On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:06:02 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> I don't follow.
>> 
>> Netflix streaming video service.  I use it myself, generally get good
>> results over a 3 Mbps (down) DSL connection.
>> 
>> Or hulu.com.  Or BBC iPlayer for that matter.
> 
> BBC iPlayer I've actually used. The quality is not even close to what
> you see on TV.

True, but it isn't terrible, either.  I occasionally use it myself 
through a proxy in Scotland, generally does OK.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 04/29/10 07:54, scott wrote:
>> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
> 
> ISPs can throttle the traffic based on where it is coming from, eg
> YouTube or iPlayer.  It's in their interest to do this, otherwise a load

	Depends on the country you live in.

-- 
I considered atheism but there weren't enough holidays.

Post a reply to this message

On 04/29/10 12:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, the only reason I haven't moved to cable from my DSL is that I 
> would have to deal with Comcast, and they have some (IMHO) stupid ideas 
> about 'net neutrality' and what "unlimited" means.
	
	I think they lost the battle for unlimited (as in it is currently
unlimited). The recent ruling on net neutrality bodes ill - but what
makes you sure DSL won't change in the future?

	Me? I hate contracts.

-- 
I considered atheism but there weren't enough holidays.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:51:10 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 04/29/10 07:54, scott wrote:
>>> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
>> 
>> ISPs can throttle the traffic based on where it is coming from, eg
>> YouTube or iPlayer.  It's in their interest to do this, otherwise a
>> load
> 
> 	Depends on the country you live in.

Whether it's technically possible or not doesn't depend on where you live 
at all.

Whether it's *legal* or not is an entirely different matter, and proving 
an ISP is using traffic shaping can be difficult to do.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:53:58 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 04/29/10 12:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yeah, the only reason I haven't moved to cable from my DSL is that I
>> would have to deal with Comcast, and they have some (IMHO) stupid ideas
>> about 'net neutrality' and what "unlimited" means.
> 	
> 	I think they lost the battle for unlimited (as in it is currently
> unlimited). The recent ruling on net neutrality bodes ill - but what
> makes you sure DSL won't change in the future?

Nothing makes me sure, just that my current situation is one I can live 
with.  If the circumstances change, then I'll change at my earliest 
opportunity.  If they want to keep me as a customer, they won't mess with 
it.

> 	Me? I hate contracts.

Same here.  My DSL modem died and to get a replacement provided, I had to 
agree to another year of service.  Of course, that was more than a year 
ago so now it's a moot point, but at the time, I was annoyed because it 
was *their* hardware and not mine, so basically my choice was to drop 
them or sign up for another year (or buy my own DSL modem and be even 
more unsupported than I am now).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/29/2010 2:12 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, the only reason I haven't moved to cable from my DSL is that I
> would have to deal with Comcast, and they have some (IMHO) stupid ideas
> about 'net neutrality' and what "unlimited" means.

Yeah, I've read about that. I think they backed down on it a bit. Once 
FiOS is available, I'll probably jump from cable to that. Time Warner 
isn't exactly innocent, either.

> My current ISP's policy is basically "we lease you a data pipe; what you
> do with it, as long as you're not disrupting anyone, is your business".
>
>>> a 9' diagonal screen
>>
>> want... :D
>
> It's very nice. :-)
>
> Jim


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:01:03 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> On 4/29/2010 2:12 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yeah, the only reason I haven't moved to cable from my DSL is that I
>> would have to deal with Comcast, and they have some (IMHO) stupid ideas
>> about 'net neutrality' and what "unlimited" means.
> 
> Yeah, I've read about that. I think they backed down on it a bit. Once
> FiOS is available, I'll probably jump from cable to that. Time Warner
> isn't exactly innocent, either.

Yeah, in general the cable companies act as monopolies in the US, because 
there's generally only one provider per area.

My DSL line is through Covad Communications, but ISP service is 
Earthlink, and the DSL line at the point of service is actually owned by 
Qwest (our local telco).  When I do have problems with the line, it's 
messy to sort out, but it's been several years since I had a problem that 
was actually messy to fix (and that was a lightning strike a the CO that 
took out something like 40,000 people).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:13:11 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:

> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:06:02 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> BBC iPlayer I've actually used. The quality is not even close to what
>> you see on TV.
>
> True, but it isn't terrible, either.  I occasionally use it myself
> through a proxy in Scotland, generally does OK.

Hey hey we're the ones who forking out for that you know. I don't know  
staying over there, using your 'proxies', and stealing our TV. Can't you  
just wait until some cable company does a remake of them? ;-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> Again, that's all very nice. But unless you have insane levels of
>> bandwidth available, it's not going to work.
> 
> 3 Mbps isn't "insane" by today's standards.

No, it isn't.

AFAIK, it also isn't sufficiently high either.

> It's what I've got, and the Netflix streaming works.

Hmm, interesting...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:02:16 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Again, that's all very nice. But unless you have insane levels of
>>> bandwidth available, it's not going to work.
>> 
>> 3 Mbps isn't "insane" by today's standards.
> 
> No, it isn't.
> 
> AFAIK, it also isn't sufficiently high either.

What part of "I stream HD content from Netflix and it works fine over a 3 
Mbps line" is unclear?  Obviously, it *has* to be sufficiently high or it 
wouldn't work for me.

>> It's what I've got, and the Netflix streaming works.
> 
> Hmm, interesting...

Like I said, it works great here, contrary to your assertion that 3 Mbps 
isn't sufficiently high to do what it is that I'm doing.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message