The Natural Philosopher

Eeyore wrote:
>
> kim wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at moneysupermarket.com,
>>> said: "As most people are only achieving half the speed they signed up
>>> for, a typical film of 500Mb could take up to four hours to download,
>>> instead of 60-90 minutes."
>> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no business
>> downloading it in the first place.
>
> Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB Linux ISO CD
> image files.
>
> There is every need to download files that size.
>
> Graham
>
Indeed. Remote backup is why I want to UPLOAD 250Mbyte files..

A typical graphics object for a large printed item can be 60Mbyte or
more. Email again..upload.

As can a few minutes of video.

kim

dennis@home wrote:
> "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:6cGdnZn7kpn6YqHaRVnyvgA@giganews.com...
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Paul Cupis wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>> kim wrote:
>>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at
>>>>>>> moneysupermarket.com, said: "As most people are only achieving
>>>>>>> half the speed they signed up for, a typical film of 500Mb could
>>>>>>> take up to four hours to download, instead of 60-90 minutes."
>>>>>> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no
>>>>>> business downloading it in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB
>>>>> Linux ISO CD image files.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is every need to download files that size.
>>>>
>>>> The previous poster quoted someone saying that a typical FILM of
>>>> 500Mb..
>>>
>>> It seems to be a bit of a stretch to automatically assume it's a
>>> bootleg though.
>>
>> If it's a film and it's less than about 8GB it has to have been
>> recompressed by a bootlegger. Most often they are 700MB and encoded
>> with XviD. Movie studios don't release XviD's. A 500MB movie file
>> wouldn't even be worth watching unless it was a very, very short
>> film.
>
> That's untrue.
> Many films on dvd are less than 4.4G and its the extras that push it
> to dual layer.
> This used to be done just because dual layer recordable were so
> expensive and it stop copying.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But if extras have been stripped to bring the size
below 4.43GB it is likely to be a bootleg copy.

> Now many films are on single layer with no extras to keep costs down.

I haven't come across that many up till now except for rental-only versions.
Studios seemed to have have learned the trick of making the main movie on
retail discs just over 4.43 so as to preclude straightforward copying.

>>> Surely the 8GB downloads would be bootlegs ?
>>
>> If it's 8GB it's the movie studio's original dual-layer DVD. Whether
>> it's been authorised for download is a different matter.
>
> I was watching streamed video at 1.8M yesterday, that's about a gig
> an hour so I could easily download a DVDs worth in a day and its
> legitimate.

It would take me about 3 hours to download a DVD9... if I could find one!
They are not that common except for foreign language editions.

To upload a homemade (legitimate) DVD5 would take around 24 hours on a
typical ADSL line.

(kim)

xpuser

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1195210077.8024.9@proxy00.news.clara.net...
> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> kim wrote:
>>
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at moneysupermarket.com,
>>>> said: "As most people are only achieving half the speed they signed up
>>>> for, a typical film of 500Mb could take up to four hours to download,
>>>> instead of 60-90 minutes."
>>> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no business
>>> downloading it in the first place.
>>
>> Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB Linux ISO
>> CD
>> image files.
>>
>> There is every need to download files that size.
>>
>> Graham
>>
> Indeed. Remote backup is why I want to UPLOAD 250Mbyte files..
>
> A typical graphics object for a large printed item can be 60Mbyte or more.
> Email again..upload.
>
> As can a few minutes of video.

The issue here is the advertised speed by an ISP...and all you muppets can
do is argue about the size of legit and illegal downloads!! The only other
valid point made is by Kim, with regards to the infrastructure in the UK
which is crap.

How about getting back to the point raised by the OP!!

I personally dont have a problem with the "Up to xMB" speed offered by ISPs,
I am aware that the speed depends on the distance from the exchange as well
as other factors. When I subscribe to an ISP, I dont for one minute think I
will get the advertised speed, it would be silly of me to think I would.

I am not sure how ISPs would advertise their products in a manner that was
not confusing. If they could not use the "Up to.XMB" line.

The Natural Philosopher

xpuser wrote:
>
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:1195210077.8024.9@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>> kim wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at moneysupermarket.com,
>>>>> said: "As most people are only achieving half the speed they signed up
>>>>> for, a typical film of 500Mb could take up to four hours to download,
>>>>> instead of 60-90 minutes."
>>>> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no business
>>>> downloading it in the first place.
>>>
>>> Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB Linux
>>> ISO CD
>>> image files.
>>>
>>> There is every need to download files that size.
>>>
>>> Graham
>>>
>> Indeed. Remote backup is why I want to UPLOAD 250Mbyte files..
>>
>> A typical graphics object for a large printed item can be 60Mbyte or
>> more. Email again..upload.
>>
>> As can a few minutes of video.
>
> The issue here is the advertised speed by an ISP.

Which is usually NOT guaranteed.More fol you if you believe that 'up to
8Mbps' means 'I will definetely get 7'



...and all you muppets
> can do is argue about the size of legit and illegal downloads!! The
> only other valid point made is by Kim, with regards to the
> infrastructure in the UK which is crap.

Its very good actually. Its just that no one wants to pay to use it.

I could get you an completely guaranteed 20Mbps duplex to any major
ISP...for £30k a year.

Now how much did you want to spend? £15 a month? Right. WHERE would you
like that speed and service compromised, sir?

>
> How about getting back to the point raised by the OP!!
>
> I personally dont have a problem with the "Up to xMB" speed offered by
> ISPs, I am aware that the speed depends on the distance from the
> exchange as well as other factors. When I subscribe to an ISP, I dont
> for one minute think I will get the advertised speed, it would be silly
> of me to think I would.
>
> I am not sure how ISPs would advertise their products in a manner that
> was not confusing. If they could not use the "Up to.XMB" line.

Well some people DO get well over 6Mbps. Im on a download 2GB/month
capped service, but I DO get damn near all my 3M BRAS will allow any
time of day or night. About 2.8M down and 390K up. For 20 notes a month
its about the cheapest internet connection and the fastest personal one
I have ever had.

I used to spend more than that on a 9600 baud modem, in phone calls..

xpuser

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1195610543.13771.0@damia.uk.clara.net...
> xpuser wrote:
>>
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>> news:1195210077.8024.9@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>
>>>> kim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at
>>>>>> moneysupermarket.com,
>>>>>> said: "As most people are only achieving half the speed they signed
>>>>>> up
>>>>>> for, a typical film of 500Mb could take up to four hours to download,
>>>>>> instead of 60-90 minutes."
>>>>> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no business
>>>>> downloading it in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB Linux
>>>> ISO CD
>>>> image files.
>>>>
>>>> There is every need to download files that size.
>>>>
>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>> Indeed. Remote backup is why I want to UPLOAD 250Mbyte files..
>>>
>>> A typical graphics object for a large printed item can be 60Mbyte or
>>> more. Email again..upload.
>>>
>>> As can a few minutes of video.
>>
>> The issue here is the advertised speed by an ISP.
>
> Which is usually NOT guaranteed.More fol you if you believe that 'up to
> 8Mbps' means 'I will definetely get 7'
>
>
>
> ..and all you muppets
>> can do is argue about the size of legit and illegal downloads!! The only
>> other valid point made is by Kim, with regards to the infrastructure in
>> the UK which is crap.
>
> Its very good actually. Its just that no one wants to pay to use it.
>
> I could get you an completely guaranteed 20Mbps duplex to any major
> ISP...for £30k a year.
>
> Now how much did you want to spend? £15 a month? Right. WHERE would you
> like that speed and service compromised, sir?

20Mbps for £30K a year is way overpriced. You think people in the far east
and scandinavia pay anywhere near that for the speeds they are getting?
>
>>
>> How about getting back to the point raised by the OP!!
>>
>> I personally dont have a problem with the "Up to xMB" speed offered by
>> ISPs, I am aware that the speed depends on the distance from the exchange
>> as well as other factors. When I subscribe to an ISP, I dont for one
>> minute think I will get the advertised speed, it would be silly of me to
>> think I would.
>>
>> I am not sure how ISPs would advertise their products in a manner that
>> was not confusing. If they could not use the "Up to.XMB" line.
>
> Well some people DO get well over 6Mbps. Im on a download 2GB/month capped
> service, but I DO get damn near all my 3M BRAS will allow any time of day
> or night. About 2.8M down and 390K up. For 20 notes a month its about the
> cheapest internet connection and the fastest personal one I have ever had.
>
> I used to spend more than that on a 9600 baud modem, in phone calls..

If people are getting 6Mbps and are happy with that, then great, if there
not happy they have the choice to go elsewhere. I am on a "Up to 8MB"
service, I get between 4 - 6Mbps which I am happy with. I did not think I
would get 8Mb, not for a minute. I do agree that ISPs should say in adverts
(which some do) that the distance from the exchange will effect actual
speeds the customer receives. I take it your on a cable service, which when
they say "Up to xMB" you will get very close to xMB. If your on an ADSL,
LLU etc then the distance from exchange does play a big part in your speed,
as well as other factors. C'est la vie.

The Natural Philosopher

xpuser wrote:
>
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:1195610543.13771.0@damia.uk.clara.net...
>> xpuser wrote:
>>>
>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>> news:1195210077.8024.9@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> kim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at
>>>>>>> moneysupermarket.com,
>>>>>>> said: "As most people are only achieving half the speed they
>>>>>>> signed up
>>>>>>> for, a typical film of 500Mb could take up to four hours to
>>>>>>> download,
>>>>>>> instead of 60-90 minutes."
>>>>>> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no business
>>>>>> downloading it in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB
>>>>> Linux ISO CD
>>>>> image files.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is every need to download files that size.
>>>>>
>>>>> Graham
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed. Remote backup is why I want to UPLOAD 250Mbyte files..
>>>>
>>>> A typical graphics object for a large printed item can be 60Mbyte or
>>>> more. Email again..upload.
>>>>
>>>> As can a few minutes of video.
>>>
>>> The issue here is the advertised speed by an ISP.
>>
>> Which is usually NOT guaranteed.More fol you if you believe that 'up
>> to 8Mbps' means 'I will definetely get 7'
>>
>>
>>
>> ..and all you muppets
>>> can do is argue about the size of legit and illegal downloads!! The
>>> only other valid point made is by Kim, with regards to the
>>> infrastructure in the UK which is crap.
>>
>> Its very good actually. Its just that no one wants to pay to use it.
>>
>> I could get you an completely guaranteed 20Mbps duplex to any major
>> ISP...for £30k a year.
>>
>> Now how much did you want to spend? £15 a month? Right. WHERE would
>> you like that speed and service compromised, sir?
>
> 20Mbps for £30K a year is way overpriced. You think people in the far
> east and scandinavia pay anywhere near that for the speeds they are
> getting?

READ MY LIPS
"completely guaranteed 20Mbps duplex to any major ISP."

What you get for £15 a month is a completely un guaranteed asymmetrical
feed of probably in total 3Mpps on average, subject to probably a
download limit and some kind of contention. And piss all service and
support.



>>
>>>
>>> How about getting back to the point raised by the OP!!
>>>
>>> I personally dont have a problem with the "Up to xMB" speed offered
>>> by ISPs, I am aware that the speed depends on the distance from the
>>> exchange as well as other factors. When I subscribe to an ISP, I
>>> dont for one minute think I will get the advertised speed, it would
>>> be silly of me to think I would.
>>>
>>> I am not sure how ISPs would advertise their products in a manner
>>> that was not confusing. If they could not use the "Up to.XMB" line.
>>
>> Well some people DO get well over 6Mbps. Im on a download 2GB/month
>> capped service, but I DO get damn near all my 3M BRAS will allow any
>> time of day or night. About 2.8M down and 390K up. For 20 notes a
>> month its about the cheapest internet connection and the fastest
>> personal one I have ever had.
>>
>> I used to spend more than that on a 9600 baud modem, in phone calls..
>
> If people are getting 6Mbps and are happy with that, then great, if
> there not happy they have the choice to go elsewhere. I am on a "Up to
> 8MB" service, I get between 4 - 6Mbps which I am happy with. I did not
> think I would get 8Mb, not for a minute. I do agree that ISPs should
> say in adverts (which some do) that the distance from the exchange will
> effect actual speeds the customer receives. I take it your on a cable
> service, which when they say "Up to xMB" you will get very close to
> xMB. If your on an ADSL, LLU etc then the distance from exchange does
> play a big part in your speed, as well as other factors. C'est la vie.

Sure. But beggars cannot be choosers, and there aint fiber or cable
running to my house, and I know how much it would cost to get more..I
did look at a microwave dish and arranging my own backhaul..about £30k a
year for 10Mbps is what it would have cost.

Makes BT look cheap at ten times the price..

kim

xpuser wrote:
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:1195210077.8024.9@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>> kim wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at
>>>>> moneysupermarket.com, said: "As most people are only achieving
>>>>> half the speed they signed up for, a typical film of 500Mb could
>>>>> take up to four hours to download, instead of 60-90 minutes."
>>>> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no
>>>> business downloading it in the first place.
>>>
>>> Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB
>>> Linux ISO CD
>>> image files.
>>>
>>> There is every need to download files that size.
>>>
>>> Graham
>>>
>> Indeed. Remote backup is why I want to UPLOAD 250Mbyte files..
>>
>> A typical graphics object for a large printed item can be 60Mbyte or
>> more. Email again..upload.
>>
>> As can a few minutes of video.
>
> The issue here is the advertised speed by an ISP...and all you
> muppets can do is argue about the size of legit and illegal
> downloads!! The only other valid point made is by Kim, with regards
> to the infrastructure in the UK which is crap.
>
> How about getting back to the point raised by the OP!!
>
> I personally dont have a problem with the "Up to xMB" speed offered
> by ISPs, I am aware that the speed depends on the distance from the
> exchange as well as other factors. When I subscribe to an ISP, I
> dont for one minute think I will get the advertised speed, it would
> be silly of me to think I would.
> I am not sure how ISPs would advertise their products in a manner
> that was not confusing. If they could not use the "Up to.XMB" line.

The article totally ignores the subject of download capping. What is the
point of having a fast connection if you can't use it in the evenings or
have already hit your download limit?

(kim)

The Natural Philosopher

kim wrote:
> xpuser wrote:
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>> news:1195210077.8024.9@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> kim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at
>>>>>> moneysupermarket.com, said: "As most people are only achieving
>>>>>> half the speed they signed up for, a typical film of 500Mb could
>>>>>> take up to four hours to download, instead of 60-90 minutes."
>>>>> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no
>>>>> business downloading it in the first place.
>>>> Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB
>>>> Linux ISO CD
>>>> image files.
>>>>
>>>> There is every need to download files that size.
>>>>
>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>> Indeed. Remote backup is why I want to UPLOAD 250Mbyte files..
>>>
>>> A typical graphics object for a large printed item can be 60Mbyte or
>>> more. Email again..upload.
>>>
>>> As can a few minutes of video.
>> The issue here is the advertised speed by an ISP...and all you
>> muppets can do is argue about the size of legit and illegal
>> downloads!! The only other valid point made is by Kim, with regards
>> to the infrastructure in the UK which is crap.
>>
>> How about getting back to the point raised by the OP!!
>>
>> I personally dont have a problem with the "Up to xMB" speed offered
>> by ISPs, I am aware that the speed depends on the distance from the
>> exchange as well as other factors. When I subscribe to an ISP, I
>> dont for one minute think I will get the advertised speed, it would
>> be silly of me to think I would.
>> I am not sure how ISPs would advertise their products in a manner
>> that was not confusing. If they could not use the "Up to.XMB" line.
>
> The article totally ignores the subject of download capping. What is the
> point of having a fast connection if you can't use it in the evenings or
> have already hit your download limit?
>

That's the wrong question. The real question is 'what is the point in
saving a few pints worth of money a month, if you can't use your
internet connection to the level you want to?'

Its very simple. The adverts are merely economical with the truth. When
has an advert been anything but?

If you care enough, research the ISPS and work out who gives you what
you want. If not, don't whinge when you get something you don't want.







> (kim)
>
>

dennis@home

"kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:XpudnV_628PWqNvanZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> xpuser wrote:
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>> news:1195210077.8024.9@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>
>>>> kim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at
>>>>>> moneysupermarket.com, said: "As most people are only achieving
>>>>>> half the speed they signed up for, a typical film of 500Mb could
>>>>>> take up to four hours to download, instead of 60-90 minutes."
>>>>> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no
>>>>> business downloading it in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB
>>>> Linux ISO CD
>>>> image files.
>>>>
>>>> There is every need to download files that size.
>>>>
>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>> Indeed. Remote backup is why I want to UPLOAD 250Mbyte files..
>>>
>>> A typical graphics object for a large printed item can be 60Mbyte or
>>> more. Email again..upload.
>>>
>>> As can a few minutes of video.
>>
>> The issue here is the advertised speed by an ISP...and all you
>> muppets can do is argue about the size of legit and illegal
>> downloads!! The only other valid point made is by Kim, with regards
>> to the infrastructure in the UK which is crap.
>>
>> How about getting back to the point raised by the OP!!
>>
>> I personally dont have a problem with the "Up to xMB" speed offered
>> by ISPs, I am aware that the speed depends on the distance from the
>> exchange as well as other factors. When I subscribe to an ISP, I
>> dont for one minute think I will get the advertised speed, it would
>> be silly of me to think I would.
>> I am not sure how ISPs would advertise their products in a manner
>> that was not confusing. If they could not use the "Up to.XMB" line.
>
> The article totally ignores the subject of download capping. What is the
> point of having a fast connection if you can't use it in the evenings or
> have already hit your download limit?

I would be quite happy with a CAP on a 50M connection.
I like things to happen quickly when they happen.
I don't download huge amounts so a reasonable CAP on a fast service for less
cash is my ideal.
People that argue against CAPs just haven't thought about what others may
want and are only concerned about themselves.

kim

dennis@home wrote:
> "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:XpudnV_628PWqNvanZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>> xpuser wrote:
>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>> news:1195210077.8024.9@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> kim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at
>>>>>>> moneysupermarket.com, said: "As most people are only achieving
>>>>>>> half the speed they signed up for, a typical film of 500Mb could
>>>>>>> take up to four hours to download, instead of 60-90 minutes."
>>>>>> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no
>>>>>> business downloading it in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB
>>>>> Linux ISO CD
>>>>> image files.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is every need to download files that size.
>>>>>
>>>>> Graham
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed. Remote backup is why I want to UPLOAD 250Mbyte files..
>>>>
>>>> A typical graphics object for a large printed item can be 60Mbyte
>>>> or more. Email again..upload.
>>>>
>>>> As can a few minutes of video.
>>>
>>> The issue here is the advertised speed by an ISP...and all you
>>> muppets can do is argue about the size of legit and illegal
>>> downloads!! The only other valid point made is by Kim, with regards
>>> to the infrastructure in the UK which is crap.
>>>
>>> How about getting back to the point raised by the OP!!
>>>
>>> I personally dont have a problem with the "Up to xMB" speed offered
>>> by ISPs, I am aware that the speed depends on the distance from the
>>> exchange as well as other factors. When I subscribe to an ISP, I
>>> dont for one minute think I will get the advertised speed, it would
>>> be silly of me to think I would.
>>> I am not sure how ISPs would advertise their products in a manner
>>> that was not confusing. If they could not use the "Up to.XMB" line.
>>
>> The article totally ignores the subject of download capping. What is
>> the point of having a fast connection if you can't use it in the
>> evenings or have already hit your download limit?
>
> I would be quite happy with a CAP on a 50M connection.
> I like things to happen quickly when they happen.
> I don't download huge amounts

Neither do I but I'm still capped.

> so a reasonable CAP on a fast service
> for less cash is my ideal.

And how is anyone supposed to determine that when service providers refuse
to state in clear terms exactly what their download limit is, or else change
it after a customer has signed up?

> People that argue against CAPs just haven't thought about what others
> may want and are only concerned about themselves.

The exact same could be said of people who argue in favour of CAPs.

(kim)