of site? In absolutely perfectly ideal conditions, perhaps). It's good... but it's basically good old OFDM re-packaged into multipoint.
The major issue has been that they have given the contracts to implementors that are paid for the number of radios that they install and by gosh they will install more radios than anyone every imagined. But, see, the 2.4Ghz bands were already polluted BEFORE they started and installing 2.4G radios on every block for several square miles when each mesh radio has a practical range (line of sight) of around 20 miles is really not helping things. And just as bad, the backhaul of the mesh radios is almost always 5.2Ghz or 5.8Ghz, which have only a few channels each to choose from (5.8Ghz has more, but still...)
Don't believe this could happen? Ask anyone that has tried to use the Toronto mesh network downtown. It's flat ugly.
My, what a wide paint brush you have, Doc. I'm such a scumbag that I invested $2.5M into a wireless network to service customers out in the middle of nowhere on a five-year amortization plan with no guarantees of payback. AND I did it with an install fee below cost, with no equipment rental fee or purchase, just a standard $44.95/mo charge.
When's the last time you spent $2.5M of your money because nobody else was going to provide high speed service to the sparse Canadian back-country population? I'm guessing.......... never. But I'm sure you still feel dramatically superior in all ways to me anyway, it's the nature of a clueless troll to do that.
As far as who made money, well... I stayed out of Toronto on purpose. I don't need to make uber-millions, just live a decent life. Surprise! But on the subject of success, where do you think the $2.5M to set up our wireless network came from... it wasn't loans, sizzlechest.
Speaking of chests, where do you get shirts big enough to fit that stuffed chest of yours into?
See, this post makes sense. Most of the wankers on here are generalizing like all Internet connections are sold as "unlimited" and all ISPs are selling the same service level.
It's not better to cap transfer speed than data amounts for all applications and all people. It's simply not.
Clearly, you are on the side of BIG DOWNLOADS rather than small packets. Citrix users, game players, etc. want less latency and better consistency than just GIMME ALL I CAN GET. Don't forget there is more than one philosophy for the worth of an Internet connection.
Slashdot Mirror
The content that is expensive is video. If customers have huge Internet connections that are capable of HDTV, they will want to use them. With the current layout and cost of Internet transit (and for the foreseeable future for that matter), delivering free HDTV content is a non-starter.
Personally, I'd be surprised if delivering paid HDTV content anytime soon is a profit well.
It's ok, you don't know who you're talking to.
If it takes "giving away" HD content - Yes, they most certainly will.
Perhaps. 20 years from now, at earliest. The ad revenue today cannot pay for video at drastically lower frame rates and with low quality audio. The video sites have been scrambling to stay online with no imminent hope of profitability (for the video divisions, at least). You make a highly uninformed statement, here.
You mean, like the rest of the 1st world (other than the US) has?
And another highly uninformed statement. There are pockets of very high bandwidth in some places, however that high bandwidth is a) typically only usable within a network segment (size of which varies), while the rest of the Internet is no quicker than you expect it in North America and much of it is slower because of distant network adjacency. Also, many places where you can get "100Mbps Ethernet," you are getting a 100Mbps shared connection to an oversold (which is not the bad word you probably think it is) transit point. Oh, it says 100Mbps on the sales brochure but you're not downloading your Liveleaks any faster than a guy in Alabama on a wireless access point.
Internet bandwidth fanboys are some of the most delusional, annoying people...
Best of luck getting the content producers to provide you free content at HDTV speeds. And best of luck actually switching that many packets per second at the NOCs.
This is why I love the Internet. Right here.
Denial is rarely a good solution.
It doesn't matter. It wasn't our generation, or our great great great great great grandparent's generation. But we're now paying for it like it was. And it's about time it stopped, because it is doing nobody any favours, least of all the native americans.
Fuck white guilt. I don't feel guilty. I feel used.
He's right. It's time.
Uh... no, bandwidth hasn't got any cheaper in several years. And no, it's not as cheap as you think.
That's possible, but the radios claim to do it. They mention nothing about a key requirement or a specific software load.
Oh my... in lots of only 1.5Mb I can't offer you that sort of pricing... you'll have to order at least 50Mbps for that sort of price. Sorry, I hate to misquote, but...!
Relatively good post. Tropos' stuff is horrendous.
Tranzeo is kind of a neat company. Their stuff is damned inexpensive and it works pretty well, from my experience.
You nailed it. To a degree, I have to disagree that Wi-Fi will ever be a good technology for blanketing a whole city, but I agree mostly on the concept of a properly done WiMax setup.
However, this is not without its problems either. Customers would have to buy Wimax equipment and also pay spectrum licensing fees, since it's far from free to buy it. And it doesn't work as well as the vendors would like us to believe.
Municipal wireless & fibre is no problem as long as it's open for competitive access. That's rarely the case, in which point it's an abuse of government funding. But let's not open that can of worms.
I'm entirely behind the concept of the municipalities running fibre and wireless networks, as long as they don't try to shrug existing providers aside and provide open competitive access to service providers using their network.
I operate a fixed wireless ISP with 40 towers and over 1,500 (deeply) rural customers. Just so we're clear on the level I'm speaking at.
Actually, you have several things wrong. Mesh radios CAN be set to low power modes but invariably they are not. They are set to blast at or near full power because nearby interference causes issues that only power output can solve. Sectorizing only solves so much. But even those that aren't set up that way still exhibit many issues. At a full 36db EIRP, 2.4Ghz will indeed go 20 miles line of site and beyond, if the noise floor is low enough and the radio is high enough. 5.2Ghz cannot use reflectors and only has a useful range of a few kilometers, but it's the lowest power of the available bands.
Take a look at the 2.4Ghz backhauls that go over 40 miles with standard EIRP. Not that PCMCIA cards will power that far, but the A.P.s will. One company makes a product that claims 216Mbps full duplex over 20 miles, in fact.
So the question to you: If mesh gear worked so well, why is everyone having trouble with them?
As for interference... 5.8Ghz noise levels are horrendous around here, 2.4Ghz is only good for backhaul links for towers that are way out in the middle of nowhere, for multipoint it's nearly unusable, and 5.2Ghz is moderately noisy as well. I'm hoping the 5.4G and 4.9G radios will be available really soon because I need them. Speaking of that, my damn Motorola OFDM radios still can't be set to 4.9G even though it says right on the box that they support that band.
Then there's 900Mhz... the interference in the top of the usable unlicensed band made it unusable and if two WISPs in an area decide to use 900Mhz, they'll both lose... and the beat goes on.
The only real way out of the mess is to go with proprietary WiMax type products, and if you see another one of my posts, that's not a completely infallable solution, either.
Haha... ok I get the joke, but I doubt that many people do... fibre and wi-fi are different things.
WiMax has its limitations too, and plenty of them. Chief amongst those is that it doesn't work as advertised (3 miles non line of site? In absolutely perfectly ideal conditions, perhaps). It's good... but it's basically good old OFDM re-packaged into multipoint.
More than that, they need their own spectrum, and they need a lot of it. Which means they need proprietary cards which will connect to their spectrum.
The major issue has been that they have given the contracts to implementors that are paid for the number of radios that they install and by gosh they will install more radios than anyone every imagined. But, see, the 2.4Ghz bands were already polluted BEFORE they started and installing 2.4G radios on every block for several square miles when each mesh radio has a practical range (line of sight) of around 20 miles is really not helping things. And just as bad, the backhaul of the mesh radios is almost always 5.2Ghz or 5.8Ghz, which have only a few channels each to choose from (5.8Ghz has more, but still...)
Don't believe this could happen? Ask anyone that has tried to use the Toronto mesh network downtown. It's flat ugly.
Does anyone really expect that Microsoft would fund a completely selfless and accurate poll no matter what the subject?
My, what a wide paint brush you have, Doc. I'm such a scumbag that I invested $2.5M into a wireless network to service customers out in the middle of nowhere on a five-year amortization plan with no guarantees of payback. AND I did it with an install fee below cost, with no equipment rental fee or purchase, just a standard $44.95/mo charge.
When's the last time you spent $2.5M of your money because nobody else was going to provide high speed service to the sparse Canadian back-country population? I'm guessing.......... never. But I'm sure you still feel dramatically superior in all ways to me anyway, it's the nature of a clueless troll to do that.
As far as who made money, well... I stayed out of Toronto on purpose. I don't need to make uber-millions, just live a decent life. Surprise! But on the subject of success, where do you think the $2.5M to set up our wireless network came from... it wasn't loans, sizzlechest.
Speaking of chests, where do you get shirts big enough to fit that stuffed chest of yours into?
See, this post makes sense. Most of the wankers on here are generalizing like all Internet connections are sold as "unlimited" and all ISPs are selling the same service level.
It's funny. You're saying you know so much about ISPs, I've been the president of one for 15 years. Yes, 15.
But go on with your bullshit diatribe, it's amusing in a troll-kicking kind of way.
It's not better to cap transfer speed than data amounts for all applications and all people. It's simply not.
Clearly, you are on the side of BIG DOWNLOADS rather than small packets. Citrix users, game players, etc. want less latency and better consistency than just GIMME ALL I CAN GET. Don't forget there is more than one philosophy for the worth of an Internet connection.
First, you wish I fantasized.
Second, I have trouble believing you. You'd know more. And you don't.
Shenanigans.