More WAVs Appearing On Networks
 

As hard drives get bigger and highbandwidth becomes widespread, digital song files known as WAVs are becoming more and more common on file sharing networks like Fasttrack and Gnutella. WAV files are unique among formats because they are for all intents and purposes exact replicas of the actual songs on the CDS themselves, and unlike MP3s, OGGS and WMAs they have essentially zero loss in quality due to compression. The problem with WAVs is that one song is the same size as an entire album of MP3s, taking up to 10 times the hard drive space and download time. But combine the latest 100+ gig drives with broadband and you’ve got a system that handles the hefty files as easily as systems of a year or two ago did with MP3s. For instance my new hard drive holds more WAVs now than my old one held MP3s. Like wise my aDSL downloads a WAV faster than my dialup handles an MP3 - so it’s not surprising that they’re showing up more and more.

Earlier tonight I met a KaZaA user who had nothing but WAVs in his folder – hundreds of them with no MP3s at all. That's something that until recently would have been unheard of. I d/l'd a dozen or so high quality files that will make excellent CDS, with razor sharp definition and astonishing punch.

If it’s unsurpassed sound you crave then WAVs are the way to go, if your system can handle them. The difference in quality really is startling and the word is getting around.

- js.

Most isp's are planning upload/download limits if they don't already have them. Let's be honest, file sharers are getting a little arrogant with the 2.1GB movie dl's and all. This is another example of that and I don't blame the isp's for starting to come down hard. $40 a month doesn't really cover the cost of these huge transfers.

i don’t know. i think the whole thing’s a ruse.

the day isps start selling movies is the day they'll stop talking about bandwidth caps. i don’t think it’s got anything to do with "hogging" and everything to do with content sales.

cable companies want money for both transfers and for programs, just like they have now with tv, like basic + hbo + pay-per-view.

the idea that the customer provides his own content independent of the company is anathema to their past way of doing tv business and they will do whatever it takes to stop it, including justifying capping with this bs pr campaign.

don't buy into their self-serving arguments. they sell you 10/1 or 1500/128 and that's what you should get.

docsis 2.0 allows carriers to triple capacity without adding another wire, and that's just for starters.

if enough people cancel when capped then capping will go the way of the altair.

- js.

I certainly don't trust the isp's. It's amazing how some companies in California are able to offer fibre optic connections for $40 with hellacious speeds like 8500/8500 :shk:
However if the broadband providers ARE losing money there'll be a day of reckoning soon....I reckon $70 a month instead of the standard 30 or 40 now.

california here i come :p

- js.

no shit...

i ran across this on SlashDot....Breakdown of Bandwidth Costs ...along with a couple of dozen opinions of how this works. it got a little technical for me, and i got lost a few times, but my impression from this is that most of the costs are fixed.

One reply from somebody who works for an ISP summed it up like this:I think this is probably the most succinct assessment of why broadband costs what it does.

I share your view, Jack. Bandwidth is bound to get cheaper to provide every year, and what post-Napster broadband users want is plain bandwidth (and lots of it!) with no strings attached. ISPs may have their own dreams of how to make money with content but for now their core business is buying and selling bandwith, and so it should stay. Caps are just one way of pricing bandwidth, and healthy competition between ISPs is the best guarantee against overpricing (and other forms of pissing off your best customers :BL: ).

- tg ;)

the thing with wave files is a lot of newbies think that decoding their mp3s to wave will restore all the lost information and make the song sound like the original, which is of course silly and untrue

you can also do this with other lossy formats

so, be careful not to waste your bandwidth on these "fake" wave files

This is absolutely true and common enough to make trusted sources (who know what they are doing and appreciate quality) very valuable. I have come across some newbies who have kindly offered to rip an album into any bitrate you wish but soon it turns out that they are not ripping from the original CD but from a music CD that they have burned themselves perhaps from 128 kbs mp3s. And there are similarly ignorant newbies who kindly offer to convert their low bitrate mp3s to higher bitrates with 'this handy program that somebody gave them'.... not to talk about the dishonest traders who know what they are doing when stretching bitrates of their merchandise. :uu:

- tg ;)

...Some Are Really Slow
 

Telephone companies unlike cable's, are slower to change policies.

Take the case of Bellsouth here in Florida.

We are still paying a surcharge for the war against Spain in the telephone bill.

It's not much, but they didn't tell us THEN it was going to take THAT long.

So maybe any change about capping luckily takes another 100 years.

I'd take 10 without even blinking, dough.



:S:

What about the $60 that comcast will soon start charging me?

My sentiments exactly. ISP's who cap or charge for bandwidth use must have taken the same business classes as the RIAA.

When you pay for an internet pipe that gets 1500/128 you should get it and be able to use it as you please.

ISP's are probably feeling the squeeze because they have been ripping commercial accounts huge sums for T1 (and faster) broadband. The 1500/128 ADSL is just as fast as T1 downstream, only the upstream speed cap separates a $39.95 a month ADSL from $1200 a month T1.

They are already playing a numbers game by stealing some bandwidth from each customer and selling it to someone else. I used to get 1500/128 - they "re-optimized" it and now I get about 800/120. Since the minimum warrantied speed is 384 down complaining will do no good.

Things change, it's not consumer's fault if the ISP had an inflexible, crappy business plan. They wanted the business - they got it as consumers demand broadband access. They slashed prices to gain market share and attract new accounts. It worked.

They seem to be forgetting that the demand for broadband (what they sell) is largely driven by folks who want fast connections (and heaven forbid to use them).

It's a ruse big time - driven by the rosy ramrod of greed.

That's a little high unless it's an extra fast connection. I notice Comcast getting great and brutal reviews. :PO:

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op...28opfoster.xml


http://www.dslreports.com/archive/comcast.net