Okay, give me a good reason why broadband ups are capped...

[spaceman]

i remember early 99 sending files via icq to my friend across town at 300-400kbps.

 

[Mucman]

If you people so desperately want upload capacity, why don't you pay for a co-located server?

 

[fs5]

Originally posted by: Mucman
If you people so desperately want upload capacity, why don't you pay for a co-located server?

??? you'd have to get the files on that server some how right? what if I wanted to send something from my home pc?

reading all the responses I think dmcowen674 is the winnAr! In the end it's always about money I suppose.

 

[guyver01]

Upstream is very limited, depending on what type of modulation is used.

Cable providers currently use an upstream modulation technique called "QPSK," or "quadrature phase shift key." It's the same technique used in direct broadcast satellite transmissions. It's different, slower and sturdier, from the downstream modulation used for digital traffic ("QAM," or quadrature amplitude modulation). QPSK yields a usable capacity (after overhead) of about 1.2 Mbps/MHz. Multiplied by the 25 MHz of usable upstream bandwidth; the aggregate upstream capacity is about 30 megabits per second.

If you provide ... say... 500 Kbps upload to each user.. all it takes is about 50-60 users to SATURATE your upstream, and that affects downstream (TCP/IP requires an upstream ACK packet to be sent for each downstream packet... saturate the upstream, and that ACK isn't going thru). When a cable company usually is trying to get 300-500+ subscribers per connection online, you need to determine an optimal setting vs cost of splitting the areas.

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

I have a feeling because it's not technically possible to have much faster uploads, and it'd cost a hell of a lot to pull it off.

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: guyver01
Upstream is very limited, depending on what type of modulation is used.

Cable providers currently use an upstream modulation technique called "QPSK," or "quadrature phase shift key." It's the same technique used in direct broadcast satellite transmissions. It's different, slower and sturdier, from the downstream modulation used for digital traffic ("QAM," or quadrature amplitude modulation). QPSK yields a usable capacity (after overhead) of about 1.2 Mbps/MHz. Multiplied by the 25 MHz of usable upstream bandwidth; the aggregate upstream capacity is about 30 megabits per second.

If you provide ... say... 500 Kbps upload to each user.. all it takes is about 50-60 users to SATURATE your upstream, and that affects downstream (TCP/IP requires an upstream ACK packet to be sent for each downstream packet... saturate the upstream, and that ACK isn't going thru). When a cable company usually is trying to get 300-500+ subscribers per connection online, you need to determine an optimal setting vs cost of splitting the areas.

Good answer, guyver01.

Rob

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: Entity

Good answer, guyver01.

and a technically accurate one.

<-- works for a cable company.

 

[Ynog]

Business sense wise, cable and dsl is provided to home users. Not businesses.

Businesses have to pay big money for bandwidth, and that comes with upload speeds that are greater than
your cable or dsl. I am sure cable and dsl would provide you with high upload speeds but you are going to
have to pay the price for that upload speeds.

Capping the upload keeps your broadband company from jacking up the prices.

Look at the price of a simple T1 line.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: fivespeed5

Originally posted by: Mucman
If you people so desperately want upload capacity, why don't you pay for a co-located server?

??? you'd have to get the files on that server some how right? what if I wanted to send something from my home pc?

reading all the responses I think dmcowen674 is the winnAr! In the end it's always about money I suppose.

Better than communism.

They tried trusting people with open pipes for occasional use, people abused the pipes with 24/7 warez/pr0n/mp3 servers and they lost money. They are businesses not pr0n distribution charities, so to keep flat-rate pricing they either had to cap bandwidth or raise rates for everyone to pay for the few abusers.

So thanks to the abusers, if you want more upload bandwidth you'll have to pay for it.

 

[Danman]

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
So you don't run a server of porn, warez, etc.

 

[fs5]

Originally posted by: guyver01
Upstream is very limited, depending on what type of modulation is used.

Cable providers currently use an upstream modulation technique called "QPSK," or "quadrature phase shift key." It's the same technique used in direct broadcast satellite transmissions. It's different, slower and sturdier, from the downstream modulation used for digital traffic ("QAM," or quadrature amplitude modulation). QPSK yields a usable capacity (after overhead) of about 1.2 Mbps/MHz. Multiplied by the 25 MHz of usable upstream bandwidth; the aggregate upstream capacity is about 30 megabits per second.

If you provide ... say... 500 Kbps upload to each user.. all it takes is about 50-60 users to SATURATE your upstream, and that affects downstream (TCP/IP requires an upstream ACK packet to be sent for each downstream packet... saturate the upstream, and that ACK isn't going thru). When a cable company usually is trying to get 300-500+ subscribers per connection online, you need to determine an optimal setting vs cost of splitting the areas.

okay.. looks like we have a new winnAr, guyver01!

I just find it annoying that the up/down speed ratio is so low.... comcast went from 11-13 kb/s to 30 kb/s, how about givin' us at least 100k? meh... when I'm rich....

 

[dc]

http://bbpromo.yahoo.co.jp/promotion/service/modem26/

 

[fs5]

Originally posted by: dc
http://bbpromo.yahoo.co.jp/promotion/service/modem26/

yes read about it here:
wired article

artcile from august, from what I remember he's putting FAT fiber into EVERY home in Japan and because of high population density it will pay off. Sell the pipe for cheap, mass volume, etc... don't recall the article detail for detail.