Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Joined
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2

    TV video data vs "internet" data

    Is there a difference between the data that is sent for TV video and data sent for any internet usage?

    If no, why are we being charged for internet data on a per ?b/s basis?

  2. #2
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,072

    Re: TV video data vs "internet" data

    Probably because your internet provider is also a telco or cable/satellite company and they have a vested interest in preserving a medium that is increasingly irrelevant.
    AMD R7 1700x. MSI B350 Tomahawk. 2x8gb Corsair vengeance LPX. Coolermaster Hyper 212 evo. Corsair Carbide 200R. EVGA GTX 970.

  3. #3
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arkansas/Oklahoma
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,890

    Re: TV video data vs "internet" data

    sp00k, if you are trying to understand this from the perspective of the consumer and not from the perspective of the money harvester then it is going to be quite a struggle.
    Soy el caimán seis cincuenta.

  4. #4
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: TV video data vs "internet" data

    Is there a difference between the data that is sent for TV video and data sent for any internet usage?
    yes there is a difference

  5. #5
    Joined
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2

    Re: TV video data vs "internet" data

    I do understand, I just want to keep the conversation going. I don't think people are talking about this enough here (North America).

    Canada and USA are not even in the top 20 in average speed by country.

    link: Broadband Speed by Country

  6. #6
    Joined
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    475

    Re: TV video data vs "internet" data

    this is very true, and when you look at how slow our internet is compared to some other countries you might shudder to think how much we are being overcharged. We have the "National Broadband Plan" that is in the works and being sent through government by the FCC. For a class I had to choose a policy to scrutinize and then send out a letter asking them to change something. So I would like to think that I am somewhat knowledgeable about the topic.

    Some basics on the Plan being presented. It wants to have a minimum of 50 mbps internet speed access to every american and wants to push it to 100 mbps in some areas. It is a very long term plan and they are providing monies to teleco and cable companies to improve the infrastructure both wired and wirelessly. If you are interested in further reading, you can go here. National Broadband Plan

    This is NOT the same thing as Net neutrality and will have different effects on our internet in that regard. This is just seeking to improve our current internet infrastructure to be on par short term and faster than other countries long term.

    That being said... as far as achieving these things go... It isn't so realistic in my eyes. One major thing holding us back from having the speeds that other nations such as japan and korea have been enjoying is the fact that we kind of pioneered the internets and so started with phone lines as our infrastructure. We had built up an existing system that we are now trying to go back and redo all over with newer technologies. Other countries were able to build their internet infrastructure first with newer generation technology than we did when we first put it down, so by that factor alone it would stand to reason that for the same price, they would still have faster internet. On this same vein of thought, many other nations with faster internet would easily fit inside our nations borders and inside some of our states borders from a land mass perspective. Fiber optic lines are not cheap to lay down, and when you are laying fiber down across England or Japan, there are fewer miles to cover than say crossing Texas, or even Montana.

    In my opinion, our having to replace existing infrastructure with new stuff is a major hold back, and in those places where it doesn't exist yet, the runs are miles and miles longer than many other places.

    Now you can then discuss why it is we pay 30 dollars a month for 7 mbps (where I live through qwest DSL) and other nations might pay half as much or less for 30-50 mbps internet speeds. This again ties into the fact that laying down infrastructure is expensive, but also applying for right of way permits and other such factors make the process of laying fiber down everywhere even in a small urban setting costs soooo much. Costs that get passed on to the customer. They still have to remain profitable.

    Other things to consider are that cable companies will advertise speeds "up to" some value. If you look closely at many cable connections you are getting that amazing 15 mbps for the initial part of the download and then any amount of a sustained transfer your speed drops off. Also a factor is when the area is bogged down with many people, you may never even see the speed advertised. DSL lines don't suffer from this usually (though I have experienced it because of my remote location) but it brings up a VERY important point that internet providers need to be bugged about. ACTUAL SPEED vs BURST SPEED. The national broadband plan does also address that the speeds they wish to attain are the ACTUAL speed and not some burst speed, so eventually, if the plan passes, we will have sustained minimum speeds of 50 mbps.

    Another factor of what you were talking about is net neutrality and prioritizing data over the connection. This is another issue I won't address here, as I wish to stay on one topic and have gone on quite long enough for now.

  7. #7
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: TV video data vs "internet" data

    "National Broadband Plan"
    The whole notion is a bad dream! We (USA) just don't have the money to implement this to the whole entire country as an entitlement. I have built and managed HFC/Fiber broadband systems the cost would be astronomical.

    Costs:Average $4-6 dollars a linear foot aerial plant and Average $8-12 dollars a linear foot underground plant. Not counting All inline actives (amps and nodes) That's new build, not counting areas that have millions of miles of existing Older HFC in place needing tear out and upgrade. Your talking millions and millions of miles and billions and trillions of dollars.

  8. #8
    Joined
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    475

    Re: TV video data vs "internet" data

    Quote Originally Posted by /\/\adGamer View Post
    The whole notion is a bad dream! We (USA) just don't have the money to implement this to the whole entire country as an entitlement. I have built and managed HFC/Fiber broadband systems the cost would be astronomical.

    Costs:Average $4-6 dollars a linear foot aerial plant and Average $8-12 dollars a linear foot underground plant. Not counting All inline actives (amps and nodes) That's new build, not counting areas that have millions of miles of existing Older HFC in place needing tear out and upgrade. Your talking millions and millions of miles and billions and trillions of dollars.
    Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. That was one of the things I addressed in my letter to the FCC for the assignment. It was an argument I used that just to get the fiber down would cost WAY too much for such a huge country as ours. I think that if we were to focus our funds on the more densely populated areas we could implement fiber more cheaply than putting it down everywhere in the super rural areas such as Wyoming, etc. The mobile spectrum could be used to cover such areas effectively with speeds that would suffice for farmer folk.

    Even IF we were to do that, the costs of digging up streets in existing cities to put fiber in place of the old stuff that is there would be astronomical as you have suggested. You as one who has worked on the infrastructure might find the National Broadband Plan a good read and something to try to influence as it is in the works and they are trying to roll it out. You say it isn't doable, and yet they are trying to do it.

  9. #9
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: TV video data vs "internet" data

    ^^^As your saying its not impossible just unrealistically expensive to use existing HFC/Fiber technology. I also believe that "if" it ever happens it will be done using wireless technology. My company is dabbling in the idea

  10. #10
    Joined
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    475

    Re: TV video data vs "internet" data

    You don't happen to work for clearwire now do you?

  11. #11
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: TV video data vs "internet" data

    ^^^ its comcastic lol

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •