×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In Japan, a 900 Gigabyte Upload Cap, Downloads Uncapped

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the no-such-luck-in-tennessee dept.

The Internet 368

Raindeer writes "While the Broadband Bandits of the US are contemplating bandwidth caps between 5 gigabyte and 40 gigabyte per month, the largest telco in Japan has gone ahead and laid down some heavy caps for Japan's broadband addicts. From now on, if you upload more than 30 gigabyte per day, your network connection may be disconnected. Just think of it ... if you're in Japan and want to upload the HD movie you shot of yesterday's wedding, you soon might hit the limit. The downloaders do not face similar problems."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

368 comments

First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069301)

First post... on a slow us connection

Re:First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069335)

How many years have you fuckers been doing the First Post shit? Good god it's tired.

Try something new.

If only there were a way (2, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069381)

To provide service to the broadband neglected in the US -- like, for example, allowing the public power districts that already have wires running to the homes do it.

Never ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069547)

Appropos, the caption at the bottom of the Slashdot page is:

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes."

Perhaps it's time that was updated to "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a Japanese broadband account."

Re:If only there were a way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069719)

Yes, and the resulting increase in the RF noise floor is certainly a small price to pay. Towns with no infrastructure don't use any radio waves, do they? I mean, it's not like they need to be connected within or to the outside.

Decemeber 7th, 1941, A Day That Will Live in (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069901)

Infamy !!

Seriously? (1, Redundant)

deckert_za (837816) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069311)

Seriousy?

Is the author bemoaning the 900GB CAP or praising it? Where I live, with a 3GB CAP (in total) per month, I truely admire what they have in Japan. Even with the CAP.

--deckert

Re:Seriously? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069331)

blah blah blah

Re:Seriously? (4, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069339)

Note to all future submitters and to the editors.

From now on, please add *lt;SARCASM> tags for the sarcasm-impaired.

Thank you.

Re:Seriously? (5, Funny)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069343)

Catching the subtleties isn't really your thing, huh?

Personally, if I have to live with the connectivity options in the US for actually being able to see genitals in my porn, I'll consider it a fair trade.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069625)

On the other side, due to such censoring, Japanese porn does make for better whatching. Here in the US, its all about "get naked, YAY", which gets totally boring after a while. So fair trade indeed, you get better deals in both departments in my book.

Re:Seriously? (3, Funny)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069703)

Whatching? Is that some fiendish portmanteau of whacking and watching? You Japanese porn fans are weird in so very many ways...

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069857)

Careful bud, if you get used to it that way you'll be forced to ask any (unlikely) future girl friend to hold a black strip of paper in front of her junk to get off.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069349)

I agree, 900GB of upload is just huge for a residential account, you're more than just running a personal server at that point.

Re:Seriously? (3, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069357)

Yeah, really. I mean, my peak usage last year was 54 gb one month ... usually I'm around 25-30. I'm on Comcast and since they won't tell me anything about how much I can download without being stigmatized as a "bandwidth hog" I try to keep it under fifty. If I had 900 Gb down / 30 Gb up I'd say it was a good deal.

Re:Seriously? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069621)

Notice that the limit is 30GB PER DAY, making it 900GB per month UPLOAD limit.

There is no download limit, as mentioned in article and summary.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069373)

where the hell do you live that you have a 3GB cap per month?

Re:Seriously? (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069709)

I'd guess that he uses either satalite or cellular.

Re:Seriously? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069921)

What the hell is satalite? Some form of slower than normal SATA? Or one that uses a "Lite" cable? Less filling on the grommets? Come on, inquiring minds want to know.

Re:Seriously? (5, Informative)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069831)

Australia. Debateably not a third-world backwater.

(Almost) All residential DSL/Cable data services in Australia have a cap. If you are daft enough to use the defacto monopoly provider's retail services then you get a small cap, high price, and both in- and outbound data count. Until recently, their cap was 1 or 3 GB with a ridiculous per MB charge for excess...they still sell grandma and grandpa (read sucker) accounts with 200 or 400 megabyte limits. I think haemorrhaging customers to the competition, and being forced to play nice by the ACCC, is starting to change their ways.

Bigpond's offerings [nyud.net]

Most everyone else counts only inbound traffic.

Re:Seriously? (5, Interesting)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069633)

The submitter is making fun of the US.... is that so hard to understand? Back in the day when broadband was introduced in the country I live, it was 256kbps/64kbps down no caps.... Compared to other countries (with and without caps) that was pretty much just above dialup. I mean, I had ISDN before that which could do 128kbps/128kbps. The difference? Flatrate... ISDN was per minute for ADSL, I paid one fix price per month. A 900GB cap would do nothing to me because the always-on aspect to me is the most important part of broadband to me.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Hes Nikke (237581) | more than 5 years ago | (#24070005)

Caps Are Pagan?
Cabbage And Peanuts?
Carpets Around Packages?

I can't figure out what this CAP acronym is... anyone have any ideas?

First Post... Drat (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069323)

Stupid 300 baud

Re:First Post... Drat (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069539)

Oh yeah? I'm stuck using an RFC1149 connection. Let me tell you, path MTU discovery is a pain over that thing...

For you young folks... that was funny. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069609)

There was a time there when the Mars lander had faster network speeds than I had in my house in a populous region of the USA. Nobody was willing to bring cable or DSL to our town, but the damn lander had a 256K connection.

Bandwidth cap? Not here (4, Informative)

abstract daddy (1307763) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069345)

No such thing in Finland. I can upload and download 24/7 without any restrictions, and I've never heard of any ISP enforcing a cap.

Re:Bandwidth cap? Not here (4, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069411)

Agreed, Finland is a great country for file-sharing. And I've heard rumours that the network of HOAS (the Helsinki student housing association), managed by Sonera, is actually that firm's test network, where you can upload and download all the live-long day with the company's (tacit) blessing because all that activity is only going to helping them better calibrate their main network.

Re:Bandwidth cap? Not here (2, Informative)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069973)

Agreed, Finland is a great country for file-sharing.

Yeah, if you forget about Lex Karpela, the local implementation of Euro-DMCA. And the Finreactor case [wikipedia.org].

Re:Bandwidth cap? Not here (5, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069485)

No such thing in Finland. I can upload and download 24/7 without any restrictions, and I've never heard of any ISP enforcing a cap.

Well, of course: you can get broadband from any ISP you want, no matter who owns the phone line, so there's no monopoly problems like in the US.

Re:Bandwidth cap? Not here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069993)

How does this work in Finland... Who owns & maintains the lines to each house?

How do they avoid companies messing with competitor lines?

Is broadband cheaper in Finland than in the US?

Re:Bandwidth cap? Not here (2, Interesting)

empaler (130732) | more than 5 years ago | (#24070045)

In Denmark, there's a similar situation-that is, any ISP can a DSL connection over the copper owned by a former state-monopoly.
The thing is, the ISPs make next to nothing on the leased lines. I'd bet that if you just call them once per month (question about a bill, complaint about speed or packet loss, other errors), those subscribers are producing red numbers.
Of course, I don't know if the market is similar in Finland.

Disclaimer: I have worked for one of the largest Danish ISPs, specifically with DSL.

Download caps (1, Redundant)

tonycheese (921278) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069359)

Well, yes, if you're uploading daily 5 hour movies of your wedding in HD, then you'll hit your cap. I'm really not sure why you would be uploading that much in movies in such quality, and certainly don't know why you would be doing that on a daily basis, but yes, if that were the case there would be a problem. For the other 99.999% of us, I think 30 gigabytes in a DAY is more than enough.

Re:Download caps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069397)

if you're uploading daily 5 hour movies of your wedding in HD, then you'll hit your cap. I'm really not sure why you would be uploading that much in movies in such quality

I am also not sure who would want to download those wedding movies :-)

Re:Download caps (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069755)

I am also not sure who would want to download those wedding movies :-)

And what about wedding night movies?

Re:Download caps (4, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069403)

900G a month should be enough for everyone.

Re:Download caps (5, Informative)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069565)

To hit the 900GB limit you'd have to upload at (if I did the math right) 364KB/sec nonstop every day for an entire month.

I don't know what the hell you're doing but that's a pretty generous cap, and something a typical family is unlikely to reach... even uploading 30GB HD home movies.
=Smidge=

Re:Download caps (1)

grolaw (670747) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069801)

How about off-site, real-time backups for a small law firm? I pay $200.00/mo for 1.5meg up and down with no caps. Amazon's Jungle Disk might be worthwhile if I could manage 5 terabytes or so....a month.

Anybody else know what a video deposition looks like? 8-10 hours of .mov files spanning multiple DVDs. One person's depo can generate that 8-10 gig of data and the average case has 12 depos.

Re:Download caps (1)

vipz (1179205) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069849)

I think commercial connections are an entirely different story, especially when it comes to caps. Not to mention static vs. dynamic IPs.

Re:Download caps (2, Informative)

jabuzz (182671) | more than 5 years ago | (#24070069)

Right, which small law firm is that which produces 5TB of new or changed data *a month*? I am responsible for backup and storage at a large life sciences department at a UK university, and we don't produce 5TB of data from our microscopes a month. These produce data at a much higher rate than a small law firm could reasonably manage.

You need to invest in some better backup technology me thinks. Something that backs up files rather than filesystems.

Re:Download caps (5, Insightful)

devjj (956776) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069595)

You say that now, but in a few years when you want to stream HD with actual fidelity - not the compressed to hell crap we have today - you'll change your tune. We are quickly approaching an era of ubiquitous streaming. If network operators institute caps and then continue resisting investments in their networks, a lot of innovation will never happen.

Re:Download caps (1)

wondershit (1231886) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069811)

Of course. DVDs exist for quite some time and the biggest video sharing site just updated its quality to 480x360 pixels. Still they produce immense ammounts of traffic. It's always "but in the future everything will be HD" and stuff. They used to say that for DVDs, now they say that for HD content... untill the Next Big Thing comes along. But I think we'll stick to the compressed to hell crap for quite some time.

Re:Download caps (1)

NothingMore (943591) | more than 5 years ago | (#24070049)

Since pretty much no one streams there own hd media currently (aka they run there own streaming station since this cap only effects uploads not downloads) this isnt really a big deal. If HD streaming were to become common place im pretty sure these caps would be lifted (because gasp Japanese companies listen to there customers)

Re:Download caps (2, Insightful)

ncc74656 (45571) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069815)

For the other 99.999% of us, I think 30 gigabytes in a DAY is more than enough.

...especially when you consider that at 1.5 Mbps upstream, the most you can upload in a day is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 GB. This bandwidth cap is somewhat like setting a highway speed limit of 670616629 mph [google.com].

Japan VS. US Infrastructure. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069367)

Of course, it always helps when you completely rebuild your infrastructure after it being decimated after a war. Also having a huge difference in landmass is in Japans favour. Of course, they always seem to want to strive for innovation, while US strives for ROI. Almost makes you wish the terrorists bombed the intertube infrastructure instead of the WTO.

Re:Japan VS. US Infrastructure. (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069797)

"Of course, it always helps when you completely rebuild your infrastructure after it being decimated after a war."

Decimation is the loss of ten percent. It is tolerable casualties for a military unit, let alone infrastructure.
Japan was far more devastated, giving it nearly a blank slate on which to rebuild.

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#eeoaaatj [anesi.com]

Re:Japan VS. US Infrastructure. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069929)

Decimation is a loss of 10% when dealing with soldiers. Otherwise it has several other meanings. At this point the use of the word to mean what the GP said is the predominating definition and will be the definition in the future.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861603101/decimate.html [msn.com]

Not the best source, but I was too lazy to look for something better. Definition 2 would be the most common use of the word.

Re:Japan VS. US Infrastructure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069953)

http://www.answers.com/decimation&r=67 [answers.com] Decimate originally referred to the killing of every tenth person, a punishment used in the Roman army for mutinous legions. Today this meaning is commonly extended to include the killing of any large proportion of a group.

Try living in the 21st century. Stupid language nazis.

How? (3, Funny)

jadedoto (1242580) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069435)

The next step is figuring out how to upload that much each day.

Re:How? (1)

barry99705 (895337) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069501)

Claim it's the latest Hollywood hottie's "home movies". Cause really, anybody that want's to see your wedding was probably already there.

Re:How? (1)

barry99705 (895337) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069537)

You know, I hate replying to myself, but I'd love to have an internet connection that was actually capable of uploading 900Gigs in a month.

There is no need for this for ordinary users (3, Insightful)

cliffski (65094) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069505)

Thats an insane amount. I can't even vaguely imagine how I would use more than 30 gig a month downloads. And 90% of that is me using the BBC iplayer because I don't own a video player or DVD recorder. Without those, it's probably under 5 gig a month tops, and thats mostly web surfing, the odd youtube vid and multiplayer gaming.
Fuck it, with so many 'triple A' games abandoning the PC, there aren't even any stupidly big demos to download anymore.

Unless you are some kid who thinks he is 'sticking it to the man' by downloading every single hollywood movie in HD (presumably so can watch it whilst snorting about how much it sucks and that the producers business model is flawed) from dodgy torrent sites, I don't see how anyone has any serious need for this.

I'm sure some smug slashdotters will equate this to the 640k quote, but tell me exactly how my need for digital data downloaded to my PC is going to go much higher in the next ten years?

Re:There is no need for this for ordinary users (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069533)

Youtube in HD.

You lose.

Re:There is no need for this for ordinary users (3, Informative)

nbert (785663) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069911)

Even with HD content one would have to deliberately break the limit. Let's assume youtube would implement full HD based on H.264 aka MPEG-4 AVC. I don't have any material on my computer but a quick look here [apple.com] tells me that 3 minutes require about 360 MB, so you get about 250 minutes for 30 GB, which is a little more than 4 hours.

But even if someone watches youtube for more than 4 hours in a row it wouldn't matter, because TFA mentions that it only affects upload, so one would have to upload 2.8 movies of average length a day.

BTW: Bluray supports MPEG-2 exactly for the reason that it wastes so much space. Otherwise people would start to wonder why we need 50 GB optical discs for HD videos...

Re:There is no need for this for ordinary users (3, Informative)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069613)

I probably use about ~40gb a month, which I believe is below COX's limit of 60gb/month. I have a decent torrent ratio so I'm probably uploading 20gb a month as well
~5gb movies streamed from 360
~3gb movies streamed from netflix. I have no idea what the netflix size-per-movie is, but my wife watches about 5 of them per month.
~30gb porn
~10gb tv shows
~2gb checking email, web surfing, youtube, downloading linux distros, etc.

Re:There is no need for this for ordinary users (1)

the brown guy (1235418) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069777)

with so many 'triple A' games abandoning the PC, there aren't even any stupidly big demos to download anymore.

Except for the stupidly big demos for consoles...

There is - e.g. HD video from small indy networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069795)

There is, or at least there very soon will be. With coming HD video, streams will get into the gigabyte range soon enough and not all networks will be able to afford hosting like that. Imagine a small regional network. Maybe they don't have a lot of money behind them, but they can still make very interesting television for the local population, tourists planning a trip there, etc. Without caps the station could simply use a peer-to-peer like system to host their television programs and make do with a relatively low cost connection. But the upload bandwith has to go somewhere: to the viewers. If HD television over the internet kicks off, people will start hitting these limits pretty quickly. Maybe not the next year or so, but still pretty soon, and that could make it hard for small television stations to operate on the internet. HD television is just one example, but there could be all kinds of novel applications for uncapped broadband. Video conferencing? The next generation of MMO's? Remote installation? Who knows? If we will systematically cap broadband, there are a few things we do know: innovation will be hampered, there will be less pressure on the networks to increase bandwith if necessary, and small vendors and providers will get hit harder than large ones.

Re:There is no need for this for ordinary users (2)

lubricated (49106) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069905)

I'm sure some smug slashdotters will equate this to the 640k quote, but tell me exactly how my need for digital data downloaded to my PC is going to go much higher in the next ten years?

Tell me anything about technology in the next 10 years. It is you that is being smug. Your argument boils down to, I don't want bandwidth why should anyone else.

Unless you are some kid who thinks he is 'sticking it to the man' by downloading every single hollywood movie in HD

There it is smug emissions. Fuck you.

Re:There is no need for this for ordinary users (4, Interesting)

Wildclaw (15718) | more than 5 years ago | (#24070073)

The.X-Files.COMPLETE.MULTiSUBS.PAL.DVDR-MULTiGRP 253.91GB

Sure, downloading that is against the law in most countries, but if the bandwidth was there, the legal services providing similar products would come.

Unless you are some kid who thinks he is 'sticking it to the man' by downloading every single hollywood movie in HD

spider-man.3.wvc1.1080p.bluray.nlsubs.rabomil.wmv 13GB

That would make 2-3 hollywood movies per month I guess then.

And the rest of your comment shows that you have no idea of who pirates. Sure, the 15-29 group is overrepresented, but that has more to do with the fact that they are more savage with computers and the internet, and not with their age or political agenda. (Ah well, that they are more savage with computers and the internet does have to do with their age statistically)

from dodgy torrent sites

Dodgy torrent sites? I admit that I am careful when download applications via bittorrent. On the other hand, I am equally careful when downloading it from any other site, because the malware industry is huge. Trust is the only thing you have to go on due to crappy operating systems (and this is not limited to windows) that don't automatically install all applications in a sandbox. If I wanted an application to write to any files (including my data files) outside of its own configuration/program directory I would want to give it specific permission to do so. Of course, selecting a file in an operating system open/save file dialog should count as giving permission.

Ok, that got a little off topic, so let's get back to it.

I'm sure some smug slashdotters will equate this to the 640k quote, but tell me exactly how my need for digital data downloaded to my PC is going to go much higher in the next ten years?

It probably won't be. The majority of the old generation always stays with what the already have. Frontrunners in technology is and will always be young people, With a few older here and there.

Re:There is no need for this for ordinary users (5, Insightful)

hherb (229558) | more than 5 years ago | (#24070083)

When all I had were floppy disks, my first 5MB hard disk seemed so huge that I started wondering how I would fill it. Question was answered within weeks. Few years later I spent seveal thousands of dollars for a monstruous 5GB hard disk, assuming that would be the end of all my storage troubles.

Nowadays, in my medical practice, my backup volume is at present 25 GB. It grows by about 1GB per month. That is what I have to transfer every night to an offsite backup facility.

Images I receive from radiology can be several GB a day when they transfer MRI and CT images, and so forth

Plus, once you got the bandwidth, you can start doing some real video conferencing at a frame rate and resolution that actually makes it usable - and you will burn through many GB in no time.

30 gigs up is way more than I could ever send. (5, Interesting)

w3woody (44457) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069523)

I have a 10megabit down, 1.5megabit up at home. This means it would take me 44 hours to upload 30 gigabytes with my 1.5mb/s upload speed.

Perhaps until the backbone in Japan is updated to uncap upload speeds, the right answer would be to throttle bit rates for anyone who has uploaded more than 20 gigabytes in a particular month? You could almost do it by just slowly ramping down rather than cutting people off--and it's a lot less antisocial than just pulling the customer's plug.

Hell, I have an effective 20gigabyte/month upload cap because that's the maximum capacity of my bandwidth; yet until I heard about Japan's bandwidth I wasn't complaining.

As a footnote, the quote of the day at the bottom of my page reads: "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -- Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, UTCS"

Seems appropriate somehow...

Re:30 gigs up is way more than I could ever send. (5, Insightful)

blackjackshellac (849713) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069583)

That's pretty well just what I was going to post, my upload bandwidth is a tad under 100KB/s, so the most I can upload in a 24 hour period is 8GB. My download bandwidth comes in at about 500KB/s so with that I could get to 40GB down per day.

After working in a university for 15 years and regularly getting 1-10MB/s and now working in private industry where we employ Infiniband, Gige and 10Gige these limits are horrifyingly slow to me.

Fibre to the home. Now!

Re:30 gigs up is way more than I could ever send. (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 5 years ago | (#24070081)

This means it would take me 44 hours to upload 30 gigabytes with my 1.5mb/s upload speed.

...

Hell, I have an effective 20gigabyte/month upload cap because that's the maximum capacity of my bandwidth

Huh??

What about illegal (OMG TERRISTS!) file sharing? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069577)

What's the attitude of Japanese govt. towards p2p copyrighted material filesharing?
I ask because, you know, 30GB/day aren't that easy fo fill if you eliminate that use of p2p networks. Unless people fall in love with ultra high definition videoconferencing, but I'd stay happily with plain cable if that was all I could do with so much bandwidth.

PLANNED: February 2009 HD laws in the US (1, Troll)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069589)

Now that everyone is being forced to upgrade their SD audio and video equipment to HD, these fascist corporations controlling our communications are imposing data caps.

I say, this was their plan from the beginning to destroy alternative opinion, websites, and news.

HD is NOT in the public interest, when only fascist corporate media will be able to afford to broadcast it.

We have only to look at who controls the FCC.

The web, internet is NOT prepared for the switch from SD to HD.

It won't be long until the outright financial destruction of alternative news sources. It won't be long after that that ALL dissenting voices are silenced.

Japan is a canary in the coal mine. An example. A footnote.

Re:PLANNED: February 2009 HD laws in the US (1)

Teilo (91279) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069695)

Yeah. And of course, because I can now watch CNN in HD, I have absolutely no desire to read or watch any news at all online.

Just settle down, a bit, ok?

Re:PLANNED: February 2009 HD laws in the US (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069735)

Yeah. And of course, because I can now watch CNN in HD, I have absolutely no desire to read or watch any news at all online.

Why would you want to watch *news* when you can be *entertained* by watching CNN - now in HD!
News is so depressing.

Re:PLANNED: February 2009 HD laws in the US (4, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069737)

what HD? they're moving to SD transmitted digitally.

Re:PLANNED: February 2009 HD laws in the US (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069739)

honestly, while the transition to all digital broadcast (which happens to involve HD) is being used to cram DRM down our throats and sell out our fair use rights, I'm not drawing the connections you are.

HD streams have been around on the web for a while, and are now common on pirate sites as well.

Nobody is forcing alternative viewpoints to be in HD. slashdot isn't even in SD and I don't see it going anywhere.

The imposition of caps of the type theyre "experimenting" with in the US are most definitely a step backward which, if allowed to deploy universally, would seriously stifle the internet, but in a long history which at times involved heavy p2p use, I at no time managed to upload that quantity of data in a month.

I don't see 40 gigs as fundamentally unreasonable for upload on a residential account, and I also believe at least SOME of the burden for future applications of the internet should be placed on algorithms/compression rather than simple isp expansion.

40 or even 140 gigs is far too low for downstream though, given that the "last mile" was supposedly designed on the assumption of a structure in which the sending of data was overwhelmingly dominated by receipt.

Correction.. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069863)

I misred the story.. thats 40 gigs in a day

honestly, if you go through 40 gigs UPLOAD in a day, you've had enough for that day.

Re:PLANNED: February 2009 HD laws in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069963)

honestly, while the transition to all digital broadcast (which happens to involve HD) is being used to cram DRM down our throats and sell out our fair use rights, I'm not drawing the connections you are.

ATSC has no DRM whatsoever.

Re:PLANNED: February 2009 HD laws in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069763)

IF ONLY YOU COULD DOWNSAMPLE TO SD RESOLUTIONS!

Oh wait, you can. At least until the fascist corporations make encoding 352x288 videos illegal.

Why did this get modded insightful? Is the tinfoil hat brigade out?

Re:PLANNED: February 2009 HD laws in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069783)

Now that everyone is being forced to upgrade their SD audio and video equipment to HD, ...

Quibble, I assume you are referring to the switch to digital TV broadcast in Febuary 2009.

They are not switching to HD TV, they are switching to digital TV, which is not necessarily HD. There will still be plenty of SD content, but you'll still need a digital receiver to watch it.

Benefit of HD News? (2, Funny)

ya really (1257084) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069813)

What exactly is so interesting about watching the news in HD? Will it make Fox more "fair and balanced?" I could see them trying that though as a marketing ploy. "Watch Fox news in HD, where our views and stories 50% more clear!"

Re:PLANNED: February 2009 HD laws in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069989)

Um, no. People are not required to upgrade to HD, they're required to upgrade to digital TV, which has nothing to do with the resolution.

But do go ahead, continue to troll like all the other uninformed sheeple*.

(* You see what I did there?)

Re:PLANNED: February 2009 HD laws in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24070001)

Nice FUD post.
1. There is no mandate for HD programming, only digital programming. Stations can still broadcast in SD if they choose.
2. The FCC mandate only affects over-the-air signals, not cable, satellite, or Internet broadcasts.
3. All Internet transmissions are inherently digital to begin with. There is no such thing as an analog webcast.

I feel so sorry for the Japanese (5, Funny)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069639)

That clearly shows how bad their Internet infrastructure is compared to the US, where we have *unlimited* accounts!

Well... (1)

annex1 (920373) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069651)

Given the situation here in North America, I cannot bring myself to even begin to feel bad for them. The crap we put up with here, it actually makes me GLAD that they are capped like that.

And what's about the third world. (2, Informative)

fcr (1295423) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069741)

In my country (Uruguay), the residential upload capacity varies between 128kbps and 256kbps, that means we have an upload limit between 0.9GB daily and 1.8GB if we consider that only two thirds of the supposed kbps are really available.

It gets worse (RTFA) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069753)

As if a 900gb cap wasn't bad enough, those poor fools are paying $46 a month for a weak 100Mbps line!

900 GB cap is unacceptable in my opinion. (3, Funny)

Xizer (794030) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069835)

I regularly upload more than 900 GB in a month on a residential connection and I live in the United States. I thought Japan was supposed to be some kind of broadband utopia? I must say, I am disappointed.

Re:900 GB cap is unacceptable in my opinion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24070039)

To upload 900 GB in a month, even constantly maxing out your bandwidth, you'd have to have an upstream connection of at least about 2.8 Mbps. Exactly where do you live that residential connections have >2.8 Mbps upstream?

Here in Ireland... (1)

mysqlbytes (908737) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069843)

Even with the bad infrastructure here in Ireland, I have an uncapped connection. Obviously I can't upload much at 512kbps a second.... Bring on the SDSL!

calculation time (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069919)

With my current TWC Road Runner connection, if I ran at max upload speed nonstop for every single second in an entire month, according to my calculations I'd be at almost 1/4 of that limit. That's nuts to even put that kind of limit on it. I don't know what kind of connection they have there but to hit that limit with just 6 hours a day at max speed for 30 days, it'd need to be over 41 megabits up. If you skip a few days or only go to like 3 hours, and you're not talking about multi-target uploads like p2p, the target computer's hard drive can't even write that fast. Gee, why didn't they just say a bajillion gigabyte cap?

and in sunny south africa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24069939)

We pay excessively, the most cost effective broadband plan being 3GB(total usage) Per Month!!! at a whopping R239 (roughly $30) per month excluding the adsl line rental. 4mb being top of the range for residential broadband which would come in at around $60. I can only look at these posts and cry

Maybe I'm old-fashioned... (1)

R3d Jack (1107235) | more than 5 years ago | (#24069945)

but, the intention of residential Internet service is mainly to allow people to download content. The ISP's can't afford to support a server site at residential rates, and more residential users can't afford business type service.
For the *few* that want to run true server sites from their residences, go out and buy it. No one is stopping you.
As far as Japan is concerned, isn't the limit around 37m upload rate continuously? The cap has to be targeted at (ab)users who are running server farms. Why is this even news?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...