What is Digg?109 Comments
- Innagadadavida, on 09/12/2008, -0/+42People still do this?
- jec68, on 09/12/2008, -3/+31The Singularity is Near.
- Pandemicz, on 09/12/2008, -0/+26so would this be considered zoom zoom fast or vroom vroom?
- ssavoy, on 09/12/2008, -0/+201GB Cap
- psud0, on 09/12/2008, -5/+24It would be amazing to transfer so much data without a wire.
- sammysnake, on 09/12/2008, -2/+21I believe we were suppose to have flying cars by now, I'm disappointed.
- disrupter, on 09/12/2008, -16/+30Free cancer for everyone!
- BruticusMaximus, on 09/12/2008, -0/+14Save this article. 20 years from now we'll be laughing. It wasn't so long ago we saw headlines like these:
"New 33Mhz CPU"
"56kbps over an ordinary phone line"
"Hardrives now under $5 a MEG" I remember this one because it's what allowed me to go from a 40meg HD to a 120meg HD at work. - ModeSeven, on 09/12/2008, -0/+12If it wasn't about quantity then you wouldn't need the speed. What the ***** else is a fast connection good for if not downloading huge amounts of data? You idiot.
- tobyloc, on 09/12/2008, -1/+8Yeah you're right, it's such a shame that our life expectancies just keep going down... oh wait.
- dmostrowski, on 09/12/2008, -4/+11People in my day aren't as naive an uninformed as you.
1. No Osha - we handled asbestos with bare hands. Just ask Steve McQueen
2. No medications, just aspirin and snake oil
3. No vaccines for Polio, TB, and many other diseases. - You just died
4. Little to no protective gear at work. No hard hats required back then
5. We drove solid steel cars with no seat belts or safety glass.
6. Everybody carried a gun..in cars and airplanes. Yes airplanes.
I could go on, but I just stopped by to let you know what a bunch of lazy pussies you youngsters are. I feel sorry for you though, you will be running this world now, and you have no man skills. Us gentlemen will head for the country and will be self sufficient. See we don't need McDonald's or grocery stores. We shoot Bambi. Call PETA you whining little *****.
Good day and good luck. - CLShortFuse, on 09/12/2008, -0/+7Cablevision is one of the best ISPs of the country, while other cable companies cap they expand. It's too bad they're only in the NY/NJ/CT area
Optimum Online - $50 for 15mbit download / 2.5mbit upload
Optimum Boost - $15+ for 30mbit download / 5mbit upload upgrade
5 Static IPs - $10+ (boost required) you get 5 static IPs on your accord (Business Only)
I have 30mbit/5mbit connection and 5 static IPs for $55 a month ($20 discount for bundling with phone). This is the business packages. There's no download or upload cap. The residential package is the same thing except they don't offer static IP on the residential packages.
There is a cap on the regular $50 package, but it's not a download cap. It's an upload cap. If you upload too much you'd get throttled/capped to 0.2mbit upload speed. If you get Boost, there is no upload cap. In everything else it's truly unlimited.
Cablevision FTW! - magamiako, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6It really depends on the size of the data everyone is pushing across the line. I remember years ago when 100Mbps was fine over a wire for me, and now I can't live without my gigabit due to the Gigabytes of data I have to push over the line.
Even worse, you start running into hard drive bottlenecks before you run into the Gigabit bandwidth limit (unless of course you've got a very nice hard drive setup, i.e. raptors/scsi/raid/fiber-channel)
Transferring hundreds of gigs of data off of a regular HD these days can take hours, and that's at HD-speeds.
I used to think 7200RPM/SATA-300 was fast. - WBWB, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6DOCSIS 3.0 is a cable modem standard and has nothing to do with Wi-Fi. This article is about two separate things: 1) CableVision plans to roll out Wi-Fi all over New York, and 2) they're upgrading their cable network to DOCSIS 3.0 which will increase bandwidth to support all this new Wi-Fi traffic. This does not mean you'll be seeing 100 Mbps transfers over Wi-Fi.
- exxi, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6hoho.. with that speed I'd be able to taste that porn in the air..
- warpbackspin, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6The article doesn't say anything about 100mbit wireless. It's about 100mbit cable feeding wifi hot spots.
- bman1984, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6Interference isnt a problem on licensed bands. Too bad most of the usable frequencies were auctioned to the highest bidder, and AT&T aint doing ***** with them. They did the same thing here in Canada. Bought the frequencies to do nothing with them. Meanwhile me, a person who is trying to get a WISP company off of the ground is forced to used public bands. Ugh. Do you know how many devices in your house emit signals at 2.4GHz?
Wireless is the solution for rural areas, but it has to be on licensed bands. The last ISP I worked for had a few networks in Alberta where a competitor was purposely aiming gear directly at the AP to cause interference. It was on a public band, so it was perfectly legal. There are some kinks to work out, but the FCC and in my case CRTC need to get this ***** organized or it will fail. - MaxD, on 09/12/2008, -2/+8I think an interesting question is "how fast is fast enough" how fast until speed doesn't become a particularly interesting differentiating factor when choosing broadband, is 100Mbps?? 1Gbps, do people complain that their gigabit ethernet is too slow, or will we always want faster, and will I look back at this in 10 years time and think, "my god" how could we have possibly survived with such slow gigabit connections?
- thescimitar, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6Maybe Diggers don't read Kurzweil... sorry, Jec68. This sort of leap forward is definitely infrastructure for the sort of social advances he talks about.
- LeRenard, on 09/12/2008, -0/+5Eh, not so sure I'm on board for faster or more pervasive wireless just yet. More bandwidth means a wider signal, a wider signal means it requires more RF amplification.. more RF amplification means we start exposing ourselves even more. I'm not one of those wackos who thinks WiFi is killing us.. but we should probably put some study into it before we just start cranking out more radiation, especially from laptops which people actually put on their laps..
- geoken, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4Flying cars are also limited by the fact that most people suck at driving and nobody wants the potential destructive capabilities of these people to be increased 50 fold.
- Narcowski, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5Heads up, there's this thing called 802.11n
- inactive, on 09/12/2008, -2/+6This is not amazing - have anyone heard about LTE (Long Term Evolution) – new tehnology for cell phones.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolut ...
2 highlights for those how never heard about LTE:
- Peak download rates of 326.4 Mbit/s on mobile phone
- Peak download history for cell phones: GPRS (cca 100 kbit/s) --> UMTS (cca 10 Mbit/s) --> LTE (cca 300 Mbit/s) - BenO169, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4Uhh... Do you have an 802.11N router?
- Travicolpist, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5Wimax will never work in big cities, it's prone to rf interference, little security, signal problems and up and down connections (not deticated like cable,dsl, FTTH).
- Timbo1970, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3Leave Ted Stevens alone, he's having to face the FBI, and with all his tubes being clogged he can't find a good lawyer to lie for him, hence he's worried about speed of finding a third country to emigrate to before he's playing ass-basketball in prison.
- skyteria, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3BLOCKED
- QuimbyDogg, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3WiMax is fundamentally much different from WiFi. A faster WiFi is not really going to be a suitable replacement--they serve different purposes.
One of the main reasons WiMax is extremely attractive is because of how it automatically handles switching service areas (similar to cellphones). For example if Chicago here had WiMax I would be able to access it while riding the local elevated train around the city. As soon as I hit the edge of service for one tower the system would automatically hand my signal off to the tower which covered the area I was just entering. WiMax also covers a significantly higher area from one AP than a WiFi system would.
WiFi can't handle seemless on the fly network trade offs. The protocol would have to be completely redone, of course at that point it is no longer WiFi. WiFi would be great at connecting an entire city that was stationary (Internet in everyones apartments/houses/condos etc) but it will not help allow Internet while on the go.
On the other hand mobile data plans seem to be more and more common with cellphones. It is entirely possibly that by the time any of this large scale city Internet technology goes live most people will already have mobile Internet/email/IM anywhere they need it from their phone.
Another strange point is the fact that ISPs seem very interested in capping Internet bandwidth (as we can see most earliest from comcast). At the same time apparently they want to give Internet to an entire city? The two ideas seem to conflict with each other.... - kyle415, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3more like shhhhhhewwwwww.
- abrasion, on 09/12/2008, -1/+4Wow that is amazing! 100mbit, well I guess like every other ***** wifi spec, it will run at almost exactly half of that right, 50 'real' mbit still ain't bad though
- elfprince13, on 09/12/2008, -1/+4The End Is Not For A While
- leerayIG88, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3I'd rather boil peoples eyeballs with wireless radiation.
- mt4055, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?
- bipolarruledout, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3Never been a big fan of wireless especially for your exclusive Internet access. . The security issues, environment, speed, etc. are all problems. I wouldn't be so bad except the coverage really isn't that great. I like cat5 cable, it's simple, cheap, and works great.
- astracner, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2Thats true if you live in the middle of nowhere. Often 28k dialup is the only option because the phone lines are so bad.
- FLarsen, on 09/12/2008, -0/+210% (arbitrary number) of 100mbps is more than 10% og 54mbps...
- haloplayer9672, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2I personally can't wait for DOCSIS 3.0. For it to work, the Cable companies really don't need to upgrade their infrastructure and it will give them a huge amount more of Bandwidth providing you purchase a new modem.
http://www.cedmagazine.com/Article-DOCSIS-3-0-arri ... - IG64, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3One day we'll have enough internet connection and hard drive technology to be able to download practically anything over the internet instantly.
I'm calling it right now. - zippy757, on 09/12/2008, -5/+7...the average time between a telecommunication 'specification' and actual deployment to the public is over 6 years. Most sepcs also fail. These guys are simply 'marketing'...
- krische, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2Because WiMax is already being rolled out. It'll be in Baltimore by the end of this month and 2 more US cities by the end of the year. Last I heard, LTE is still in development.
- bman1984, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2A usage cap is not a bandwidth cap.
- zoydberg, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2you zoom zoom zoom? i thought i was the only 1
- MrColdheart, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2The World just got that much smaller.
- Lazydriver, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2Only good thing was #6.
- bman1984, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3I think your just a little pissed off. My grandfather told me the other day that anybody that calls that the good old days, doesnt ***** remember it too well ( exact words ). I am from the country, so I got more of a traditional upbringing. Ive shot a bambi or too, but it was to put food in our freezer. Its not all the young that are this way, only the young of the middle and upper class. Lower class youth know how to survive. In this day and age, its a different game altogether though.
- shakebabies, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2Yeah, but Kurzweil seems a bit ambitious about the whole thing.... I wish I believed him.
- bman1984, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2Bandwidth is like drugs, you just want a little more.
- Jcsmooth52, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3Slow down, get me 10 megs from my wired connection then I would believe this.
- Scaryclouds, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1That is of course why 3G will never work also
/sarcasm - krische, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1Yeah that is what it is on paper. To get speeds like that would require serious overhaul on the backend network.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 110 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