New Internet Protocol 6000x faster than DSL

Well, 56K times 150,000 is 8,400,000,000.
So figure around 8Gigs!

Blockbuster and other video rental stores would be online.

Skullsplitter is correct, the pc would be the center of the home. Almost everything would run off of it.

Originally posted by Ocelot

Originally posted by Xephyre
I agree also with you on DSL prices I don't know how much you pay in your area but here in P.R. we get screwed cause there is only one company which holds a monopoly over the entire infrastructure so the price is high. I pay around $60/month alone for a crummy 512kps/128kps line when i know they have support for up to 5~6Mbits yet they don't offer any such services. Well not unless you work for the company in which you get free service fully uncapped.

I can vouch for that. I pay $40 for 512/128k Cable!!

The Bastards.

You guy's are getting ripped off. I pay 27.99 for a 2.5m down and 512 up from a local CLEC(Competitive Local Exchange) I would try and find one in your area they are usually 20% lower than the local telco's.

Hell,don't get too excited about it.I live 20 minutes outside of Dallas and I can't get cable or DSL yet.It will be a long time before we see this new technology supplied to the masses.

Originally posted by Daz3d-n-Confus3d
Hell,don't get too excited about it.I live 20 minutes outside of Dallas and I can't get cable or DSL yet.It will be a long time before we see this new technology supplied to the masses.

Long "time" indeed, considering the condition that this world is in. In fact, it would probably be plausible to say that this will NEVER come to the masses, if nuclear war happens... or other "weird" things that people are talking about on this website and others, in our near future.

Originally posted by Sigma
^Probably right... although it is disheartening to think that such speed will only be in the hands of private networks. I have 1.5 megabyte cable access and at times I still wish I had a faster connection(call me greedy if you want), but the new protocol would allow my current connection to handle anything. I am crossing my fingers that one of the next Windows XP updates will include this.

You mean Megabit. There is a huge difference between a MegaByte and a Megabit. A Megabit is 1 million bits. A MegaByte is 1 million bytes. How much is a byte? Its 8 bits. Which means, a MegaByte is roughly 8 million bits. If you want the exact number, it would be 8,388,608 bits. And a Megabit is exactly 1,048,576 bits.

Kilobytes are generally what you actually see when you are downloading at a speed under 1 MegaByte per second. Your 1.5 Megabit cable connection should be about equal to 192 KiloBytes per second. Those are the speeds you should be seeing. I'm on Comcast and they just doubled our speed for no extra charge from 1.5 Megabits to 3 Megabits. That is equal to 384 KiloBytes per second and those are the speeds I always see.

Its funny that it took Comcast this long to bump up the speed. When it was Comcast@home (@home was the actual cable backbone to the net, not Comcast' own network, like it is now), I used to have an average speed of 3.5 Megabits per second, which is equal to 448 KiloBytes per second - almost half a MegaByte per second!

When @home filed for bankruptcy and wouldn't sell their network to anyone, Comcast had to rush to get their own network up and running. Once they did that, the speed dropped down to 1.5 Megabits per second and they also capped the upload speed greatly. The upload speed on @home used to hover around 640 Kilobits per second, which is equal to 80 KiloBytes per second. They also upgraded the upload speed along with the download speed. It was at 128 Kilobits per second; it was doubled in speed to 256 Kilobits per second, which is equal to 32 KiloBytes per second. It still sucks, to say the least.

Nevertheless, I am very satisfied with the service. I've had it since late 1999. I've gone through three cable services. First it was Jones@home. Then Comcast bought Jones Communications and it became Comcast@home. Then @home went out of business, then it became what it is now: Comcast.net. Even though there has been all these switchovers, I have rarely been out of service or have seen the speeds decline. The service is probably out 4 times a year, and even then, its not out that long. The times it usually goes out is when there is a lightning storm, snow storm, etc... or they are working on the servers.

I think the another reason why @home's speed was so fast, was because the bandwidth was being shared in that time period. If there weren't a lot of people on, the speeds were just over the top. If there were a lot of people on, the speeds went down just a little, but not much. As it stands now, Cable has become very similar to DSL in that the speeds are distributed equally and no one shares the bandwidth anymore (at one time, all the bandwidth was shared). With Comcast, what you see is what you get.

Also, there are different packages now, just like DSL. The standard version of Comcast.net is $39.99 a month, with a speed of 3 Megabits per second and 256 Kilobits per second upload. They also have a professional version and that is $99.99. It's 3.5 Megabits per second (448 KiloBytes per second) with an upload speed of 384 Kilobits per second (48 KiloBytes per second). Not only is the speed a difference, but you also get a few static IP addresses to go along with it. A static IP is an IP address that does not change, it is yours, no one but you can use it (its good if you host your own webpage or server, and some other things, but with a paltry 384 Kilobits per second upload speed, its kind of pointless - I could think of some good uses, still ). Dynamic IP addresses (they are leased and they expire; after expiration, a new one is given to the cable modem - this is all done automatically) are used for the standard Comcast.net package.

For $39.99, I still see it as the best deal in town. Well, that is until I can afford the 100 Megabit per second connection from Cogent for $1000 a month. Who cares if it might be run by a government entity? I've got nothing to hide, lol.

[Edited on 3-22-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]

Originally posted by jra
This protocol won't make our modems faster. Unless you have an extremely fast connection. Something where you can pull 6Gbps through it. Otherwise it wouldn't do much for you.

Plus saying "protocol faster than DSL" is like saying "This gasoline is faster than a car"

Aren't our hard drives able to read data at around 8Gb per second anyway? Also, our HD's are limited.. upto 200Gb standard as of right now anyway. With this connection you can fill up your entire hard drive in seconds. This would require our computers to be upgraded in certain areas.

Also, this kind of speed, if it becomes universal, will most likely drastically alter the entire idea of the internet. The software may catch up with the new "hardware" so to speak. We could have different input methods, maybe more interactive with our computers... and the envinronment and output could change, as more visual, 3-d environments could be used to access the web, as opposed to our standard web browser GUI etc.

Just as it was difficult to imagine 10 years ago that in a few years people will be downloading and uploading movies left and right, and that mp3's will be the biggest thing since sliced bread (thanks to cable and dsl connections), it may be difficult for us to imagine at this point WHAT kind of changes this new connection would bring... although it is most likely to be HUGE changes. Good and bad, as always...

Though this may even eliminate the difference between the internet, and our own hard drives... making the net like one giant universal interconnected hard-drive... wow I think we're going to develop Skynet after all!

It's only a matter of time before it wakes up! *evil grin*

Originally posted by EmbryonicEssence

Originally posted by Sigma
^Probably right... although it is disheartening to think that such speed will only be in the hands of private networks. I have 1.5 megabyte cable access and at times I still wish I had a faster connection(call me greedy if you want), but the new protocol would allow my current connection to handle anything. I am crossing my fingers that one of the next Windows XP updates will include this.

You mean Megabit.

There is a huge difference between a MegaByte and a Megabit. A Megabit is 1 million bits. A MegaByte is 1 million bytes. How much is a byte? Its 8 bits. Which means, a MegaByte is roughly 8 million bits. If you want the exact number, it would be 8,388,608 bits. And a Megabit is exactly 1,048,576 bits.

Kilobytes are generally what you actually see when you are downloading at a speed under 1 MegaByte per second. Your 1.5 Megabit cable connection should be about equal to 192 KiloBytes per second. Those are the speeds you should be seeing. I'm on Comcast and they just doubled our speed for no extra charge from 1.5 Megabits to 3 Megabits. That is equal to 384 KiloBytes per second and those are the speeds I always see.

Its funny that it took Comcast this long to bump up the speed. When it was Comcast@home (@home was the actual cable backbone to the net, not Comcast' own network, like it is now), I used to have an average speed of 3.5 Megabits per second, which is equal to 448 KiloBytes per second - almost half a MegaByte per second!

When @home filed for bankruptcy and wouldn't sell their network to anyone, Comcast had to rush to get their own network up and running. Once they did that, the speed dropped down to 1.5 Megabits per second and they also capped the upload speed greatly. The upload speed on @home used to hover around 640 Kilobits per second, which is equal to 80 KiloBytes per second. Now it continues to hover at 128 Kilobits per second, which is equal to 16 KiloBytes per second. It sucks, to say the least.

Nevertheless, I am very satisfied with the service. I've had it since late 1999. I've gone through three cable services. First it was Jones@home. Then Comcast bought Jones Communications and it became Comcast@home. Then @home went out of business, then it became what it is now: Comcast.net. Even though there has been all these switchovers, I have rarely been out of service or have seen the speeds decline. The service is probably out 4 times a year, and even then, its not out that long. The times it usually goes out is when there is a lightning storm, snow storm, etc... or they are working on the servers.

I think the another reason why @home's speed was so fast, was because the bandwidth was being shared in that time period. If there weren't a lot of people on, the speeds were just over the top. If there were a lot of people on, the speeds went down just a little, but not much.

As it stands now, Cable has become very similar to DSL in that the speeds are distributed equally and no one shares the bandwidth anymore (at one time, all the bandwidth was shared). With Comcast, what you see is what you get.

Also, there are different packages now, just like DSL. The standard version of Comcast.net is $39.99 a month, with a speed of 3 Megabits per second and 128 Kilobits per second upload. They also have a professional version and that is $99.99. It's 3.5 Megabits per second (448 KiloBytes per second) with an upload speed of 256 Kilobits per second (32 KiloBytes per second). Not only is the speed a difference, but you also get a few static IP addresses to go along with it. A static IP is an IP address that does not change, it is yours, no one but you can use it (its good if you host your own webpage or server, and some other things, but with a paltry 256 Kilobits per second upload speed, its kind of pointless - I could think of some good uses, still

). Dynamic IP addresses (they are leased and they expire; after expiration, a new one is given to the cable modem - this is all done automatically) are used for the standard Comcast.net package.

For $39.99, I still see it as the best deal in town. Well, that is until I can afford the 100 Megabit per second connection from Cogent for $1000 a month.

Who cares if it might be run by a government entity? I've got nothing to hide, lol.

And if I may add to this...

When you are using Comcast, and have this dynamic IP distribution system in effect, it is actually VERY easy to CHANGE your IP at any time. One simply has to alter a few numbers in their MAC ADDRESS, and they are assigned a new IP based on this new mac address. All computers have their own mac address. There are sometimes very good reason to change your IP, and one is if you're banned from a website (your host is banned), by changing your IP, you can very often easily come back to the website as it thinks you're someone else. Unless they ban 24*, which is MOST cable users around the world, they'll be hard pressed to keep you out

Changing your IP is also beneficial if you're under a hacker attack, and your firewall (if you have one) detects numerous attempts at a breakin. Though once you change it, you'd have to avoid repeating the same mistake that allowed the hacker to obtain your IP in the first place, like sending/receiving files from/to people on instant messangers, or going to websites that you may not trust.

Changing your mac address can be done in a few different ways, and I think it's best that I leave it to whoever is interested to just look it up on google, as I'm sure detailed instructions for this exist all over the internet. The reason I bring this up is that many times, customer service will tell you that it is enough to Release, and Renew your IP address (using command prompt you release your IP into the pool of available IP's, and renew it as the IP is assigned to you) and this should be enough. The customer service people fail to realise that the IP's are assigned to a specific mac address, and as long as you have the mac address, the IP will simply be the same one. Of course they assign a different IP to your mac address periodically anyway, maybe once a month or so.. but this gives YOU no control over it! Now you have control

This is at the very least helpful to know.. even if you never plan to use it




[Edited on 19-3-2004 by lilblam]

That is true lilblam.

So how much faster is 6000x than the DSL speed they don't specify? Well, lets look at what they do say, since they are comparing a protocol to dial-up and DSL modems, lol. It says BIC-TCP is 150,000 times faster than current dial-up modems. Well, lets look at a 56K modem. 56 K is supposed to represent 56 Kilobits per second. That equates to 7 KiloBytes per second (I've only seen that speed with a dial-up on Prodigy). Well, since most people never actually get 7 KiloBytes per second, we'll go with an average of 5 KiloBytes per second.

5 times 150000 = 750000 KiloBytes per second. That is equal to 5,859 (rounded) Megabits per second. It is also equal to 732 (rounded) MegaBytes per second. At that speed you can download a whole CD in less than a second (of course, its still dependant on the speed your computer will actually allow - most harddrives still write an average of about 30 MegaBytes per second and most networking cards are still 10-100 Megabits per second, even then, you can never actually attain those speeds, usually about half that of what is specified; most of the time, even less).

So how do we get the DSL speeds they speek of? Well, the DSL they are talking about would probably have to be about 1 Megabits per second. That is equal to 128 KiloBytes per second. 128 x 6000 = 768000 KiloBytes per second. 768000 KiloBytes per second is equal to (strangely enough) 6000 Megabits per second. 6000 Megabits per second is equal to 750 MegaBytes per second.

All in all, lets hope BIC-TCP actually does allow for more efficient use of bandwidth and accelerate things to about that speed.

[Edited on 3-20-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]

Its taking me long enough to get dsl let alone anything faster.

Look at this fantastic site. play.toontown.com...
Groove!

Originally posted by Sigma
^Probably right... although it is disheartening to think that such speed will only be in the hands of private networks. I have 1.5 megabyte cable access and at times I still wish I had a faster connection(call me greedy if you want), but the new protocol would allow my current connection to handle anything. I am crossing my fingers that one of the next Windows XP updates will include this.

I know I shouldn't be greedy either, I get DSL in a place that could almost count as the middle of nowhere but yet I want everything downloaded five minutes ago!!!!

EmbryonicEssence:

I have Comcast, and I pay $40 for 3mb down, 256k up.

With a Homer Simpson's voice: WOO-HOO!!!

This thread is worthless without date of availability and price lists. (j/k)

I bet the military have been using this for years, and just got a faster protocol. So this one's ready for the public (or soon to be).

Originally posted by pyxsul
EmbryonicEssence:

I have Comcast, and I pay $40 for 3mb down, 256k up.

Oops, forgot that they did double the upload speed along with the download. You are correct. Also, the pro version has a 384Kbps upload speed instead of the 256. I will make the needed changes in my post, thanks for pointing that out.

[Edited on 3-22-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]

Originally posted by jra

Plus saying "protocol faster than DSL" is like saying "This gasoline is faster than a car"

Im sure there just sayin this for people that arent that computer savy. I mean if someoen told u that i can speed up ur connection by 6000x thats alot easier to understand then This conection is 6000x faster the the normal internet protocal tcp-ip.

Also this is mircosofts wet dream for theere plans of wireing everyone to local super comps or to a central mother of all computer. I realy like this. this would change the world in so many ways. the telephone would be dead, the television would be dead, and the radio would be dead.Like stated before your computer would be the center piece of ur house for everything.

Originally posted by Britman
I always though broadband prices in the US where cheap but I guess I'm wrong. You can get 512k connection in the UK for about $30. I pay about $55 for a 1meg connection.

I pay $40/month for a 3000/256k connection from Comcast. However, my download speeds have gone up over 600kb/second but if my speed was really 3000 they should be around 384 (I think)

[Edited on 22-3-2004 by UnknownOrigins]

[Edited on 22-3-2004 by UnknownOrigins]

I just ran a test that's supposed to *accurately* tell you your real connection speed and mine rated at 3872/384 which is 872/128 more than I'm paying for but hey, I dont mind

when you download, your connttion is transfering alot more info then the files, its called over head...

so everyone who tests your connection and get lower then your "payed for" speed, your proubly not conting in overhead

I sure hope they make this new protical soon, and to everyone becouse think of al the benefits it would bring !!