|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 27 2015 07:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:The benefit is that your ISPs don't get to double dip and charge you for services that you already paid for. The basics of it is that your service providers were selling Bandwidth with the expectation that no one ever needed as much as they were advertising. A few years ago it was mostly torrent traffic that was maxing out network lines, so they could freely throttle that under the pretense that "it's all piracy". Then P2P became used by every company and their grandmother for things like updates, services like Netflix started popping up, internet streaming exploded, and the ISPs panicked because the Bandwidth people were paying for was being used (the horrors). End result is that your ISPs wanted to cut down usage of the service they'd sold off, or to make more money from companies and products they had no right being gatekeepers for. For what changes, nothing really should (unless your ISP is currently throttling specific traffic). It just means your internet bill won't be getting additional fees for the "privilege" of going to Google or Twitch, or using Netflix. I thought it was charges on the B2B end? I think it was all of the above. There was lots of talk about internet bundling (like cable service), lots of complaining about how internet businesses aren't "paying for usage of lines", some stuff about certain traffic getting network priority. It all comes down to how they were planning to milk more money out of the service they're already providing, without making any improvements. I don't think they'd be bothered by people using existing capacity. Sounds like they're looking to pay for additional capacity in a way that would be more beneficial to themselves. Your Telcos have been whining about people using existing capacity for the last several years, and a lot of its about how companies are getting "free rides" on their networks, or blaming slow traffic and network congestion on people using the bandwidth they paid for. You're contradicting yourself. If there's congestion there isn't enough capacity. If there isn't enough capacity you need more, and that has to be paid for.
ISPs suddenly doubling speeds when Google fiber has shown up in various cities makes me think there isn't an issue.
|
On February 27 2015 07:04 Mohdoo wrote:
Immigration, healthcare reform, net neutrality, don't ask don't tell. If Obama is able to somehow make legal weed happen, hands down the best outcome we could have hoped for.
he was apparently instrumental in getting weed legalized in washington d.c.
|
I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as "bandwidth shortage". And even if that would be the case, it makes more sense to have the (local) government and companies create more bandwidth than to make it less accessible. I mean if you don't have enough roads you don't start to portion them, you just build more roads.
Good decision by the FCC, and I'm somewhat surprised really. I didn't think that Wheeler would go through with this.
|
I so badly want a good Republican opponent to run against Hillary (or for her to get knocked out in the primary lol). But the odds just don't seem good. Amusingly and sadly, Bush is the obvious pick, but I'm actually enough opposed to dynasty I'm not sure I can vote for him, and the fact that he's hiring a lot of his brothers team is legit terrifying.
I still sorta hold out meagre hope for Christie to run as a pragmatist and take it (then do an LBJ style unethical but effective administration), but both of those things seem less likely by the day.
I guess Clinton might not be a disaster, but her ammorality, cronyism, and general lack of effectiveness in previous jobs makes me doubt it. Oh well.
Good thing is congress seems to make it so there's only so much harm a President can do. Although now that military action isn't something we vote on, maybe we should vote for whoever is least likely to go to war. Rand Paul looking better every minute.
|
On February 27 2015 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 06:50 Introvert wrote:
On a quick note, I'd like to say, as a self-identified Tea Party person, that I'm not liking Ben Carson. He keeps saying stupid things and probably should have stuck to medicine.
It seems to me he's a good, soft-spoken guy, but he doesn't really know how to "do" politics. Any insight as to why his stupid comments haven't put off more of your tea-party brethren? The latest polls show that he is marginally more approved of than Walker by Tea party members (Conservatives). Show nested quote +Bush is really struggling with conservative voters. Among 'very conservative' voters on this poll, just 37% rate Bush favorably to 43% with an unfavorable opinion. By comparison Carson is at 73/2, Walker at 68/3, and Cruz at 68/8 with those folks. SourceCruz couldn't win a national election if he paid every voter $100 to vote for him, so that makes Walker the only hope for 'conservatives' to win right?
I was just stating my opinion, it's too early to say Walker is the "only one who can win." Just like you think Bush is the only one who could win. It's far too early.
I'm personally just not a fan of the type of rhetoric he is employing, but to other people it's understood as just being politics. Democrats say things like this too ("They're gonna put ya'll all back in chains" from the idiot Joe Biden comes to mind.) It's just campaigning really, but I feel like Carson isn't very skilled at it.
Maybe it's just a reflection of my personality, but going over the top in trying to make a point always causes me to grimace, no matter who does it.
|
On February 27 2015 07:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:The benefit is that your ISPs don't get to double dip and charge you for services that you already paid for. The basics of it is that your service providers were selling Bandwidth with the expectation that no one ever needed as much as they were advertising. A few years ago it was mostly torrent traffic that was maxing out network lines, so they could freely throttle that under the pretense that "it's all piracy". Then P2P became used by every company and their grandmother for things like updates, services like Netflix started popping up, internet streaming exploded, and the ISPs panicked because the Bandwidth people were paying for was being used (the horrors). End result is that your ISPs wanted to cut down usage of the service they'd sold off, or to make more money from companies and products they had no right being gatekeepers for. For what changes, nothing really should (unless your ISP is currently throttling specific traffic). It just means your internet bill won't be getting additional fees for the "privilege" of going to Google or Twitch, or using Netflix. I thought it was charges on the B2B end? I think it was all of the above. There was lots of talk about internet bundling (like cable service), lots of complaining about how internet businesses aren't "paying for usage of lines", some stuff about certain traffic getting network priority. It all comes down to how they were planning to milk more money out of the service they're already providing, without making any improvements. I don't think they'd be bothered by people using existing capacity. Sounds like they're looking to pay for additional capacity in a way that would be more beneficial to themselves. Your Telcos have been whining about people using existing capacity for the last several years, and a lot of its about how companies are getting "free rides" on their networks, or blaming slow traffic and network congestion on people using the bandwidth they paid for. You're contradicting yourself. If there's congestion there isn't enough capacity. If there isn't enough capacity you need more, and that has to be paid for.
I think you're assuming I'm saying your ISP situation is fine as is, which it's not. There's no contradiction, I'm saying your internet companies are quite terrible, and Net Neutrality at best keeps them from making things much worse by double dipping wherever they can.
There's congestion because 1) that's how the internet unfortunately works, and 2) they oversold all these "up-to" speeds assuming no one would actually use that much, and now people are, so people are finding out how flimsy the whole set up is.
As I understand it, your Telcos were already given a lot of money to upgrade infrastructure (including government money), and they didn't do it. That was part of the point of Google Fibre, to show just how easy it is to setup fast internet lines.
|
On February 27 2015 06:50 Introvert wrote:
On a quick note, I'd like to say as a self-identified Tea Party person, that I'm not liking Ben Carson. He keeps saying stupid things and probably should have stuck to medicine.
It seems to me he's a good, soft-spoken guy, but he doesn't really know how to "do" politics.
I don't really understand the Carson-hype (such as it is). Frankly, the Tea Party already has their damn-near-perfect candidate in Scott Walker. He's pretty much everything they could want and without the baggage. Most importantly, he's actually electable. Eventually the big money republican donors are going to figure out that no one wants Jeb and will start sending more funds Walker's way.
EDIT: What a disaster of an original post editing-wise.
|
On February 27 2015 07:21 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:The benefit is that your ISPs don't get to double dip and charge you for services that you already paid for. The basics of it is that your service providers were selling Bandwidth with the expectation that no one ever needed as much as they were advertising. A few years ago it was mostly torrent traffic that was maxing out network lines, so they could freely throttle that under the pretense that "it's all piracy". Then P2P became used by every company and their grandmother for things like updates, services like Netflix started popping up, internet streaming exploded, and the ISPs panicked because the Bandwidth people were paying for was being used (the horrors). End result is that your ISPs wanted to cut down usage of the service they'd sold off, or to make more money from companies and products they had no right being gatekeepers for. For what changes, nothing really should (unless your ISP is currently throttling specific traffic). It just means your internet bill won't be getting additional fees for the "privilege" of going to Google or Twitch, or using Netflix. I thought it was charges on the B2B end? I think it was all of the above. There was lots of talk about internet bundling (like cable service), lots of complaining about how internet businesses aren't "paying for usage of lines", some stuff about certain traffic getting network priority. It all comes down to how they were planning to milk more money out of the service they're already providing, without making any improvements. I don't think they'd be bothered by people using existing capacity. Sounds like they're looking to pay for additional capacity in a way that would be more beneficial to themselves. Your Telcos have been whining about people using existing capacity for the last several years, and a lot of its about how companies are getting "free rides" on their networks, or blaming slow traffic and network congestion on people using the bandwidth they paid for. You're contradicting yourself. If there's congestion there isn't enough capacity. If there isn't enough capacity you need more, and that has to be paid for. ISPs suddenly doubling speeds when Google fiber has shown up in various cities makes me think there isn't an issue.
Is speed the same as capacity?
|
On February 27 2015 07:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:The benefit is that your ISPs don't get to double dip and charge you for services that you already paid for. The basics of it is that your service providers were selling Bandwidth with the expectation that no one ever needed as much as they were advertising. A few years ago it was mostly torrent traffic that was maxing out network lines, so they could freely throttle that under the pretense that "it's all piracy". Then P2P became used by every company and their grandmother for things like updates, services like Netflix started popping up, internet streaming exploded, and the ISPs panicked because the Bandwidth people were paying for was being used (the horrors). End result is that your ISPs wanted to cut down usage of the service they'd sold off, or to make more money from companies and products they had no right being gatekeepers for. For what changes, nothing really should (unless your ISP is currently throttling specific traffic). It just means your internet bill won't be getting additional fees for the "privilege" of going to Google or Twitch, or using Netflix. I thought it was charges on the B2B end? I think it was all of the above. There was lots of talk about internet bundling (like cable service), lots of complaining about how internet businesses aren't "paying for usage of lines", some stuff about certain traffic getting network priority. It all comes down to how they were planning to milk more money out of the service they're already providing, without making any improvements. I don't think they'd be bothered by people using existing capacity. Sounds like they're looking to pay for additional capacity in a way that would be more beneficial to themselves. Your Telcos have been whining about people using existing capacity for the last several years, and a lot of its about how companies are getting "free rides" on their networks, or blaming slow traffic and network congestion on people using the bandwidth they paid for. You're contradicting yourself. If there's congestion there isn't enough capacity. If there isn't enough capacity you need more, and that has to be paid for.
The congestion isn't in the cable to your home. Technically what you pay for is to get X Mbps connection to your ISP. The congestion tends to occur in the network between ISPs, particularly long-distance cables. What ISPs are complaining about is that if everybody uses their X Mbps connection then they need to lay down more fiberoptics in the "backbone", which costs money. They were hoping to charge Youtube (Google), Netflix and other major content providers for that cost, or just plain throttle that traffic. That is now forbidden. So either they now charge end users for that infrastructure investment, or the congestion problems will get worse.
However, despite this downside, net neutrality is incredibly important and it's great that the US passed a law enforcing it.
|
On February 27 2015 07:21 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:04 Mohdoo wrote:
Immigration, healthcare reform, net neutrality, don't ask don't tell. If Obama is able to somehow make legal weed happen, hands down the best outcome we could have hoped for. he was apparently instrumental in getting weed legalized in washington d.c.
Cannabis laws are bullshit, that's something even conservatives should agree with. There is no sensible argument to keep cannabis criminal. It wouldn't be a big deal if it's criminality wasn't destroying families and lives. But conservatives coming out and saying smoking/dealing cannabis was just a stupid mistake they made as kids, yet they are helping throw this generation's kids in prison for doing exactly what they did is absolutely disgusting.
Anyone who supports cannabis prohibition should be thrown out of office immediately by their constituents, especially if they admit to doing what they support putting people in prison for.
|
On February 27 2015 07:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:21 Mohdoo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:The benefit is that your ISPs don't get to double dip and charge you for services that you already paid for. The basics of it is that your service providers were selling Bandwidth with the expectation that no one ever needed as much as they were advertising. A few years ago it was mostly torrent traffic that was maxing out network lines, so they could freely throttle that under the pretense that "it's all piracy". Then P2P became used by every company and their grandmother for things like updates, services like Netflix started popping up, internet streaming exploded, and the ISPs panicked because the Bandwidth people were paying for was being used (the horrors). End result is that your ISPs wanted to cut down usage of the service they'd sold off, or to make more money from companies and products they had no right being gatekeepers for. For what changes, nothing really should (unless your ISP is currently throttling specific traffic). It just means your internet bill won't be getting additional fees for the "privilege" of going to Google or Twitch, or using Netflix. I thought it was charges on the B2B end? I think it was all of the above. There was lots of talk about internet bundling (like cable service), lots of complaining about how internet businesses aren't "paying for usage of lines", some stuff about certain traffic getting network priority. It all comes down to how they were planning to milk more money out of the service they're already providing, without making any improvements. I don't think they'd be bothered by people using existing capacity. Sounds like they're looking to pay for additional capacity in a way that would be more beneficial to themselves. Your Telcos have been whining about people using existing capacity for the last several years, and a lot of its about how companies are getting "free rides" on their networks, or blaming slow traffic and network congestion on people using the bandwidth they paid for. You're contradicting yourself. If there's congestion there isn't enough capacity. If there isn't enough capacity you need more, and that has to be paid for. ISPs suddenly doubling speeds when Google fiber has shown up in various cities makes me think there isn't an issue. Is speed the same as capacity?
Pretty much, yes.
|
^Best answer I've seen anyone give Jonny yet. :D
|
On February 27 2015 07:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:The benefit is that your ISPs don't get to double dip and charge you for services that you already paid for. The basics of it is that your service providers were selling Bandwidth with the expectation that no one ever needed as much as they were advertising. A few years ago it was mostly torrent traffic that was maxing out network lines, so they could freely throttle that under the pretense that "it's all piracy". Then P2P became used by every company and their grandmother for things like updates, services like Netflix started popping up, internet streaming exploded, and the ISPs panicked because the Bandwidth people were paying for was being used (the horrors). End result is that your ISPs wanted to cut down usage of the service they'd sold off, or to make more money from companies and products they had no right being gatekeepers for. For what changes, nothing really should (unless your ISP is currently throttling specific traffic). It just means your internet bill won't be getting additional fees for the "privilege" of going to Google or Twitch, or using Netflix. I thought it was charges on the B2B end? I think it was all of the above. There was lots of talk about internet bundling (like cable service), lots of complaining about how internet businesses aren't "paying for usage of lines", some stuff about certain traffic getting network priority. It all comes down to how they were planning to milk more money out of the service they're already providing, without making any improvements. I don't think they'd be bothered by people using existing capacity. Sounds like they're looking to pay for additional capacity in a way that would be more beneficial to themselves. Your Telcos have been whining about people using existing capacity for the last several years, and a lot of its about how companies are getting "free rides" on their networks, or blaming slow traffic and network congestion on people using the bandwidth they paid for. You're contradicting yourself. If there's congestion there isn't enough capacity. If there isn't enough capacity you need more, and that has to be paid for. I think you're assuming I'm saying your ISP situation is fine as is, which it's not. There's no contradiction, I'm saying your internet companies are quite terrible, and Net Neutrality at best keeps them from making things much worse by double dipping wherever they can. There's congestion because 1) that's how the internet unfortunately works, and 2) they oversold all these "up-to" speeds assuming no one would actually use that much, and now people are, so people are finding out how flimsy the whole set up is. As I understand it, your Telcos were already given a lot of money to upgrade infrastructure (including government money), and they didn't do it. That was part of the point of Google Fibre, to show just how easy it is to setup fast internet lines.
No, there has been a lot of spending on infrastructure. Sounds like you're going down the IgnE road of "they spent billions on t-shirts and nothing on infrastructure" BS. Google Fibre isn't free and they set it up in only the BEST locations they could find. It's not a 100% repeatable thing in terms of cost for benefit.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 27 2015 07:27 Yoav wrote:
I so badly want a good Republican opponent to run against Hillary (or for her to get knocked out in the primary lol). But the odds just don't seem good. Amusingly and sadly, Bush is the obvious pick, but I'm actually enough opposed to dynasty I'm not sure I can vote for him, and the fact that he's hiring a lot of his brothers team is legit terrifying.
I still sorta hold out meagre hope for Christie to run as a pragmatist and take it (then do an LBJ style unethical but effective administration), but both of those things seem less likely by the day.
I guess Clinton might not be a disaster, but her ammorality, cronyism, and general lack of effectiveness in previous jobs makes me doubt it. Oh well.
Good thing is congress seems to make it so there's only so much harm a President can do. Although now that military action isn't something we vote on, maybe we should vote for whoever is least likely to go to war. Rand Paul looking better every minute.
why you hating on hilary she's kind of cute.
|
On February 27 2015 07:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 07:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:The benefit is that your ISPs don't get to double dip and charge you for services that you already paid for. The basics of it is that your service providers were selling Bandwidth with the expectation that no one ever needed as much as they were advertising. A few years ago it was mostly torrent traffic that was maxing out network lines, so they could freely throttle that under the pretense that "it's all piracy". Then P2P became used by every company and their grandmother for things like updates, services like Netflix started popping up, internet streaming exploded, and the ISPs panicked because the Bandwidth people were paying for was being used (the horrors). End result is that your ISPs wanted to cut down usage of the service they'd sold off, or to make more money from companies and products they had no right being gatekeepers for. For what changes, nothing really should (unless your ISP is currently throttling specific traffic). It just means your internet bill won't be getting additional fees for the "privilege" of going to Google or Twitch, or using Netflix. I thought it was charges on the B2B end? I think it was all of the above. There was lots of talk about internet bundling (like cable service), lots of complaining about how internet businesses aren't "paying for usage of lines", some stuff about certain traffic getting network priority. It all comes down to how they were planning to milk more money out of the service they're already providing, without making any improvements. I don't think they'd be bothered by people using existing capacity. Sounds like they're looking to pay for additional capacity in a way that would be more beneficial to themselves. Your Telcos have been whining about people using existing capacity for the last several years, and a lot of its about how companies are getting "free rides" on their networks, or blaming slow traffic and network congestion on people using the bandwidth they paid for. You're contradicting yourself. If there's congestion there isn't enough capacity. If there isn't enough capacity you need more, and that has to be paid for. I think you're assuming I'm saying your ISP situation is fine as is, which it's not. There's no contradiction, I'm saying your internet companies are quite terrible, and Net Neutrality at best keeps them from making things much worse by double dipping wherever they can. There's congestion because 1) that's how the internet unfortunately works, and 2) they oversold all these "up-to" speeds assuming no one would actually use that much, and now people are, so people are finding out how flimsy the whole set up is. As I understand it, your Telcos were already given a lot of money to upgrade infrastructure (including government money), and they didn't do it. That was part of the point of Google Fibre, to show just how easy it is to setup fast internet lines. No, there has been a lot of spending on infrastructure. Sounds like you're going down the IgnE road of "they spent billions on t-shirts and nothing on infrastructure" BS. Google Fibre isn't free and they set it up in only the BEST locations they could find. It's not a 100% repeatable thing in terms of cost for benefit.
Because you clearly understand exactly what is going on, could you describe for me the process through which Google Fiber judges the quality of a potential area when looking to expand? Be specific please.
|
On February 27 2015 07:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 07:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:The benefit is that your ISPs don't get to double dip and charge you for services that you already paid for. The basics of it is that your service providers were selling Bandwidth with the expectation that no one ever needed as much as they were advertising. A few years ago it was mostly torrent traffic that was maxing out network lines, so they could freely throttle that under the pretense that "it's all piracy". Then P2P became used by every company and their grandmother for things like updates, services like Netflix started popping up, internet streaming exploded, and the ISPs panicked because the Bandwidth people were paying for was being used (the horrors). End result is that your ISPs wanted to cut down usage of the service they'd sold off, or to make more money from companies and products they had no right being gatekeepers for. For what changes, nothing really should (unless your ISP is currently throttling specific traffic). It just means your internet bill won't be getting additional fees for the "privilege" of going to Google or Twitch, or using Netflix. I thought it was charges on the B2B end? I think it was all of the above. There was lots of talk about internet bundling (like cable service), lots of complaining about how internet businesses aren't "paying for usage of lines", some stuff about certain traffic getting network priority. It all comes down to how they were planning to milk more money out of the service they're already providing, without making any improvements. I don't think they'd be bothered by people using existing capacity. Sounds like they're looking to pay for additional capacity in a way that would be more beneficial to themselves. Your Telcos have been whining about people using existing capacity for the last several years, and a lot of its about how companies are getting "free rides" on their networks, or blaming slow traffic and network congestion on people using the bandwidth they paid for. You're contradicting yourself. If there's congestion there isn't enough capacity. If there isn't enough capacity you need more, and that has to be paid for. I think you're assuming I'm saying your ISP situation is fine as is, which it's not. There's no contradiction, I'm saying your internet companies are quite terrible, and Net Neutrality at best keeps them from making things much worse by double dipping wherever they can. There's congestion because 1) that's how the internet unfortunately works, and 2) they oversold all these "up-to" speeds assuming no one would actually use that much, and now people are, so people are finding out how flimsy the whole set up is. As I understand it, your Telcos were already given a lot of money to upgrade infrastructure (including government money), and they didn't do it. That was part of the point of Google Fibre, to show just how easy it is to setup fast internet lines. No, there has been a lot of spending on infrastructure. Sounds like you're going down the IgnE road of "they spent billions on t-shirts and nothing on infrastructure" BS. Google Fibre isn't free and they set it up in only the BEST locations they could find. It's not a 100% repeatable thing in terms of cost for benefit.
Well, this what Verizon spent billions on: http://fiberforall.org/fios-map/
|
On February 27 2015 07:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 07:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:The benefit is that your ISPs don't get to double dip and charge you for services that you already paid for. The basics of it is that your service providers were selling Bandwidth with the expectation that no one ever needed as much as they were advertising. A few years ago it was mostly torrent traffic that was maxing out network lines, so they could freely throttle that under the pretense that "it's all piracy". Then P2P became used by every company and their grandmother for things like updates, services like Netflix started popping up, internet streaming exploded, and the ISPs panicked because the Bandwidth people were paying for was being used (the horrors). End result is that your ISPs wanted to cut down usage of the service they'd sold off, or to make more money from companies and products they had no right being gatekeepers for. For what changes, nothing really should (unless your ISP is currently throttling specific traffic). It just means your internet bill won't be getting additional fees for the "privilege" of going to Google or Twitch, or using Netflix. I thought it was charges on the B2B end? I think it was all of the above. There was lots of talk about internet bundling (like cable service), lots of complaining about how internet businesses aren't "paying for usage of lines", some stuff about certain traffic getting network priority. It all comes down to how they were planning to milk more money out of the service they're already providing, without making any improvements. I don't think they'd be bothered by people using existing capacity. Sounds like they're looking to pay for additional capacity in a way that would be more beneficial to themselves. Your Telcos have been whining about people using existing capacity for the last several years, and a lot of its about how companies are getting "free rides" on their networks, or blaming slow traffic and network congestion on people using the bandwidth they paid for. You're contradicting yourself. If there's congestion there isn't enough capacity. If there isn't enough capacity you need more, and that has to be paid for. I think you're assuming I'm saying your ISP situation is fine as is, which it's not. There's no contradiction, I'm saying your internet companies are quite terrible, and Net Neutrality at best keeps them from making things much worse by double dipping wherever they can. There's congestion because 1) that's how the internet unfortunately works, and 2) they oversold all these "up-to" speeds assuming no one would actually use that much, and now people are, so people are finding out how flimsy the whole set up is. As I understand it, your Telcos were already given a lot of money to upgrade infrastructure (including government money), and they didn't do it. That was part of the point of Google Fibre, to show just how easy it is to setup fast internet lines. No, there has been a lot of spending on infrastructure. Sounds like you're going down the IgnE road of "they spent billions on t-shirts and nothing on infrastructure" BS. Google Fibre isn't free and they set it up in only the BEST locations they could find. It's not a 100% repeatable thing in terms of cost for benefit.
Honestly Jonny, if you don't understand that in terms of data transfer speed and capacity are pretty much the same thing, you might want to bow out of the discussion... it is clearly something you know next to nothing about.
EDIT: reminds me of a funny story by my network professor. Do you know what is (probably still) the greatest bandwidth transfer? Load a plane up with HDDs and fly it wherever you want. Unfortunately you have a severe bottleneck at both the source and destination, but in terms of transfer speed, that cannot be beaten by any cable connection currently in existence (although some of the planned transatlantic lines might beat it in the near future).
|
On February 27 2015 07:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:21 Mohdoo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:The benefit is that your ISPs don't get to double dip and charge you for services that you already paid for. The basics of it is that your service providers were selling Bandwidth with the expectation that no one ever needed as much as they were advertising. A few years ago it was mostly torrent traffic that was maxing out network lines, so they could freely throttle that under the pretense that "it's all piracy". Then P2P became used by every company and their grandmother for things like updates, services like Netflix started popping up, internet streaming exploded, and the ISPs panicked because the Bandwidth people were paying for was being used (the horrors). End result is that your ISPs wanted to cut down usage of the service they'd sold off, or to make more money from companies and products they had no right being gatekeepers for. For what changes, nothing really should (unless your ISP is currently throttling specific traffic). It just means your internet bill won't be getting additional fees for the "privilege" of going to Google or Twitch, or using Netflix. I thought it was charges on the B2B end? I think it was all of the above. There was lots of talk about internet bundling (like cable service), lots of complaining about how internet businesses aren't "paying for usage of lines", some stuff about certain traffic getting network priority. It all comes down to how they were planning to milk more money out of the service they're already providing, without making any improvements. I don't think they'd be bothered by people using existing capacity. Sounds like they're looking to pay for additional capacity in a way that would be more beneficial to themselves. Your Telcos have been whining about people using existing capacity for the last several years, and a lot of its about how companies are getting "free rides" on their networks, or blaming slow traffic and network congestion on people using the bandwidth they paid for. You're contradicting yourself. If there's congestion there isn't enough capacity. If there isn't enough capacity you need more, and that has to be paid for. ISPs suddenly doubling speeds when Google fiber has shown up in various cities makes me think there isn't an issue. Is speed the same as capacity? Pretty much, yes.
Could you elaborate then? Did they have spare capacity in that area or what?
|
On February 27 2015 07:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 07:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2015 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 05:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:The benefit is that your ISPs don't get to double dip and charge you for services that you already paid for. The basics of it is that your service providers were selling Bandwidth with the expectation that no one ever needed as much as they were advertising. A few years ago it was mostly torrent traffic that was maxing out network lines, so they could freely throttle that under the pretense that "it's all piracy". Then P2P became used by every company and their grandmother for things like updates, services like Netflix started popping up, internet streaming exploded, and the ISPs panicked because the Bandwidth people were paying for was being used (the horrors). End result is that your ISPs wanted to cut down usage of the service they'd sold off, or to make more money from companies and products they had no right being gatekeepers for. For what changes, nothing really should (unless your ISP is currently throttling specific traffic). It just means your internet bill won't be getting additional fees for the "privilege" of going to Google or Twitch, or using Netflix. I thought it was charges on the B2B end? I think it was all of the above. There was lots of talk about internet bundling (like cable service), lots of complaining about how internet businesses aren't "paying for usage of lines", some stuff about certain traffic getting network priority. It all comes down to how they were planning to milk more money out of the service they're already providing, without making any improvements. I don't think they'd be bothered by people using existing capacity. Sounds like they're looking to pay for additional capacity in a way that would be more beneficial to themselves. Your Telcos have been whining about people using existing capacity for the last several years, and a lot of its about how companies are getting "free rides" on their networks, or blaming slow traffic and network congestion on people using the bandwidth they paid for. You're contradicting yourself. If there's congestion there isn't enough capacity. If there isn't enough capacity you need more, and that has to be paid for. I think you're assuming I'm saying your ISP situation is fine as is, which it's not. There's no contradiction, I'm saying your internet companies are quite terrible, and Net Neutrality at best keeps them from making things much worse by double dipping wherever they can. There's congestion because 1) that's how the internet unfortunately works, and 2) they oversold all these "up-to" speeds assuming no one would actually use that much, and now people are, so people are finding out how flimsy the whole set up is. As I understand it, your Telcos were already given a lot of money to upgrade infrastructure (including government money), and they didn't do it. That was part of the point of Google Fibre, to show just how easy it is to setup fast internet lines. No, there has been a lot of spending on infrastructure. Sounds like you're going down the IgnE road of "they spent billions on t-shirts and nothing on infrastructure" BS. Google Fibre isn't free and they set it up in only the BEST locations they could find. It's not a 100% repeatable thing in terms of cost for benefit. Well, this what Verizon spent billions on: http://fiberforall.org/fios-map/
Yes, and... ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
