More cable users are consuming 1TB of data per month, face fines for exceeding caps

Is video really "data"?

I mean, seriously?

So how much "data" did we all "consume" back in the day of broadcast and cable TV?

 

I believe that only streaming video would be counted towards data consumption, not video on TV channels being provided by the cable service subscription.

 

Netflix will have to become an ISP.

 

What else would you call it? Streaming HD video consumes lots of bandwidth - even if compressed.

Are you suggesting Netflix video streaming is different from viewing YouTube or Facebook videos?

 

No, not at all.

It just seems silly to talk about "watching videos" as "consuming data". And sure, they're hogging bandwidth.

According Nyquist's theorem, an analog TV signal (maximum 6 MHz bandwidth) can carry at least 12 Mbps data. And with compression etc, arguably a lot more. That's at least 5 GB per hour. So people are just wasting digital resources to watch the same junk.

 

Again, just not sure what else you would call it when it clearly is digital data coming in over the digital Internet connection. So it is not silly at all, at least not to those who understand how the technology works. The audio and video is converted into digital "data". So it does indeed make total sense to assume watching a TV show or movie over a digital transmission cable is "consuming data".

Since local TV stations were forced to convert to digital too - you have the option of viewing digital programming "over-the-air" with the appropriate antenna.

As far as analog vs digital, it is far more complex than you suggest. Digital is immune to added noise and distortion. Introduced error probability is very low with digital. Digital hardware is more complex (and expensive) but the hardware is or can be smaller.

Analog signal strength diminishes as the travel distance increases causing the signal to noise ratios to degrade. Amplification/boosting only degrades the S/N ratio further. Digital signals can be boosted and re-distributed many times with no loss of quality.

Digital signals require much less power to transmit. Fidelity is maintained from end to end with digital. It degrades with analog. So you get better sound and picture quality with digital.

Digital also allows for movies and such to appear in full widescreen formats.

And while a single analog channel does require less bandwidth compared to a digital channel, because of compression techniques, more digital channels can be offered over the same frequency band. This includes things like closed-captioning and alternative languages, public service announcements (Amber alerts, tornado warnings, etc. that don't totally interrupt regular programming).

While there are some advantages to analog, the advantages of digital far outweigh them.

 

My main point is that people watching HD video is a huge load on ISPs. And that congestion sometimes reduces available bandwidth for important stuff. Such as my torrenting Or for, let's say, crucial public services, or whatever.

And yes, there are lots of advantages to digital video. It was the image in TFA that triggered me. Guy watching American football. Woman watching a cooking channel. Is the ability to count pores on some woman's nose really that important? I mean, they gotta wear heavy makeup to look good on HD video

 

And that IS the point. It is a huge load on ISPs because it IS consuming lots of data and eating up the available bandwidth. So again, it is NOT "silly" at all to talk about "watching videos" as "consuming data". Because that is exactly what it is.

As for crucial public services - not an issue! If there is an Amber Alert or Tornado Warning, that can easily be pushed out with a higher priority than anything else.

 

OK, I'm sorry if I implied that it's silly to talk about it.

What's silly is that it's how most people "consume data".

I think of "data" as serious stuff. Not HD football or cooking shows. But whatever.

 

You didn't. And it is not silly to discuss how data is used. But that is not what you said. You specifically asked and said.

Then you added,

Your key word there is "as".

Yes, video transmitted over digital communications links really is "data". So is audio, photos, emails, webpages, pdf files, webpages with embedded videos, as is every other "data packet".

A "1" is a "1" and a "0" is a "0", right?

So, yes! Seriously.

And, no, it is not silly to talk about watching (streaming) videos and data consumption - especially since streaming HD video is typically the biggest consumer of our monthly usage. So it is good you bring it up!

In fact, Netflix and other streaming providers base their plans on the amount of data you want to consume (as it relates to image quality - higher resolutions use more data).

In fact, because it is not silly, there are many many discussions, papers, reports and more specifically on watching videos and how it consumes data.

How Much Data Does Netflix Use?

How Many Gigs of Data Do You Need to Watch Streaming Movies and TV Shows?

How Much Data Does Streaming Video Use?

So because watching videos can easily result in exceeding data consumption caps and expensive over-limit charges, I know of no one who thinks it is silly. This is exactly why many buy plans that have no data limits.

In fact, when choosing your "plan" for your Internet service or your cell phone service, you probably should consider your "video watching" as the most "serious" factor in terms of "consuming data"!

 

i thought in US, internet is unlimited like in Europe...

 

Yes. No. Well, maybe.

It depends totally on your provider and the plan/contract you have with them. There are no laws or regulations (especially at the federal - nationwide - level) that dictate this - except the providers must allow what the contract says.

 

if you live in a remote area with no internet infrastructure, i can understand you can only data plan 3g/4g; but if not, all ISP should provide unlimited data plan, if not, one be crazy to subscribe with them.

 

Well, whatever, but it is an excessive and frivolous use of bandwidth.

But I suppose that it could be used as "carrier" for covert channels. Then I could watch my cat videos via their HD football video

 

Exactly, video that's delivered via cable TV doesn't count. But nowadays people watch a lot of online streaming, so no wonder people use so much data. I guess when we will have speeds up to 1000 Mbps this won't be a problem.

 

The problem is some users will abuse it and consume massive amounts of data - perhaps for financial or criminal gains - and ruin it for everyone else.

And for sure, there are simply physical limits the pipes (wires, fiber or wireless channels) leading into neighborhoods can carry.

 

Not a valid reason enough, we are at fiber age , not 56k. even the basic mobile phone's 4G plans in France is around 30 to 50gb/month.

In France or Vietnam, for home internet, we have unlimited fast fiber plans (for respectively 40euros & 15$), i can download like a pig 20 operating systems an hour, people are watching streaming sites all day long, there is no limiter as far as i know.

I have my friends in US explaining their data plans and the laws around them, American citizens are just abusively milked as usual and sadly for you, people seems to accept that...
In France, if a ISP¨dare to do like in US, they will bankrupt...

Main reason to use internet in France is we use IP-TV and streaming sites, ISP must offer 400+ channels and with fast speed to support them, if not no one will subscribe.
ISPs fight about services offered, unlimited datas plans isn't even considered a marketing point, it is by default; however speed is, faster it is more customers they will get.

ISP may block heavy torrenters in case by case (if they really abuse), not the whole population.

i think US citizens should riot more often...you let your companies abuse you...

 

Here you can be watching child porn on http and no1 will give a ****

(not that I do it )

 

The situation in urban areas of the US isn't always so bad.

It's rural areas where online connectivity is really horrible. There's lots of ~nothing in the US. Not so much in Western Europe.

 

That's dreamworld talk. Just because fiber is out there, that in NO way suggest its use is widespread. In fact, here in the US, cable and DSL reach ~90% of the market while fiber is only available in ~25%.

And considering the full potential of copper has yet to be achieved in most areas, incentives to pull fiber into already established neighborhoods is almost non-existent - at least for "fiber to the home" (FTTH).

But your point is invalid anyway as even fiber has physical limits for how much data it can carry. So regardless, even if fiber was brought into every neighborhood, there are still some who will abuse it.

 

Here we go again...

 

No, I think enough has been said. Clearly, it would be nice for fiber to cover the Earth and for every one to have unlimited use of it. But until nothing costs money, that will never happen.