Does faster broadband really matter?

Iria · Dec 26, 2005, 07:45 PM

Internet blogger Om Malik has written an interesting piece on the new, faster broadband connections that are now becoming available to US consumers. His premise is that the faster speeds are not that important, because they don't translate into a significantly better experience for the end user.

The gist of his argument is that most online activities, like standard websurfing, are not significantly sped up by high-bandwidth connections, and the few that are, such as downloading, are not typically time-sensitive anyway:

Websurfing runs at only about a megabit per second, and nearly everything else except downloading is effectively throttled down at the source. Downloading turns out to have some natural limits as well; at 100 Mbps, you can download enough music for 24 hours of listening in only four minutes per day. The practical result, confirmed by high speed leaders like Masayoshi Son of Yahoo BB in Japan, is that the faster speeds yield only a extremely modest increase in real traffic demand.

He goes on to suggest that the push for faster Internet connections comes from the network operators themselves. With all the infrastructure already in place, it costs only a tiny bit more to offer a higher-speed connection, but the consumer can be charged a significantly higher amount for "premium" access. This is a fairly standard formula for most businesses. The concept of "super-sizing" fast food works in a similar fashion, for example.
__________
Read More / Source: Ars Technica

BWX · Dec 26, 2005, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Even in truly immersive multiplayer games, its the latency, not the speed that matters.

Quote:

Since the incumbents throttle the uplink speeds to barely usable, the broadband remains quasi one-way. P2P, the one true broadband technology is yet to blossom, especially in the legal realm.

YUP.

Judas · Dec 27, 2005, 12:55 AM

higher rated internet speeds directly refect how low the latency can get.

For example... to obtain some of the higher transfer rates.. cable or DSL providers sometimes increase quality/strength or other such things to MAKE obtaining those speeds possible.

i had 3mb/s cable, roughly averaging 125-150ms .... 5mb/s is roughly 100-125
7mb/s is roughly 75-100ms.... An undisclosed mb/s, i'm able to obtain on average of 50-60ms to a specific site.. HOWEVER, limited by routers/server outside of my ISPs control.

So as you start pushing over 10mb/s ... pings usually start hovering around the 25ms and lower within reason of how close you are... i mean, someone a matter of a few hundred feet from the main place..... vs someone several thousand... your bloody well going to know there is going to be a bit of a gap.... but the faster the speeds... generally the better/more stable/lower the pings are.

Course there are other cases... where wireless or Satalite internet.. pings are enourmous in comparison... but download speeds are wow.... through the roof fast..

SFOSOK · Dec 27, 2005, 01:15 AM

As long as Ping is lower than 100 there is not a problem.

KNIBBO · Dec 27, 2005, 01:40 AM

The person who wrote that article must have his head in the sand. I currently have a 6Mb/s connection. To download a full DVD takes me about 2 hours.

I suppose being able to download that same DVD in 2 seconds wouldn't make a difference to anybody. Selling DVD's for download online (legally) ... I don't suppose anybody would rather pay for a DVD, download and watch it right away rather than wait 2 hours...nah...why would anybody want that?

LOL

Now just think of the implications when it comes to usenet and P2P.

BWX · Dec 27, 2005, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas

higher rated internet speeds directly refect how low the latency can get.

For example... to obtain some of the higher transfer rates.. cable or DSL providers sometimes increase quality/strength or other such things to MAKE obtaining those speeds possible.

i had 3mb/s cable, roughly averaging 125-150ms .... 5mb/s is roughly 100-125
7mb/s is roughly 75-100ms.... An undisclosed mb/s, i'm able to obtain on average of 50-60ms to a specific site.. HOWEVER, limited by routers/server outside of my ISPs control.

So as you start pushing over 10mb/s ... pings usually start hovering around the 25ms and lower within reason of how close you are... i mean, someone a matter of a few hundred feet from the main place..... vs someone several thousand... your bloody well going to know there is going to be a bit of a gap.... but the faster the speeds... generally the better/more stable/lower the pings are.

Course there are other cases... where wireless or Satalite internet.. pings are enourmous in comparison... but download speeds are wow.... through the roof fast..

I have cable.. and a crappy ISP.. Adelphia, but not for too much longer as they are being sold to TW.

As soon as they offered the "premier" tire.. The latency was worse, but then again it was never great to begin with. I have a 6mbit/0.9mbit connection and latency has nothing to do with overall d/l speed when it comes to my ISP. I think there are a lot of other factors in play, like routing, overall health of the network, etc. DSL is much slower but around here it has MUCH better latency/ ping times for games.

jkayca2 · Dec 27, 2005, 08:38 AM

I have to agree somewhat with the article. I currently have a 3mb DSL connection. It's really fine for what I do. Bell Sympatico, my ISP, calls me every once a while to try and sell me their 5mb service. I just don't see the need. For the extra $10 a month it isn't worth it.

Dec 26, 2005, 07:45 PM	#1
Iria DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 7,275 Rep Power: 74	Does faster broadband really matter? Internet blogger Om Malik has written an interesting piece on the new, faster broadband connections that are now becoming available to US consumers. His premise is that the faster speeds are not that important, because they don't translate into a significantly better experience for the end user. The gist of his argument is that most online activities, like standard websurfing, are not significantly sped up by high-bandwidth connections, and the few that are, such as downloading, are not typically time-sensitive anyway: Websurfing runs at only about a megabit per second, and nearly everything else except downloading is effectively throttled down at the source. Downloading turns out to have some natural limits as well; at 100 Mbps, you can download enough music for 24 hours of listening in only four minutes per day. The practical result, confirmed by high speed leaders like Masayoshi Son of Yahoo BB in Japan, is that the faster speeds yield only a extremely modest increase in real traffic demand. He goes on to suggest that the push for faster Internet connections comes from the network operators themselves. With all the infrastructure already in place, it costs only a tiny bit more to offer a higher-speed connection, but the consumer can be charged a significantly higher amount for "premium" access. This is a fairly standard formula for most businesses. The concept of "super-sizing" fast food works in a similar fashion, for example. __________ Read More / Source: Ars Technica

Dec 27, 2005, 01:15 AM	#4
SFOSOK -Thread Ender- Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Riverside, CA (right next to the f*ckin train) Posts: 6,873 Rep Power: 48 System Specs	As long as Ping is lower than 100 there is not a problem. __________________ Warning - Explicit Content Preceeding METAL!!

Dec 27, 2005, 08:38 AM	#7
jkayca2 DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 379 Rep Power: 0	I have to agree somewhat with the article. I currently have a 3mb DSL connection. It's really fine for what I do. Bell Sympatico, my ISP, calls me every once a while to try and sell me their 5mb service. I just don't see the need. For the extra $10 a month it isn't worth it. __________________ [color=Blue]PNY Verto GeFORCE 6800GT AGP 256MB DDR3 - 1 GHz Win XP Pro (SP 2) - Directx 9.0c Intel P4 2.8C GHz - Abit IS7 Mobo 2x512 + 2x1024 MB PC 3200 DDR WD 74 GB Raptor + WD 120 GB HD with 8 MB Cache Hercules Gamesurround Fortissmo 7.1 Logitech Z5500 Speaker System Leadtek WinFast TV 2000 XP Deluxe LG GSA-4160B DVD Burner Logitech LX700 Keyb, mouse combo Mitsubishi DiamondPro 2070SB 22" CRT[/color]

Dec 27, 2005, 01:40 AM	#5
KNIBBO DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 39 Rep Power: 0	The person who wrote that article must have his head in the sand. I currently have a 6Mb/s connection. To download a full DVD takes me about 2 hours. I suppose being able to download that same DVD in 2 seconds wouldn't make a difference to anybody. Selling DVD's for download online (legally) ... I don't suppose anybody would rather pay for a DVD, download and watch it right away rather than wait 2 hours...nah...why would anybody want that? LOL Now just think of the implications when it comes to usenet and P2P.