What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
186 Comments
- Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -5/+217Why not?
A long time ago, my computer had 16 MB of ram. Couldn't see the need for more. Everything worked fine.
My friend upgraded his new Dell to 64 and I thought he was nuts.
Wouldn't you like to dl a movie in moments? - CaptMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+145"I can't honestly see myself, or most people, fully utilizing this."
Maybe I'm not most people, but I think 160mbps would make those 50gb multi-season TV show torrents go faster for me. That's not to mention what these speeds will mean for IPTV. - lemekim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+91One thing to note is that this won't be actual speed that consumers will see:
"The technology has the potential to bump download speeds to 160Mbps and upload speeds to 120Mbps, although that bandwidth will be divided up between households attached to a single node."
Exisiting DOCSIS 1.1 is capable of 42.88 Mbit/s down and 10.24 Mbit/s up, although obviously we don't see these speeds. Comparing existing Comcast speeds (6 Mbit/s down and 786 kbit/s up) with the DOCSIS limit, we can expect to see download speed somewhere in the 20 Mbit/s range down and 5 Mbit/s up. That's still a big improvement, but a bit more realistic. - Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+59All that matters is upload speed. 160mbps downstream is useless if the upstream is 768kbps.
- Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+44"thus cutting their costs and allowing them to sell cheaper."
Um, how about "thus cutting their costs and allowing them to make more profit."?
When have they ever sold cheaper? - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -11/+53@wonderkind
It's not going to happen any time soon...that's a total download speed of 160 Mbps. It doesn't account for the fact that upload speeds are still going to be considerably slower, or that there will be a lot of hosts without this faster plan. - gharding, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33I'd certainly use it. Currently when I download an HD-DVD image, it takes a good 8 hours or so and leaves me very little bandwidth left for regular browsing. There's more and more HD content on the web these days, and it won't be too long until we get HD (I'm talking 1080p) content delivery (especially with legit bittorrent) and need decent connections like this. Sure, mom and dad will probably be happy with their 1mbit connection, but I'm not.
@alecks:
Bandwidth and hardware is getting cheaper and cheaper. Plus, a lot of delivery methods for large files are heading towards P2P/Bittorrent. I'd be willing to wager that I could max out a 100mbit connection within 2 minutes of having it. - lieutenantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25T1 and T3 can not carry that much bandwidth. They are copper and the technology is decades old.
- basilmurphy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26
Rogers and Bell here in Ontario/Canada have 16Mbs service (Yes, I know, 16 not 160), but they have stupidly low download caps (90 GB for Rogers, 75 for Bell).
It doesn't matter how fast they make it for me if they put really small caps. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26>>My comcast connection averages 18-19 mbps every time I speed test it on speakeasy, but i rarelly, if ever, have found a server capable of matching that.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't use bittorrent. - Shuk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21If this were to become widespread: imagine a High Definition Youtube that would stream at the same speeds!
- marnaq, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22"12Mbps DSL ought to be enough for anyone." --marnaq, May 2007.
- cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20I can't believe people have bandwidth caps. THAT'S what's nuts.
- asjk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23"Over 100 Mbps would be amazing, but I can't honestly see myself, or most people, fully utilizing this."
Careful Mr. Gates, you don't want any of your predictions come back to haunt you. Truthfully, I don't think I even peg today's download limitations too often but the HD versions of some video clips come closest. BTW the South Koreans are putting us to shame as mentioned in TFA and the link below takes one to the previous Digg discussion - Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18If you really had 160 meg down / 768k up, you wouldn't even need to be doing any uploading to be upload limited - just the TCP ack packets for a 160 Mbps download would more than saturate that upload link.
- c0d3z3r0, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27You're lucky, where I live comcast has less than 3mb/s, but 100mb/s would be awesome, we could download podcasts really fast.
- Y0tsuya, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15160mbps download is useless if your usage cap is only 100GB/mo. You blow through that in an hour and half.
- bigteebo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Great, now when will every web host & nationwide backbone upgrade their UPLOAD speeds to better use this?
And true, we do need faster upload speeds. They are still stuck in the dark ages, kind of like attachment limits for email. - Bega, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15***** I'll take 12mbps over what I have, $50 a month for 1.5mbps sounds like a really bad deal. unfortunately that's my only option where I live :(
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Photo and video uploading are becoming a stable of the new internet. With speeds like these, immediately millions of people who upload to YouTube or Flickr will find that the internet is not a slow and static thing, but it will finally be a dynamic, smooth, and quick thing. And to boot, television stations and movie studios are seeing more and more than the internet is a new distribution medium, and speeds like this will be required for timely HD movie downloads and, more importantly, streaming HD videos.
- wormhole, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13That's exactly what I was thinking. My Roadrunner is giving me 8Mb/512Kb, which blows monkey nuts. Nothing like trying to send my parents some photos at speeds slower than I can drive and deliver them myself. A three digit download speed is mostly useless to me, without an accompanying upload increase.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Are 802.11g or n bandwidths able to keep up? I mean if I have >100Mb/s coming to the house, but then use wifi from there, aren't I still very limited in speed? Or am I shifting a decimal somewhere?!?
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Us Americans are lagging behind the UK if most people are getting 10Mb right now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13It's not 160Mbps to your desktop - it's a shared bandwith per node, allocated how the cableco sees fit. DOCSIS 3.0 is roughly 4x faster than DOCSIS 2.0.
But I'm not complaining about an up to 4x improvement in speed either. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Hopefully upload speeds will improve in the near future. Those of us who work from home would really appreciate it.
- kahranx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13160Mbps download but we'll still have a 384Kbps upload.
- dstew74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11The reasons why 19 countries are ahead of the industrialized United States, both in broadband market penetration and speed averages, are not always clear and well-defined. The United State's Defense Department is responsible for the creation of the Internet, how did they fall behind countries like Luxembourg? The easy answer is a lack of government policy or direction. The hard answer is because of the capitalist market and forces that drive the American economy. Another reason is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act allowed deregulation before competition in all aspects of the telecommunications market. Companies merged with potential rivals in local markets, and tended to stay away from competing markets. Natural monopolies formed and continue to operate unimpeded to this day.
The u-Japan project fosters competition and the results are 1 G bps speeds becoming available to a significant portion of Japanese subscribers. All while the FCC defines broadband speed in the United States as being any speed greater than 200 K bps, which is a far cry from the average 50 – 100 M bps speeds found in Korea or Japan. Korea's IT839 plan is a road map for something wonderful. Every IT college student should be made to read it to understand what challenges the United States will face in the upcoming years. - cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Mb, dude, Mb
- dh8r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10http://www22.verizon.com/content/fiostv/on+demand+and+ppv/on+demand+and+ppv.htm
FIOS has it too, although it's not available everywhere, and relies on new hardware. It is faster though... - Xanium4332, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9yeah but we have stupidly low caps, and there aren't ANY companies offering pure unlimited (except for one mentioned below).
They are either:
- Permanently restricted speeds on some ports (i.e. bittorrent, ftp) - sold as unlimited
- Bandwidth cap of 10Gb - still sold as unlimited but only mentioned in the "fair usage policy"
- Restricted speed over specified limit - again still sold as unlimited
The only way I know to get unlimited (and is what I do), is to get a business connection. For me it's no more expensive, just no caps!
The *best* company in my opinion is the UK FSN (http://www.ukfsn.org/). They offer straight, plainly stated, caps (of reasonable sizes, for example 40,60,80gb). Or a pure unlimited connection, which although does cost a fair bit, does what it actually says on the tin. If you go over a cap, you pay an extra £5 and get an instant upgrade to the next allowance level. No cutting you off or speed throttling.
Oh, and they are non-profit organization. All profits are donated to FOS software projects!
P.S. I'm not an affiliate or anything, just promoting an I.S.P. which should have greater public awareness... - michaelbolton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9gaming quality isn't determined by download rate. quality is based on low ping rates.
super high bandwidth only means that you can download the maps faster. - SanTe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8c0d3z3r0 wrote:
"You're lucky, where I live comcast has less than 3mb/s, but 100mb/s would be awesome, we could download podcasts really fast."
Your low download speed might not be caused your cable provider. If you live in an older house/building there is a good possibility that the building's internal co-ax wiring could be bad, and worn/frayed connectors that introduce RF interference can also introduce speed and stability problems. Also, you have to be careful about the use and positioning of splitters. Here's a good article on the subject:
Blistering Broadband: Modding A Cable Connection For Maximum Performance
http://tinyurl.com/245zo7
After all of the changes the author's cable download speeds increased from 4Mb/s to 11Mb/s, and his connection's tendency to drop for no reason disappeared altogether, giving him a rock solid connection.
Sometimes it isn't the cable company. - Ossuary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I have to pay $44.95 for 1.5Mbs. I would be perfectly happy (for a while) with 3Mbs. What I want is for it to be LESS EXPENSIVE, not faster!
- Haggertus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8How about bumping up our upload speeds? While I welcome faster downloads, it is uploads that currently kill me.
- gharding, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@scooterMX:
802.11g can't handle it. 802.11n is coming closer, and I'm sure that by the time we actually have 160mbit to our homes, there will be even faster wireless. As for me, part of my network is still wired with gigabit.. so I'm set for a while. While 160mbit might be possible, we won't see those speeds for a little while (even if we begin utilizing the technology) because the big ISPs will slowly upgrade their backbones as it becomes more cost-effective and begin to roll out higher speeds to customers. - mshade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@ catalysis
bandwidth != latency. It's true that your higher bandwidth connections sometimes provide lower latency, but there are exceptions and it is not a rule.
For example, Dialup can have considerably better ping times than a satellite connection, even though satellite has much higher bandwidth. - acdcfanbill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7oh man, usenet and i would really love each other at those speeds!
- MikeSD34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7scooterMX:
802.11g is 54 megabits per second, a typical LAN ethernet connection is 100 megabits per second. So yes, if you access your LAN with a typical 802.11g connection, it will not reach peak efficiency. However, there are options with some cards (I believe utilizing two connections) that can double that. Also, there is a reason they're standardizing 802.11n which can reach a theoretical 270 megabits per second (quoting from wikipedia).
Now if you were downloading a file from a server at 270 megabits per second, your browser would show you downloading at 33.75 megabytes per second, which is the typical measurement outside sales for download speeds. Kind of like how my 6 megabit per second connection from comcast downloads at a theoretical max of 768 kilobytes per second. - tanner4105, on 10/12/2007, -2/+91998 called, they want their rumors back
- directedition, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7What use is this if Comcast is going to cancel your account for using your bandwidth?
- misterqed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Please remember that that is GROUP speed. I had Comcast cable and you don't have an Internet connection, you are added to a group line. In my case WE had a 10MB connection which was great when we were the only ones on it as it topped out at 3.5Mb as Comcast probably only had a T3 to feed it. The bubble burst when everyone in my neighborhood signed up and logged in so right after dinner time my connection dropped to 35Kb. Yes, I would have done better with a modem. So I switched to Verizon and got 3Mb, which will still be faster than Comcast once 60 people are on your loop.
PS All of those other people can also monitor your traffic, so be nice to your neighbors. - TheWeez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6There's a reason there are almost no cable companies in the entire world running DOCSIS 2.0. It's unbelievably expensive to replace all the UBR and headend equipment. I know when the Minneapolis division of Time Warner Cable (I use to work for them) looked at it, the upgrade would have cost over $100 million. It'd take years to break even on something like that. The current DOCSIS 1.1 system is capable of giving users plenty of additional speed. Just a matter of when they choose to up the current speeds. There needs to be other providers in the area to provide competition, which causes providers to raise speeds. Look at areas that have little to no competition and you'll see they still offer 3Mbit speeds or less. High competition areas see speeds up to 10Mbit or even a little higher. DOCSIS 3.0 look nice but I don't foresee anyone switching to it any time soon.
- AnotherCanadian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5***** all of you
*dialup*
****** geographical location* - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm only paying $50/mo for my 8mbit cable connection. Do you mean 98Kbps or 98KBps? Either way, seems kinda slow for that kind of money.
Then again, you did put the $ after the amount and not before, so am I right in assuming you are not speaking in terms of US currency? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@dalex1:
Your increased speeds on the speedtests are due to the PowerBoost "feature" that Comcast has rolled out in various areas. For a brief period of time (a matter of seconds), initial connections are allowed more bandwith. It's supposed to help the average internet user download files faster, and I suppose it would also help streaming videos get a jump on the cache so they don't stutter. Once this time has passed, your connection speed throttles back to whatever your normal rate is.
This essentially makes the speedtests worthless, unless you're interested in your upload speed. - specialK16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Lol, I have a 2MB down 256kpbs up.
Vamos Costa Rica, Si al TLC. - dericko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's very interesting, I always knew that other countries were way ahead of us - but that's more than I thought.. 1Gb!?
What we need is some huge company like MS or Google, or even the government to focus a huge amount of effort into redoing our internet system. It would cost an arm and a leg, but who cares; I wonder if our 456 billion dollar war would have covered the bill =P
Does anyone remember an article from a while ago about Google owning or controlling most of the fiber optic lines in the US?
Google Pipeline ftw! - combatchuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Where do you get your drugs? My computer can handle a download that saturates a 100 mbit ethernet connection, with less than 1% CPU usage. At gigabit speeds, the limiting factor would be disk throughput, not CPU power.
- vypergts, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Not sure if this is where he got his numbers but it's a source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS
-
Show 51 - 100 of 189 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is