Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

EndlessMac · May 17, 2009, 01:32 PM

Most ISP companies assume that people don't need a very fast upload speed but is it just me or has the trend started to change? People who need fast upload speeds get a bad reputation that they are uploading illegal files to be shared but with the popularity of sites like uTube and the fact they we are becoming more of a digital society I think ISP companies should start upgrading their hardware to allow faster upload speeds.

I'm talking about legitimate legal uses for fast upload speeds. For example for work I have to upload large files from home and really wish I had a faster upload speed. Many people also share videos and pictures on the internet so I'm sure faster upload speeds would be appreciated also.

Anyone else think the ISP's old philosophy that people don't need very fast upload speeds is outdated? Even if I paid for my ISP's fastest internet speed I still don't get that fast of an upload speed. It's something like 768 Kpbs.

ghporter · May 17, 2009, 01:47 PM

I think you misinterpret the business case for lower upload speeds than download speeds. Typical home users download way more than they upload. On the other hand, when upload traffic is high, near or even above download traffic, that is often an indication that the user is running a server-which is often expressly prohibited in residential user agreements.

EndlessMac · May 17, 2009, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

I think you misinterpret the business case for lower upload speeds than download speeds. Typical home users download way more than they upload. On the other hand, when upload traffic is high, near or even above download traffic, that is often an indication that the user is running a server-which is often expressly prohibited in residential user agreements.

I understand why they have it the way it is, but what I'm saying is that it seems to be that the needs of typical home users is starting to change with legal uses like uploading large video and pictures to be share with friends and family. Things like home digital videos being uploaded to sites like YouTube or personal storage and sharing sites are huge and require fast upload speeds.

I'm not talking about running a server and it's not the data quantity of uploads per month but rather the max upload speeds themselves. Uploading a large video file or tons of pictures takes a long time with current upload speeds. Currently ISPs are keeping the max upload speeds rather low even though I believe people are need faster upload speeds with our every growing digital society.

Doofy · May 17, 2009, 02:21 PM

Mine is 256 kbps.

Easy two-step program:

1) Start upload.
2) Go do something else. Sleep. Furious spanking. Watch a film. Whatever.

Just takes planning and patience - traits you can practice which will come in handy sometime in your life anyway.

SSharon · May 17, 2009, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by EndlessMac

I'm not talking about running a server and it's not the data quantity of uploads per month but rather the max upload speeds themselves. Uploading a large video file or tons of pictures takes a long time with current upload speeds. Currently ISPs are keeping the max upload speeds rather low even though I believe people are need faster upload speeds with our every growing digital society.

Exactly. I am happy with my download speeds, but uploading a few large images to my dropbox account is way too slow. My total storage space there is only 2gb and I maybe upload 50mb a month but every time I want to upload a large audio file or a few pictures to share with people it is a huge bottleneck.

Maybe the ISPs should combine ideas and provide faster speeds for the first 100gb and then slow it down after that in increments. At least this way the users that don't upload a huge quantity can still get fast speeds.

EndlessMac · May 17, 2009, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Mine is 256 kbps.

Easy two-step program:

1) Start upload.
2) Go do something else. Sleep. Furious spanking. Watch a film. Whatever.

Just takes planning and patience - traits you can practice which will come in handy sometime in your life anyway.

That's not exactly something my clients and boss would like to hear. I use my internet for both personal and business. Speeds really aren't much different for business and residential rates and places like my house only has residential speeds since I have a home office.

ghporter · May 17, 2009, 06:13 PM

I don't disagree with the potential for a need to change the current situation. I simply felt that you attributed more thought to the issue than most ISPs actually have, let alone how much they'd apply to it.

My package is rated at "up to" 6Mbps down, 768kbps up. In practice I get over 5Mbps down and over 600kbps up (typically well over that). This is AT&T's top level DSL service with good telephone lines and a moderate distance to the CO/RT. My 600ish uplink speed is adequate for uploading pictures, but video would be a pain. Since I have family and friends literally all over the U.S., this has the potential to be a major issue. I completely agree that upload speeds for many standard packages are too low, especially for top-tier packages like mine. The real issue is how consumers get ISPs to do something about it.

sek929 · May 17, 2009, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Just takes planning and patience - traits you can practice which will come in handy sometime in your life anyway.

Need any help beating that dead horse?

Doofy · May 17, 2009, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by sek929

Need any help beating that dead horse?

No, not really.

This "want everything, want it now" mentality is one of the main contributors to the current economic climate (and a major factor in why you're out of a job right now). If folks would only learn a little patience...

sek929 · May 17, 2009, 07:05 PM

We've already gone over this, by that logic cars should be limited to 20MPH... if you want to get to work on time just show some planning and patience.

Doofy · May 17, 2009, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by sek929

We've already gone over this, by that logic cars should be limited to 20MPH... if you want to get to work on time just show some planning and patience.

No, no, no. If we want to use the car analogy, what's happening in this thread is this:
"My car can only do 140 mph. I want to get somewhere faster than I'm already doing, why can't I buy a car which does 500 mph?".

torsoboy · May 17, 2009, 07:43 PM

That's what they (well, you) would have said about going (gasp!) 40MPH when cars were going 15. Your argument is no good Doofy.

And I agree that upload speeds should be improved. Right now I get a 900k for my upload speed, but when I upload large images it would be nice to get a faster speed. Maybe they could limit the amount sent in a month for uploads, rather than limit the speed. I don't think as many people would have a problem with a limit on monthly uploads as they do with a cap on monthly download limits.

Doofy · May 17, 2009, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by torsoboy

That's what they (well, you) would have said about going (gasp!) 40MPH when cars were going 15. Your argument is no good Doofy.

Maybe I haven't kept pace with technology. I only upload about a gigabyte a day on that slow connection of mine, so perhaps I'm not quite operating with the massive file sizes that you guys are.

Thus, I will concede.

SSharon · May 17, 2009, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, no, no. If we want to use the car analogy, what's happening in this thread is this:
"My car can only do 140 mph. I want to get somewhere faster than I'm already doing, why can't I buy a car which does 500 mph?".

I don't see it that way at all. Our NICs and wiring support faster speeds we just want someone in an office somewhere to stop limiting the speeds for fear of extra traffic. This isn't like asking for a car with new hardware that doesn't exist, we already have the technology just not enough lanes on the highway if you want to analogize it that way. And faster internet speeds isn't dangerous like faster cars would be.

I am going to upload the same amount of content in a month regardless of whether I get 1mbit up or 100mbit up. I just want faster speeds so that I don't have to wait around for the relatively little uploading I do. This is like saying I am going to drive the same number of miles every month to get to work regardless of the amount of traffic so I just wish they would clear it up so it didn't waste my time every morning. The difference is building new roads is costly and doubling upload speeds wouldn't cost ISPs a cent. (Yea I know that IT infrastructure is expensive, but that is why we pay out our ears for internet each month and it doesn't change the fact that they have extra space on the pipes today without adding new ones. Imagine if the local roadway authority just closed off the left lane even though it is nicely paved and waiting to be driven on.)

Doofy · May 17, 2009, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by SSharon

I don't see it that way at all. Our NICs and wiring support faster speeds we just want someone in an office somewhere to stop limiting the speeds for fear of extra traffic.

Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are both technical and marketing reasons why ADSL is in many places the most common type offered to home users. On the technical side, there is likely to be more crosstalk from other circuits at the DSLAM end (where the wires from many local loops are close to each other) than at the customer premises. Thus the upload signal is weakest at the noisiest part of the local loop, while the download signal is strongest at the noisiest part of the local loop. It therefore makes technical sense to have the DSLAM transmit at a higher bit rate than does the modem on the customer end. Since the typical home user in fact does prefer a higher download speed, the telephone companies chose to make a virtue out of necessity, hence ADSL.

SSharon · May 17, 2009, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Myself and probably a few million others in New York use Fios. Granted I don't know the details of how either cable or fiber work, but the fact that they both offer plans with 20mbit upload (for some astronomical price) proves that they can do it if they want to. As for ADSL and satellite I can understand the problem.

Doofy · May 17, 2009, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by SSharon

Myself and probably a few million others in New York use Fios. Granted I don't know the details of how either cable or fiber work, but the fact that they both offer plans with 20mbit upload (for some astronomical price) proves that they can do it if they want to. As for ADSL and satellite I can understand the problem.

Dude, you've said yourself that you up about 50mb a month. That's like half an hour tops, even on a crappy slow connection like mine. How would it be beneficial to your life to have the upload complete in five picoseconds instead of a half hour (say, while you're out having lunch)?

Railroader · May 17, 2009, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Dude, you've said yourself that you up about 50mb a month. That's like half an hour tops, even on a crappy slow connection like mine. How would it be beneficial to your life to have the upload complete in five picoseconds instead of a half hour (say, while you're out having lunch)?

For me that's only 10 pictures. I do a photo shoot and upload a couple hundred pictures and it is an all night overnight thing. I have to plan for it. WAY ahead of time.

And then, +50% of the time I wake up and realize it crapped out around picture #6 and have to reschedule it all over again.

I'd pay double for a good upload speed. And I don't torrent anything.

SSharon · May 17, 2009, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Dude, you've said yourself that you up about 50mb a month. That's like half an hour tops, even on a crappy slow connection like mine. How would it be beneficial to your life to have the upload complete in five picoseconds instead of a half hour (say, while you're out having lunch)?

Whatever, I'm sure it is more than 50mb and it could be 10 times that amount and still not be enough to torrent your average 700mb movie. I still don't think ISPs grasp the amount of upstream bandwidth that can be used by legal means. Railroader's pictures are one example, but what about VNC clients, slingbox, and the like?

The reason I would be happy about faster uploads is because I use dropbox to host pictures that I post on message boards and want them to show up right away, not in an hour. I also use my dropbox to share pictures, audio, and video files while on skype conference calls. It just doesn't work as well to say here is the link but don't click on it for another 25 minutes.

ghporter · May 17, 2009, 10:26 PM

Not to knock either the sociological or technical points Doofy has brought up, but there are market-force issues at work here. The next better level of service from AT&T is their "Uverse" package. You can get up to 18Mbps downstream speeds-but you can only get that if you buy their bundled TV and digital phone service. They don't mention upstream speeds at all on the Uverse pages.

This shows me that their market research indicates most of their customers are more interested in download speeds than upload speeds. But it also says that they aren't ready to offer something closer to Symmetrical DSL any time soon...

torsoboy · May 17, 2009, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Mine is 256 kbps.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Maybe I haven't kept pace with technology. I only upload about a gigabyte a day on that slow connection of mine.

Sure you upload that much. 1 gigabytes a day, maxing out your 256k upload speed, would take over 9 hours of upload time per day. "Go take a break". Yeah right.

I think you're pulling numbers out of thin air.

turtle777 · May 17, 2009, 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Maybe I haven't kept pace with technology. I only upload about a gigabyte a day on that slow connection of mine, so perhaps I'm not quite operating with the massive file sizes that you guys are.

Thus, I will concede.

What the hell are you uploading 1GB each day ?

-t

kupan787 · May 18, 2009, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Not to knock either the sociological or technical points Doofy has brought up, but there are market-force issues at work here. The next better level of service from AT&T is their "Uverse" package. You can get up to 18Mbps downstream speeds-but you can only get that if you buy their bundled TV and digital phone service. They don't mention upstream speeds at all on the Uverse pages.

I have that package. Luckily, because I live in a new community and have FTTP (as opposed to FTTN), and I can't get DSL, they offer me the top package without a TV bundle for $65/month. It is 18Mbps/1.5Mbps. Alright upload, but with 4 people in the house, 2 gaming online, 1 VPNing to the office, and the other "transferring large files", the line can get bogged down.

Laminar · May 18, 2009, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by SSharon

The reason I would be happy about faster uploads is because I use dropbox to host pictures that I post on message boards and want them to show up right away, not in an hour. I also use my dropbox to share pictures, audio, and video files while on skype conference calls. It just doesn't work as well to say here is the link but don't click on it for another 25 minutes.

I can't imagine many cases where pictures I post on message boards are any more than 100KB, a quick peek at my "macnn" folder in my Dropbox folder shows an average file size of 80KB or so. Even if it takes a minute or two to upload to the Dropbox server from your computer, there's very little chance someone will see it before then.

Originally Posted by turtle777

What the hell are you uploading 1GB each day ?

-t

$100 says it's something totally badass involving beer or women.

Doofy · May 18, 2009, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

What the hell are you uploading 1GB each day

I record at 24/96. Daily.
I work with other folks across the planet who record at 24/96.
We need to share our work.

Collect your $100 off the lamer.

Chuckit · May 18, 2009, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I record at 24/96. Daily.
I work with other folks across the planet who record at 24/96.
We need to share our work.

But clearly not in realtime. Some people actually need to have conversations and revisions and stuff regarding the things they upload.

Doofy · May 18, 2009, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

But clearly not in realtime. Some people actually need to have conversations and revisions and stuff regarding the things they upload.

Such people clearly need to stump up for a business-class connection.

Doofy · May 18, 2009, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by torsoboy

Sure you upload that much. 1 gigabytes a day, maxing out your 256k upload speed, would take over 9 hours of upload time per day. "Go take a break". Yeah right.

I think you're pulling numbers out of thin air.

You're right - I pulled that out of thin air.

The actual numbers read:
Dec, 2008 - 49.945 Gb
Nov, 2008 - 33.896 Gb
Oct, 2008 - 2.270 Gb
Sep, 2008 - 35.733 Gb
Aug, 2008 - 58.477 Gb
Jul, 2008 - 62.819 Gb
Jun 2008 - 56.803 Gb
May, 2008 - 59.040 Gb
Apr, 2008 - 52.611 Gb
Mar, 2008 - 49.845 Gb
Feb, 2008 - 27.726 Gb
Jan, 2008 - 0.774 Gb
Dec, 2007 - 30.316 Gb

That's on a 512 down / 256 up connection. So you'll forgive me if I'm thinking that folks on 768 up with 50 mb to up are whining for nothing.

ghporter · May 18, 2009, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Such people clearly need to stump up for a business-class connection.

I think this is the crux of the issue. ISPs have a concept of "business class" service being both slightly more capable (closer to symmetrical) and MUCH more expensive. It still costs a whole lot to get a 1.5Mbps T1 line (equivalent to a symmetrical mid-range DSL connection) from my provider-they don't even post the prices on their web page. The qualifiers that make this wimpy connection "worth" a price they don't publish? Symmetrical service and "99.9% availability." Wow, what a big, attractive feature!

Small business Asymmetrical DSL packages cost MORE for SLOWER service than I get with my consumer-level package.

Basically, companies like AT&T here in the States are behaving like total bandwidth available to them is a commodity in very short supply. And consumers are letting them behave that way, instead of demanding better service or more flexible packages.

It is no big deal for AT&T to configure a residential DSL connection to run as fast as stability allows. In fact, that's part of what they call "provisioning" the line in an initial setup. But once they find out how fast both directions can go, they throttle the service to fit in one of their packages, when they could create a flexible package that bills on a pro rata basis for the actual speed the line is capable of. They're missing out on more income, and consumers are missing out on what their connection is truly capable of providing. How is "lose-lose" a good business plan?

turtle777 · May 18, 2009, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I record at 24/96. Daily.
I work with other folks across the planet who record at 24/96.
We need to share our work.

Wow

It seems like the time delay in uploading and downloading is acceptable to you.

If I had that much bandwidth need, I'd for sure get more than 256k up.

-t

Doofy · May 18, 2009, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Wow

It seems like the time delay in uploading and downloading is acceptable to you.

Yep. The workflow is adjusted for that delay, thus I never sit in "greybar land".

Originally Posted by turtle777

If I had that much bandwidth need, I'd for sure get more than 256k up.

256k up is fine. The next jump is five times the cost, and since I'm cheap I never spend unless the existing tools don't do the job. Which they do, so what's the point?

Doofy · May 18, 2009, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

I think this is the crux of the issue. ISPs have a concept of "business class" service being both slightly more capable (closer to symmetrical) and MUCH more expensive. It still costs a whole lot to get a 1.5Mbps T1 line (equivalent to a symmetrical mid-range DSL connection) from my provider-they don't even post the prices on their web page. The qualifiers that make this wimpy connection "worth" a price they don't publish? Symmetrical service and "99.9% availability." Wow, what a big, attractive feature!

Small business Asymmetrical DSL packages cost MORE for SLOWER service than I get with my consumer-level package.

But let's be fair. Business class packages (here, at least) generally don't tend to have any contention ratio and usually come with awesome 24/7 support.

OreoCookie · May 18, 2009, 10:43 AM

A fast upload is very useful to share files with your family (I tunnel the network traffic via ssh) or to take over their screen via vnc. I'd love to be able to do a remote network backup, but currently, it's just not feasible (the network connections isn't just slow, but very unstable). Luckily, I have a direct 100 MBit connection at work (and I can easily get speeds of 8+ MB/s in both directions

).

shifuimam · May 18, 2009, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

I think this is the crux of the issue. ISPs have a concept of "business class" service being both slightly more capable (closer to symmetrical) and MUCH more expensive. It still costs a whole lot to get a 1.5Mbps T1 line (equivalent to a symmetrical mid-range DSL connection) from my provider-they don't even post the prices on their web page. The qualifiers that make this wimpy connection "worth" a price they don't publish? Symmetrical service and "99.9% availability." Wow, what a big, attractive feature!

Small business Asymmetrical DSL packages cost MORE for SLOWER service than I get with my consumer-level package.

Basically, companies like AT&T here in the States are behaving like total bandwidth available to them is a commodity in very short supply. And consumers are letting them behave that way, instead of demanding better service or more flexible packages.

It is no big deal for AT&T to configure a residential DSL connection to run as fast as stability allows. In fact, that's part of what they call "provisioning" the line in an initial setup. But once they find out how fast both directions can go, they throttle the service to fit in one of their packages, when they could create a flexible package that bills on a pro rata basis for the actual speed the line is capable of. They're missing out on more income, and consumers are missing out on what their connection is truly capable of providing. How is "lose-lose" a good business plan?

Business-class cable Internet is pretty cheap, at least.

We're going to be switching to a business cable line at 6/1mbps up/down for $60/mo. Right now we're paying $60/mo after taxes for 12(with PowerBoost - it's really something like 8)/4mbps up/down and limited basic cable (30ish channels, most of which are worthless). The speed is going to be slower, but not by enough to be unusable for what we're hosting - and we're not violating any TOS. Yeah, the speeds are slower, but really - is it going to make that much of a difference? It's like people who think that a gigabit LAN will make their Internet faster - your speed is only going to be as fast as the slowest connection you're on. If you're connecting to a web server that only has 6mbps upstream, it doesn't matter if you have a gigabit fiber connection to the Internet - you're only going to get at the very most a 6mbit connection.

EndlessMac · May 18, 2009, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

So you'll forgive me if I'm thinking that folks on 768 up with 50 mb to up are whining for nothing.

It's nice that you have the luxury of time for uploading but my turn around time needs to be within a couple of hours or so and my upload amounts can also be in the gigs. This usually means that I end up dropping off a DVD at my clients office which can be an hour or 2 drive away. That's why I would prefer to upload them the data files instead.

As I have mentioned I have a home office and apparently my neighborhood ISP maxs out at 768 up. I would be willing to pay for more but my ISP isn't even offering it as ghporter has mention in his replies.

If time wasn't an issue I wouldn't even have created this thread.

sek929 · May 18, 2009, 06:42 PM

It's ok, Doofy knows what's best for everyone and what they really need and/or deserve....despite being so against Socialism

Railroader · May 18, 2009, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

I'd pay double for a good upload speed. And I don't torrent anything.

NOTE: I pay nothing for my ISP, my work pays for it. I guess I should say: "I'd pay double whatever I was paying to have a good upload speed".

Doofy · May 18, 2009, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by sek929

It's ok, Doofy knows what's best for everyone and what they really need and/or deserve....despite being so against Socialism

Well, here it is Sek, me old fruit. Those into socialism whine about their domestic pipes. Those into capitalism go and buy the tools they need - commercial pipes. And if you can't get the infrastructure you need to run your business in a particular place, you move. It really is that simple.

sek929 · May 18, 2009, 07:38 PM

That makes no sense, I pay for my domestic pipes and I wouldn't pay 50 bucks a month if the speed was as limited as you'd like, the speed we are offered is in line with what customers need. Customer need drives features and price. Eventually consumers will demand more and more upload speed and the industry will follow suit.

Doofy · May 18, 2009, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by sek929

That makes no sense, I pay for my domestic pipes and I wouldn't pay 50 bucks a month if the speed was as limited as you'd like, the speed we are offered is in line with what customers need.

You must be confusing this with another thread. This thread is about how the speed you're offered isn't, apparently, in line with what customers need.

Put that bong down and do try to keep up.

Chuckit · May 18, 2009, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

If you're connecting to a web server that only has 6mbps upstream, it doesn't matter if you have a gigabit fiber connection to the Internet - you're only going to get at the very most a 6mbit connection.

You only connect to one other computer at a time? How quaint.

sek929 · May 18, 2009, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

You must be confusing this with another thread. This thread is about how the speed you're offered isn't, apparently, in line with what customers need.

Put that bong down and do try to keep up.

The speed I'm offered is more than adequate, but for others the next tier up is way to pricey. I'm only trying to keep up with your notion 256K is somehow fine for everyone.

Put down the booze... <wink>

SSharon · May 18, 2009, 11:04 PM

Hasn't anyone learned their lesson about saying "that is more than you will ever need" and "you will never need that much . . "?

Bill Gates said something along those lines about ram or hard drive space and he was way off and in a few years so will everyone in this thread saying 1mb upstream is plenty.

There is no reason for consumers to suffer for a few years while the ISPs play catch-up. Let them lead for a change and people will find ways to use the new bandwidth and innovate. How much bandwidth does a home security camera uploading a video stream to the web use anyway? I suppose in a few years we will all need "business" pipes to get that type of service.

Tiresias · May 18, 2009, 11:05 PM

Here in the Land of Kimchi, Internet connection speeds are generally pretty high.

I have the cheapest connection:

SSharon · May 18, 2009, 11:10 PM

I get pretty similar results here in Long Island.

I thought my service was sold as 10/1.5 but I guess it is more like 10/2.

Tiresias · May 18, 2009, 11:12 PM

^ That's pretty good! Is yours the cheapest connection?

SSharon · May 18, 2009, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by Tiresias

^ That's pretty good! Is yours the cheapest connection?

Yep. It is the first one on the list here Verizon | FiOS Internet: Plans which is 10/2 and is $45-$50 depending on whether it is bundled with phone service. I have it bundled with phone and TV. Hmm, an extra $20/month and I can get 20/20 not bad.

sek929 · May 18, 2009, 11:20 PM

$50/mo.

my ping times anger Dakar

SSharon · May 18, 2009, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by sek929

$50/mo.

my ping times anger Dakar

Too bad they don't have deals like that over here. I actually had faster speeds when I had optimum cable, but they weren't as reliable as Verizon has been with Fios. My cable would go out every other month or so and fios hasn't been down for 5 minutes since it was first installed 18 months ago.

Also, don't get too excited as Lithuania still has you beat on upload speeds.

sek929 · May 18, 2009, 11:39 PM

Lousy Lithuanians!

My cable has been incredibly reliable the past few years at both places I lived, I can't remember the last time the tubes weren't working...besides power outages.