Our Upstream Tubes Remain Clogged

from the 18-hours-to-upload-family-vacation-videos dept

Tue, Dec 19th 2006 1:19am — Karl Bode

Back in 2004 we thought the media might just be waking up to the obvious fact that broadband isn't simply a one-way street. More than two years later most ISPs continue to focus their marketing muscle on downstream speeds; still trying to wow consumers by proclaiming how many times faster their connections are than dial-up, while frequently ignoring upstream speeds entirely. With the rise in user-generated video the last year few years, the press is once again realizing that upstream bandwidth is important, though you wouldn't gather that from listening to ISP executives. They're still stating that they'll offer more upstream speed when users begin asking for it -- which suggests that most users are still using their broadband connections to consume, rather than participate. It's a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg cycle. YouTube visitors view more than 100 million videos a day but upload just 65,000; is this because they don't want to, or because they can't? In the race to gobble up dial-up subscribers, ISPs have been able to dazzle them with downstream speeds. As those acquired customers begin to try and upload high-resolution digital family video at 256kbps, the providers are going to have to change their tune and spring for infrastructure upgrades -- and quickly.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

45 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Someone, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:15am

"visitors view more than 100 million videos a day but upload just 65,000; is this because they don't want to, or because they can't?"

It takes minutes to watch a good Youtube video but MUCH longer to make.

Download speed is much more important to most than upload speed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mit, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:18am

all my friends have broadband at various speeds but not one of us has the upload speeds to be able to host a desent game of unreal tournament. It is ok for 4 or 5 of us but if any more of want to play we have no chance.

I would gladly give up some of my down speed for a greater upspeed to play games in larger groups with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gunther, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:23am

Fiber!
There's several European countries that have done it right. They don't have the restrictions on their telcos and cable companies that our government has put on ours. This means that places like Switzerland have 10mbps up/down for about the price you're paying for your 5-8mbps/256-864 down/up cable.

It's been this way for years, just like the article points out. The reason why is because the same laws are on the books, nothing has changed and no one wants to be the first to lose money on the fiber switch over. (You can thank Clinton for Telco restrictions. Seriously, check your history books.)

Although we're starting to see services like Verizon FIOS, which at first would only install into residential homes, not apartments. Of course you had apartment dwellers complain (with no knowledge of the modifications required to the property) and now FIOS is getting installed in apartments.

Lastly, due to our under-developed infrastructure, not a lot of companies could handle the load of a fiber network on their current equipment. That means more cash spent on getting up to speed.

Either way, the customer gets the shaft. We don't have many alternatives so it's not like we can "stick it to them" and switch companies. In fact, a lot of towns still only have one broadband provider (I KNOW HUH?!?). So, whatever the provider is willing to put out and make profit on is what they will chose, and that tends to be hardware that's been around a while, costs less and can turn a profit instantly off existing lines.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ralph, 19 Dec 2006 @ 4:16am

Re: Fiber!
The real problem with the lack of fiber deployment is that the telco's spent the $200Billion is tax credits for who knows what instead of the improving the circuits to people's homes.

So without fiber you have a much slower uplink due to the technology limits. Heck even fiber deployments like FIOS have limits on the uplink because they are deploying GPON based systems. (Gigabit Passive Optical Networks)

So while that greatly increases the upstream bandwidth available to the consumer it still doesn't make it a 'two way street' more a 2 lanes South 1 lane North Street.

Which IMHO is probably fine. Most consumers are exactly that, consumers not producers of data.

So put the real blame on the politicians who allowed the telcos to take a large tax break instead of updating our infrastructure off from ancient copper. And buy from alternative carriers where you can. The message needs to be sent that people are willing to pay for the services. Only then will the incumbents try to fix the problem. (Note that where FIOS is being deployed the Cable companies have suddenly decided to do trials of faster service (both up and down!) isn't that amazing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matthew, 19 Dec 2006 @ 4:33am

QAM manipulation
In my area we just got another "speed upgrade." Basically we get 7MB/s down because they've gone to 768QAM. Now, on one hand that is very impressive, but on the other my Upload is still 512kb/s so what the hell. I can barely VPN into my home and forget about any sort of video relay or even most web browsing! The pages take forever to display (we're talking about a Duo 2GHz, 2GB RAM laptop with an X1400 display adapter -- not small potatoes) and things are very choppy.

I believe that many companies want to make things better and faster, but the Telcos at the backbone are ultimately relied upon for better circuits and that is where the cookie crumbles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nobody Special, 19 Dec 2006 @ 5:19am

other reasons
First, the upload speed isn't why more videos are downloaded then uploaded. The simple fact is that fewer people make good content then enjoy it. Not everyone has a great idea.

Second, a huge reason upload speeds lag download speeds is that it prevents protects the ISP secondary revenue model of selling web space. ISPs don't want users setting up servers because it is easier for them to not have that situation.

Third, technology for cable, DSL, and satellite really does favor the download side over the upload side. Since these represent the majority of the broadband market it would stand to reason that download speeds are faster then upload.

Finally, even those who do create the best content benefit from the model. Consider that they benefit from YouTube hosting their content. They only upload it once and it can be viewed millions of times. And the creators themselves probably watch more videos then they personally produce thus downloading more then they upload.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MATT, 19 Dec 2006 @ 5:41am

the upload speed debate
the reason for many companies delay in raising upload speed (its quite absurd but expect to hear this excuse)...is usually something along the lines of "makes piracy easier" or "people won';t use it"....its the same denial that anyone else uses...and its a simple budget cut on the provider side.

thank franchise for that, if we actually had small business things would be much better. even with fiber they cap the upload speeds to usually 1/10th of the download speeds...there is nothing restricting upstream speeds
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bumbling old fool, 19 Dec 2006 @ 5:42am

Re: other reasons
First, the upload speed isn't why more videos are downloaded then uploaded. The simple fact is that fewer people make good content then enjoy it. Not everyone has a great idea.

Noone's arguing there would ever be more uploads than downloads... but they are saying the ratio of dl/up is artificially high due to the influence of crappy upload speeds. There will always be more dl/ul... even the uploaders watch more than they create.

Second, a huge reason upload speeds lag download speeds is that it prevents protects the ISP secondary revenue model of selling web space. ISPs don't want users setting up servers because it is easier for them to not have that situation.

That's incredibly backwards. Upload speeds lag download speeds because uplink costs them more. They can cache the downlink stuff and save a ton of money that way. Of course, the long tail defeats this model making downlink more expensive every day. They limit the use of port 80 in an effort to save money on uplink costs. Not because they want to sell web hositng to residential consumers. (They cant compete with a real webhost and they know that, for the most part, they dont even try)

Third, technology for cable, DSL, and satellite really does favor the download side over the upload side. Since these represent the majority of the broadband market it would stand to reason that download speeds are faster then upload.

Again, completely backwards. They pipes they chose to provide to the consumers is geared towards higher dl/ul ratio, because that is cheaper for them. They do NOT treat their business customers in this way, and they deliver the business class service over the same ...pipes... and they will even deliver the business class service to a residential location. However, the business class service is exorbitantly more in price and requires you to provide a federal tax id (even tho its not used for a damn thing).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just woke up, 19 Dec 2006 @ 5:57am

Eu countries
"There's several European countries that have done it right. They don't have the restrictions on their telcos and cable companies that our government has put on ours. This means that places like Switzerland have 10mbps up/down for about the price you're paying for your 5-8mbps/256-864 down/up cable."

You do know that many of the ISPs in EU countries cap monthly download amounts, some as 'low' as 1 or 2 gigs. So while the connection speed is nice, I'd prefer my unlimited download amount. With the higher speeds they get, it just makes it easier to get to the monthly cap. And I think if you go over it, they charge you by the meg, or just not allow you to download anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John, 19 Dec 2006 @ 6:05am

No Servers Allowed
It doesn't much matter how much upstream bandwidth your ISP gives you, because they will not allow you to run a server. Other then servers, such as the UT host mentioned above, how much upstream bandwidth do the vast majority of people really need? Most people just don't have that much data they need to upload on a regular basis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 6:44am

Re: No Servers Allowed
Get a clue, man, or use your imagination. Online file backup? Emailing digital photos without having to downsample first (novices don't seem to understand this operation)? Emailing videos from their digital cameras to their friends? People will find a way to use and appreciate the faster sends.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Erv Server, 19 Dec 2006 @ 6:53am

upload speeds
my ISP have real slow upload speeds, a 1 mb file takes me over 2 days to upload
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Neonghost, 19 Dec 2006 @ 7:29am

Re: Re: Fiber!
I live in Salt Lake City Utah, where we have a new fiber service from Utopia. They have other vendor's who then resell the service for them. The result is that I have a 15mb up and down connection for 44$ a month. And I get the service from a local ISP who's customer service is simply amazing.

My other option is cable, 7mb down 768k up, for 60$ a month. Plus the cable company's support takes 30min to get on the phone and couldn't find their own ass with both hands and flashlight and a map.

My thought is even if people don't need the upload speed Fiber may be the best service for them anyway. If it can be handled other places like it is here in SLC it looks like people can get a better service offered to them by a local vendor who cares about there business.

Hey I can dream.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 7:29am

Over 2 days for a 1MB file? That's not a bandwidth restriction problem, that's a connection problem. Even on dialup, a 1MB file wouldn't take anymore than maybe 10-15 minutes to upload (on VERY slow dialup). Call tech support, because something is definitely not right there.

I don't know the exact reasons for restricting upload bandwidth, but I agree that the ISPs are going to have to start waking up and realizing that with the vast amounts of services available (online photo albums, video sites, online backup, file-sharing over VPN connections to the workplace, gaming, etc.), lots and lots of people desperately need more upload bandwidth.

I've heard from gamers that these pitiful upload speeds are starting to really affect online gaming, because as the games get more advanced and data-hungry, more and more information has to be sent up the pipe to the game servers, and it's quickly becoming a bottleneck that's lagging online gameplay. When I VPN in to work from home and try to browse files on my work computer, it takes like 2 minutes to pull up each folder. Instead, I have resorted to using Remote Desktop, which works much faster and gives me complete control of my work computer. And let's say you want to email a bunch of vacation pictures to family members. With the high-res digital cameras around today, people could very easily be sending some 50+ pictures that are 1MB or larger each. And don't say they should downsize them first because that is simply a bandaid for the problem, and the majority of the people out there aren't smart enough to know how to do that anyway.

Do we need upload speeds to be as fast as download? Of course not. But I don't know of any ISP that offers 1MB or higher upstream (my ISP's fastest package is 6Mbit down and 864Kbit up, and I'm on the 3Mbit/512Kbit package myself), and I would like to see 1.5 to 2 Mbit upstreams available. A 2Mbit upstream would be glorious compared to what I have now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TW Burger, 19 Dec 2006 @ 8:42am

Bandwidth Cost
The greatest expense for a data carrier is bandwidth. It's natural for carrier's to resist adding bandwidth and concentrate on marketing services based on cost and features.

Consumer demand will eventually require upload speeds to be increased once a critical mass of high uploading ratio customers is reached.

At that point upload rates will be a competitive issue between the cable/DSL/satellite providers and investment will be made into adding capacity.

Very high upload speeds are currently available to businesses and the few individuals requiring it if a high fee is paid. The problem is not technology limits or a conspiracy to deny us our god given right to upload the video of uncle Bob getting a baseball in the nads, it's simply supply and demand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhysicsGuy, 19 Dec 2006 @ 9:51am

Despite all the people going on and on about all the nifty things they could do with a faster upstream, it still stands that the ratio of downstream use to upstream use will still sit heavily on the downstream side.

online file storage is a joke insofar as storing arbitrary data online. an online photo album is one thing, but to backup you hd online is borderline retarded. first, you have to pay (and generally NOT on a 1 time basis) for any online storage (c'mon just buy a new hd or some dvds), you could use gmail or some other thing but then who wants to split their files into 10mb chunks? second, what happens when there is a problem server side due to a virus or rollback, i put more trust in my pc being secure than i would anyone else (except a few people i personally know).

as far as digital photos are concerned: i have a 128kbit upstream and i don't have to down sample my photos at all, sure it takes a little longer but who is out there waiting for your photos to be online instantaneously? people don't get upset when files they're not planning on d/ling right now aren't there. also, this hasn't seemed to stop all the myspace losers from uploading all their content. it's called patience people, deal with it or buy business class. this entire section is also applicable to videos as well aside from the down sampling. nobody wants to watch your hd home video so don't bother, even with a high downstream they take too long to download for the content in them. oh and i should address the youtube thing even though plenty of people have hit it on the head. 65,000 videos a day is a lot of content being uploaded. ask yourself how much original content that is and the number drops drastically. frankly, people need to actually have ideas and motivation to produce content. for the most part people don't. then look at the lack of ideas and motivation it takes to watch a video on youtube. considering the people of the world, as a whole, (not just americans) are lazy, uncreative people (please don't deny this, take a long hard look at yourselves and stop living in your fantasy world) it follows that there would be such a drastic skew on the downloads side.

to all the people bitching about their home vpns: vpns aren't for the home. they were developed for businesses in mind, therefore if you wish to feel special and have a home vpn get a business class connection. (btw you're not special for having a home vpn. to be blunt, it's pretty gay)

the ONLY people who have anything to say are those running game servers, as most isps prohibit running other servers (and yes, a lot of isps prohibit running game servers as well). basically, you're being screwed. to the person who said regular gamers are suffering, they're not. even as games get more complex there isn't necessarily more that they need to upload. game developers design games to use as little bandwidth as possible. this is why, if you're at a lan party, you'll see the physics react differently on different computers. because most of the work (i.e. physics, graphics rendering) for these complex games are being handled client side and you're left with location and hitbox/shot comparisons server side.

frankly, people don't really need as fast an upstream as they do a downstream. the ones that are crying that they do are either of the myspace loser crowd and don't realize that nobody really cares about viewing their personal photos and videos (especially not the hd video) or they're trying to do things that home users have no reason to be doing (vpns).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The infamous Joe, 19 Dec 2006 @ 9:58am

Re:
Who you calling a myspace loser, pal? :-P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bumbling old fool, 19 Dec 2006 @ 10:21am

Re:
Physicsguy, you're pretty damn ignorant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Junior, 19 Dec 2006 @ 12:10pm

Re: Re:
"Physicsguy, you're pretty damn ignorant."

quoted for emphasis
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhysicsGuy, 19 Dec 2006 @ 12:21pm

Re: Re:
amazing, you can simply call people names. and that makes you...?

ok...
but they are saying the ratio of dl/up is artificially high due to the influence of crappy upload speeds.

yes, that's what they're saying. despite them saying this, however, it's not the case. as i stated, there are a vast majority of people who would rather watch content than produce it, even when it involves using someone else's material.

They limit the use of port 80 in an effort to save money on uplink costs.

really? they limit the use of port 80? that's funny, that's the one port isps DON'T limit the use of. you CAN host a web server if it's what you fancy, as soon as your isp catches you, however, chances are they're going to drop you.

Upload speeds lag download speeds because uplink costs them more.

not sure what you really mean by this, but taking it at face value it goes as follows. upload speeds lagging download speeds have nothing to do with cost on dsl and not as much to do with cost on cable as you make out. it has to do with how the upstream and downstream are handled over the line and the inefficiencies in the TCP internet protocol. they provide asymmetric dl/ul streams to home providers and symmetirc dl/ul streams to business class. yes, it goes over the same "pipes" as you say but it is handled very differently. there is also worlds of difference between dsl and cable connections. dsl connections are very limited in the maximum amount of bandwidth due to their use of telephone lines (there's also a large difference between adsl and sdsl in use of frequencies used). they split up the frequency used for upstream and downstream which is why you have such a gap between uploading and downloading, if you want more upstream on dsl you have to sacrifice downstream. there's also a frequency range in which they overlap, thus the lag caused on downstream from the upstream (and the tcp inefficiency). the plus side is you're guaranteed a steadier bandwidth because it's not a shared connection like cable. cable is a shared bandwidth connection, that's why on cable you get less downstream during peak hours. however with cable you can have more bandwidth due to the use of cable tv lines. they use channel signals to transfer over the data and use separate channels for downstream and upstream. insofar as cable connections go, yes, it comes down to cost for having a symmetric or asymmetric connection. but why are you going to argue about that? you would naturally expect to pay more for more channels on cable so why wouldn't you pay more for a higher upload stream when it is equivalent to receiving more channels. there is still lag from the upstream on the downstream though because, as i stated a couple times, tcp is prone to losing packets in these instances thus causing lag. also, in many areas business connections aren't that much more and don't require you to provide a federal tax id.

so thanks for calling me ignorant when, rather, it's you who seems to be lacking in information on this subject.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhysicsGuy, 19 Dec 2006 @ 12:22pm

Re: Junior
funny junior, you don't seem to actually have a stance on this one. you can only back up someone who has no real argument to being with. lovely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bumbling old fool, 19 Dec 2006 @ 12:25pm

Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for again proving yourself to be ignorant.

Go do some research (so called physicsguy...) and then come back and explain why every point in your post is dead wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Raptor85, 19 Dec 2006 @ 12:37pm

Re: Re: other reasons
quoting from Bumbling Old Fool Again, completely backwards. They pipes they chose to provide to the consumers is geared towards higher dl/ul ratio, because that is cheaper for them. They do NOT treat their business customers in this way, and they deliver the business class service over the same ...pipes... and they will even deliver the business class service to a residential location. However, the business class service is exorbitantly more in price and requires you to provide a federal tax id (even tho its not used for a damn thing). I'm a Verizon small buisness DSL customer, and really the bandwith isnt any better than the home user packages (3m down 768k up), what they mostly charge you for is the static ip. (that's all i really get that's not in the home package) I'd love FIOS, but unfortunately it's not offered here yet, it'll be at least another year. Also, your federal tax id is your SSN if you dont have a seperate one for a buisness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhysicsGuy, 19 Dec 2006 @ 12:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
interesting, i did do research. it's called college. i'm aware of how data is transfered over lines and how the tcp protocol causes packet loss. i'm still waiting on an actual argument from your side. you do know you can't win debates simply by name calling right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bumbling old fool, 19 Dec 2006 @ 1:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I already provided my argument, and since you failed to notice, my namecalling is a direct retort to your namecalling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhysicsGuy, 19 Dec 2006 @ 1:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
what, the arguments that don't actually hold any ground? as in the limiting of the use of port 80, the one port in which isps don't limit as they'd rather have people who just surf the web than people using large amounts of bandwidth downloading through the bittorrent protocol or by some such means. you're more likely to have your isp limit ports 25 and 110 than port 80. also, i take it you've never set up a web server, ftp server or any server for that matter. and sorry if i offended you by calling myspace users losers. as they reach the developmental stage where they realize superficial relationships are meaningless they'll grow out of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dosquatch, 19 Dec 2006 @ 1:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go do some research (so called physicsguy...) and then come back and explain why every point in your post is dead wrong.

Erm, how exactly do you figure him to be dead wrong? This is what I do for a living, and he's pretty much dead on on every point. You're welcome to believe what you wish, but you'd do well to give credence to what PhysicsGuy is saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 2:04pm

Re:
Despite all the people going on and on about all the nifty things they could do with a faster upstream, it still stands that the ratio of downstream use to upstream use will still sit heavily on the downstream side. No one is arguing against that. The point is, why is it not symmetrical? And since its not, how come there is hefty charge for upping said speed, even though its traveling up the same pipe. So because of poor planning and a surefire way of generating revenue, we must just accept this method bandwidth restrictions? GTFOH online file storage is a joke insofar as storing arbitrary data online. an online photo album is one thing, but to backup you hd online is borderline retarded. You know what happens when people assume right? Thats like Bill Gates in his infamous statement of "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!". Just because you cant dream a little than some of us does not mean our dream has to shattered. Think out of the box of online storage. first, you have to pay (and generally NOT on a 1 time basis) for any online storage (c'mon just buy a new hd or some dvds), you could use gmail or some other thing but then who wants to split their files into 10mb chunks? second, what happens when there is a problem server side due to a virus or rollback, i put more trust in my pc being secure than i would anyone else (except a few people i personally know). So what if people want to pay for such service? what, you the gov't of all things that make sense now? and hello...have you ever heard of a data recovery system? i guess consumers can just go and buy those systems cause it doesnt make sense to upload it to some place for someone else to do it huh? Be happy with your 128kbs upload speed while the rest of us moving forward with technology find other means of using our bandwidth. to all the people bitching about their home vpns: vpns aren't for the home. they were developed for businesses in mind, therefore if you wish to feel special and have a home vpn get a business class connection. (btw you're not special for having a home vpn. to be blunt, it's pretty gay) ......frankly, people don't really need as fast an upstream as they do a downstream. the ones that are crying that they do are either of the myspace loser crowd and don't realize that nobody really cares about viewing their personal photos and videos (especially not the hd video) or they're trying to do things that home users have no reason to be doing (vpns). vpn is not for home users now? GTFOH yep, you're ignorant alright. Either that or you dont know jack about today's technology. Remember my Bill Gates statement. Get a clue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 2:56pm

Re: Re:
You have no concept of what it takes to make your data safe. I venture to say you have no experience with losing or recovering data or redundancy strategies.

Governments..industries..companies..individuals.. all pay big bucks to folks that know how to keep their data safe. It is a damned daunting task. You better believe I will trust my data with a company operated by employees who are unemployed and starving if they lose my data, but don't have to worry about that too much because theyre pros with more experience in the matter than I could ever have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 2:59pm

Re:
"or they're trying to do things that home users have no reason to be doing (vpns)"

I will completely smack you down by asking you to justify why in the hell home users have no reason to use vpns. And how you reconcile this with the fact that many home users do in fact use vpns, for a variety reasons which must seem good to them, scraping along on their scrawny sends.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhysicsGuy, 19 Dec 2006 @ 2:59pm

Re: Re:
why is it not symmetrical? And since its not, how come there is hefty charge for upping said speed, even though its traveling up the same pipe.

i've already addressed why certain types of dsl speeds are not symmetrical. i've also addressed why cable speeds cost more to be made symmetrical. the pricing difference between adsl, sdsl, hdsl, and vdsl come down to your phone company and wanting to charge more for more bandwidth used, seems reasonable as they have to pay for bandwidth as well (moe: "hey, hey, homer, i have to pay for that beer," homer: "no, you have it all wrong moe, people buy beer from you...").

You know what happens when people assume right? Thats like Bill Gates in his infamous statement of "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!". Just because you cant dream a little than some of us does not mean our dream has to shattered. Think out of the box of online storage.

first, if i were thinking outside the box of online storage i wouldn't be thinking about online storage (yes, yes, this is all semantics). also, nowhere in my statement that you quoted did i make an assumption, i stated an opinion followed by my reasoning in what you quoted next.

So what if people want to pay for such service? what, you the gov't of all things that make sense now? and hello...have you ever heard of a data recovery system? i guess consumers can just go and buy those systems cause it doesnt make sense to upload it to some place for someone else to do it huh? Be happy with your 128kbs upload speed while the rest of us moving forward with technology find other means of using our bandwidth.

as i said, why not just buy another hd or some dvds. data recovery on their end would be great but it's not guaranteed, better read the contract you agree to when you sign up to make sure it is, because it would suck if it wasn't in there. for the most part i'm happy with my 128kbps upstream as my isp doesn't allow me to host a server, otherwise i'd prefer a faster upstream.

vpn is not for home users now? GTFOH yep, you're ignorant alright. Either that or you dont know jack about today's technology. Remember my Bill Gates statement. Get a clue.

seriously, why do you need a vpn for home use? it makes sense to do business related stuff from home (what vpns are used for) but there are plenty of other means to have access to your needed files you when you go away. plus, the host of the vpn can be considered servers. isps frown upon servers. aside from all this, let's look at what you'd use a home vpn for. do you need to show someone the photos you have on your home pc? maybe the videos? well take the advice i gave before: learn some patience, it's a great virtue or... upgrade to a business grade connection at home. if you don't understand why having a symmetrical data stream costs more then it is you, my friend, who doesn't "know jack" about today's technology.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhysicsGuy, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:02pm

Re: Re:
most people who use home vpns DON'T have a real need for it. the "hey look at what *I* have" appeal is about it, aside from people who have a home office. to them i say: get a business grade connection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Junior, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:13pm

Re: Re: Re:
Physicsguy...you either work for a telco and or just like to accept what they (telcos) tell you. Like i said, the reason they are symmetrical is because the telcos dont want them to be. Its not impossible, its just about the $$$. Its a revenue generator which needs to come to an end.
I mean seriously...why do I have all of this (6mb) DL speed when we all know i am not going to use it. And it just keeps going up every dam year. But my upload (384kbs)? been the same since 2001. If that makes sense to you than my friend, its a mute point from where on out.
I will not even bother to go on to the VPN subject because like i said, you are ignorant and have no knowledge of how todays technology work. FYI...lower upload bandwidth affects users trying to VPN into their companies network. Like i said, get a clue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhysicsGuy, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
sure, a lower upstream from the host will affect the users connecting to a vpn and on the client side will affect users ability to upload data. it's like ANY network you're connecting to.

the teclos and cable providers cannot provide symmetrical data streams at the same price. i'll agree that they should allow packages where you have a lower downstream and a higher upstream, but, as has been stated, they don't like home users hosting servers, it's against most toses. therefore the need for symmetrical lines still falls primarily on business connections where they do need to host servers and it's allowed. so yes, it's because they don't want them to be symmetrical for home users because its primary use is against their rules. (also consider the effect of many connections compared to that of a few connections. many connections has an overall greater detrimental effect on bandwidth, which is why they don't want every home user hosting servers. again THEY pay for bandwidth as well...)

i also enjoy people who call others ignorant but fail to provide proof and examples of their ignorance. where is it exactly that i lack knowledge in how today's technology works?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhysicsGuy, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:48pm

another thought...
is this all about people being upset that a business needs to make money? if a business doesn't make money it's not a business (well, a business that will last)... therefore they have to set limits so that they will in fact make a profit. (again i reiterate, they pay for bandwidth as well)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bumbling old fool, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:53pm

Re: another thought...
is this all about people being upset that a business needs to make money?

No, this is about you being ignorant in the subject. Might want to go look up the definition, as you meet it perfectly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhysicsGuy, 19 Dec 2006 @ 4:10pm

Re: Re: another thought...
still going on about the ignorant thing when you have yet to show any knowledge on the subject yourself. instead of mindlessly repeating yourself, why don't you do me the favor of showing the points i'm ignorant on and where i'm wrong? wait, you can't? because i'm technically correct with how upstream/downstream works in regards to dsl and cable and everything else is merely opinion? seriously, you're not showing yourself to be informed by merely stating the same thing over and over again and not addressing the counterpoint i provided. you really need to work on your debating technique. although, this is the internet. i guess you do have the flaming technique down, it's too bad that wouldn't hold water in a real debate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 4:17pm

Re: Re: Re:
you can mean anything by "most" x with y dont need y. In this case what you mean is that they don't count enough to be worth discussing. But bear in mind that those that do are far more likely to be early adopters of more expensive, faster upstream consumer level connections. This gives them disproportionate economic power. Along with the gamers and the file sharers and the power users and collaborators who can just plain use as much send as possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bumbling old fool, 19 Dec 2006 @ 4:42pm

Re: Re: Re: another thought...
Your comments are too absurd to even refute.

Port 80 isn't blocked.... WTF?

People don't need bandwidth for bandwidth intensive applications because the ISP has banned you from running bandwidth heavy applications. WTF?

Myspace is for egotistical gays.... WTF?

Uplink isnt more expensive than downlink... WTF?

Conveneince isnt a factor in participation... WTF?

Really, you're IGNORANT
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhysicsGuy, 19 Dec 2006 @ 6:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: another thought...
1. Port 80 isn't blocked... if it were you wouldn't be able to visit web pages... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_80

2. illogical inference. don't confuse an isp banning servers with an isp banning bandwidth intensive applications. it has to do with the amount of connections of the bandwidth intensive application which has a detrimental effect of overall network traffic. if you had one connection transferring at a high rate it would be less of a strain on the network than if you had multiple connections transferring at that same rate. this is why you're seeing isps reconfiguring their network to cap transfers through the bittorrent protocol. not because it's merely a bandwidth intensive application, but rather because of the amount of connections made. bittorrent is great for the server hosting a file because it doesn't need to use as much bandwidth for all the people downloading the file as they send chunks to each other, but it is more "stressful" for the isps of the individual clients downloading the file than it would be if they were just downloading it from a single server.

3. no, it's for egotistical people in general. heterosexuals as well...

4. this is a gray area. the cost comes from bandwidth in general. as i said, there's a trade off between upstream and downstream. yes, the isp can cache web content (all those web pages going through port 80) but it's more difficult to cache other content. cache is data being stored on servers. servers cost money to buy, run and maintain. plus storage space costs money. they have a limited amount of space available for caching data and if they want to cache more it costs more money to do so. considering neither of us work for isps we cannot say what their overall bandwidth costs per bit downloaded / uploaded is. nowhere did i state that it doesn't cost more for the user to have a higher upstream, i made it clear in my post on upstream/downstream WHY it costs more for cable users to have a higher upstream and why dsl can only offer a limited upstream. my whole post on upstream / downstream was based off of your incorrect comment as to why the upstream lags the downstream. as i said, i'm not sure exactly what you meant by that but i took it to mean what it sounds like. when you upload your download lags. if you meant something else you phrased your response incorrectly, perhaps from your ignorance in dealing with computer terminology(?)

5. illogical inference and illogical reasoning. you're proclaiming that duration of wait solely defines convenience. youtube is very convenient for hosting your videos and having them play for millions. they couldn't make it easier, and due to the resolution of youtube videos there's not that long of a wait. if you want to make it more convenient you should try a rally for free digital camcorders for everyone. from what it seems to me, the biggest hurdle for people who would want to put content online but can't wouldn't be the fact that it would take them a couple extra minutes over someone with a higher upstream, it would be the ability to actually produce the content were they so inclined to do so. were you to say, "well use a webcam, they're relatively cheap." well, they also produce low res material that is designed to work just fine with the upstream we currently have. the only problem comes when dealing with high res video and why wouldn't you down sample the file to the res youtube uses first? given that you can afford a digital camcorder.

once again, you failed to provide and kind of argument and are essentially reiterating your personal assault.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhysicsGuy, 19 Dec 2006 @ 6:25pm

oh, and in case you're referring to isps blocking port 80 coming INTO the client computer, that's a completely pointless act and most isps don't do that as you can host a web server on whatever port you'd like. whether or not port 80 is blocked can be found by simply doing a port scan. from experience i can tell you that plenty of people have port 80 open... :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bumbling old fool, 19 Dec 2006 @ 7:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: another thought...
1. Nice try to save on followup post 41, but you prove in #2 that you still dont get it.

2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA, thats the funniest thing I've heard all minute. Now you're not ignorant, now you're delusional.

3. I stand corrected on minor technicality and stand proven correct on major point.

4. Again, you're missing how the ISP saves money here, from my first post, they do it by caching the content in the local loop. This savings is weakened as the long tail of the internet gets longer. Until it is futile to cache, downlink will be cheaper for an isp to sell to a consumer than uplink.

5. No, you are the only one attempting to make a SOLELY statement. I said it has an impact.

Also you keep saying noone needs bandwidth because they are not allowed to use bandwidth. What?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhysicsGuy, 19 Dec 2006 @ 8:05pm

1. save? many games use port 80 on the client side. blocking port 80 would piss off a lot of gamers. isps only block port 80 client side when they find out they're hosting a web server.

2. you obviously don't know a thing about networks. i recommend taking a class or two.

3. what, that i have an opinion regarding myspace users?

4. possibly, i don't know the profit isps make on either, nor do you.

5. not at all, you need to refresh yourself on logic. you made no such claim except through a vague statement. poor trolling attempt.

you're good at making illogical inferences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2006 @ 9:33am

Re:
1. You are flat-out incorrect. A game would be insane to use inbound 80 because its blocked by most ISPs. ISPs block port 80 because they want to sell business class service to you if you want to run a web server. Theyre fine with you running a web server on a different port because that looks incredibly unprofessional. It looks like a dude running it from his home internet connection. You can't run a business that way.

2. You are flat-out incorrect. An active BT or filesharing client is far more likely on your typical user's machine to max out the send than a web server which is bursty in activity. While it is obviously more stressful to handle 1000 connections at 256kbps than 1 connection at 256kbps, that hasnt stopped ISPs from allowing it.. has it? The fact is, their business and distribution technologies are set up in such a way that they do not want you to send very much.

3. waste of time

4. There are other reasons that downlink is cheaper than uplink. Downlink is more crucial to selling internet. If they give everyone more uplink, then that would cost them customers as there would be less downlink available. Furthermore, there are technical reasons why connections are asynchronous and it costs more to offer sends: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADSL take a look here for an eye-opening introduction to engineering problems you hadnt considered.

5. I lost track of what this point was all about. The debating has seemed to consist of construction of arbitrary sentences unrelated to the one before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Harrison, 29 Dec 2006 @ 11:12am

VPN for home use!
Greetings from the UK...

I run a training course here for ELECTRICIANS that covers the pros and cons of setting up of VPNs vs. Reverse proxies for securing home networks.

Why do electricians want to do this?

Because of the huge growth of network-enabled control of lighting, heating and CCTV.

If you don't think that upstream bandwidth is important, tell that to the people who use used it to see their houses burgled live fast enough to get the police there to make the arrests!

[Declaration - I have a financial interest in Harmony, Europe's leading software for home control - which is, to be fair, why I run the courses!]
[ link to this | view in thread ]