|
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 07:29 xDaunt 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. 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.
I think there are a number of people who could win (at least more than TL would admit), but I really like Walker. I just hope he doesn't sell out for all that big donor money :p
|
On February 27 2015 07:45 Acrofales 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. 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).
The discussion isn't about how the tech works, it's about how it is financed.
|
On February 27 2015 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:45 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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). The discussion isn't about how the tech works, it's about how it is financed.
Fundamental concepts like flux being represented as speed*density are important to the discussion because it is the product being financed. You questioned whether speed was relevant, which made it hard to continue the conversation.
|
On February 27 2015 07:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:37 WolfintheSheep wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
Sheesh. Imagine the data cable network as being water pipes. You have a small little copper tube running to every home. In the street there's a slightly bigger tube, but not enough to transfer water to all the homes if everybody in the street opens all their taps at the same time. All the street tubes connect to a neighbourhood tube, which is, once again, a bit bigger (but not quite big enough), and this continues until you get to the water distribution center (here the analogy breaks down, because here full duplex networks are needed). Now lets say your tube maxes out at 1l per minute. There are two things I can do to give you more than 1l per minute. I can give you a bigger tube (increase bandwidth), or I can increase the water pressure. However, in the case of data traffic, the equivalent of "water pressure" is transfer speed, which already happens at the speed of light (give or take), and thus cannot be increased.
Hence, speed and capacity are the same thing.
|
On February 27 2015 07:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote: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). 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.
Which other conservatives are you thinking could win the primary and general? Are you suggesting you genuinely think Carson or Cruz has a chance at a win in the general election?
|
On February 27 2015 07:55 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:37 WolfintheSheep wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Sheesh. Imagine the data cable network as being water pipes. You have a small little copper tube running to every home. In the street there's a slightly bigger tube, but not enough to transfer water to all the homes if everybody in the street opens all their taps at the same time. All the street tubes connect to a neighbourhood tube, which is, once again, a bit bigger (but not quite big enough), and this continues until you get to the water distribution center (here the analogy breaks down, because here full duplex networks are needed). Now lets say your tube maxes out at 1l per minute. There are two things I can do to give you more than 1l per minute. I can give you a bigger tube (increase bandwidth), or I can increase the water pressure. However, in the case of data traffic, the equivalent of "water pressure" is transfer speed, which already happens at the speed of light (give or take), and thus cannot be increased. Hence, speed and capacity are the same thing.
I wasn't asking for an explanation on how speed = bandwidth, I was asking for an explanation of what occurred in cities that suddenly doubled speeds.
|
On February 27 2015 07:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:45 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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). The discussion isn't about how the tech works, it's about how it is financed. Fundamental concepts like flux being represented as speed*density are important to the discussion because it is the product being financed. You questioned whether speed was relevant, which made it hard to continue the conversation.
It shouldn't affect the conversation. Saying 'yes' is fine enough. If you find that too burdensome, maybe you should not bother?
Sounds like you're just trying to be a dick.
|
On February 27 2015 07:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:55 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2015 07:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:37 WolfintheSheep wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Sheesh. Imagine the data cable network as being water pipes. You have a small little copper tube running to every home. In the street there's a slightly bigger tube, but not enough to transfer water to all the homes if everybody in the street opens all their taps at the same time. All the street tubes connect to a neighbourhood tube, which is, once again, a bit bigger (but not quite big enough), and this continues until you get to the water distribution center (here the analogy breaks down, because here full duplex networks are needed). Now lets say your tube maxes out at 1l per minute. There are two things I can do to give you more than 1l per minute. I can give you a bigger tube (increase bandwidth), or I can increase the water pressure. However, in the case of data traffic, the equivalent of "water pressure" is transfer speed, which already happens at the speed of light (give or take), and thus cannot be increased. Hence, speed and capacity are the same thing. I wasn't asking for an explanation on how speed = bandwidth, I was asking for an explanation of what occurred in cities that suddenly doubled speeds.
That was exactly what your initial question asked. But fine, have fun: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/google-fiber.htm
A shorter article describing the part that I presume you were actually interested in: http://consumerist.com/2014/09/04/google-fiber-may-come-to-phoenix-cox-customers-receive-100-coincidental-speed-boost/
How? No clue, but I'm going to throw your favourite line at you: market forces!
|
On February 27 2015 08:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:54 Mohdoo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:45 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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). The discussion isn't about how the tech works, it's about how it is financed. Fundamental concepts like flux being represented as speed*density are important to the discussion because it is the product being financed. You questioned whether speed was relevant, which made it hard to continue the conversation. It shouldn't affect the conversation. Saying 'yes' is fine enough. If you find that too burdensome, maybe you should not bother? Sounds like you're just trying to be a dick.
When someone said "pretty much, yes", you asked them to elaborate :p In that past, you have had a history of arguing through asking people to explain things that should be obvious instead of offering your own points for people to argue. I don't think I'm alone in my frustration with that kind of thing.
|
On February 27 2015 08:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:55 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2015 07:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:37 WolfintheSheep wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Sheesh. Imagine the data cable network as being water pipes. You have a small little copper tube running to every home. In the street there's a slightly bigger tube, but not enough to transfer water to all the homes if everybody in the street opens all their taps at the same time. All the street tubes connect to a neighbourhood tube, which is, once again, a bit bigger (but not quite big enough), and this continues until you get to the water distribution center (here the analogy breaks down, because here full duplex networks are needed). Now lets say your tube maxes out at 1l per minute. There are two things I can do to give you more than 1l per minute. I can give you a bigger tube (increase bandwidth), or I can increase the water pressure. However, in the case of data traffic, the equivalent of "water pressure" is transfer speed, which already happens at the speed of light (give or take), and thus cannot be increased. Hence, speed and capacity are the same thing. I wasn't asking for an explanation on how speed = bandwidth, I was asking for an explanation of what occurred in cities that suddenly doubled speeds. That was exactly what your initial question asked. But fine, have fun: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/google-fiber.htm
Thanks, I'm proven correct yet again 
|
this must be what special ed is like.
|
On February 27 2015 08:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 08:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:54 Mohdoo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:45 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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). The discussion isn't about how the tech works, it's about how it is financed. Fundamental concepts like flux being represented as speed*density are important to the discussion because it is the product being financed. You questioned whether speed was relevant, which made it hard to continue the conversation. It shouldn't affect the conversation. Saying 'yes' is fine enough. If you find that too burdensome, maybe you should not bother? Sounds like you're just trying to be a dick. When someone said "pretty much, yes", you asked them to elaborate :p In that past, you have had a history of arguing through asking people to explain things that should be obvious instead of offering your own points for people to argue. I don't think I'm alone in my frustration with that kind of thing.
I asked them to elaborate on the broader issue - how and why the city got increased speeds. Sorry if you guys didn't read the question properly, or the follow up.
On February 27 2015 08:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:55 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2015 07:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:37 WolfintheSheep wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Sheesh. Imagine the data cable network as being water pipes. You have a small little copper tube running to every home. In the street there's a slightly bigger tube, but not enough to transfer water to all the homes if everybody in the street opens all their taps at the same time. All the street tubes connect to a neighbourhood tube, which is, once again, a bit bigger (but not quite big enough), and this continues until you get to the water distribution center (here the analogy breaks down, because here full duplex networks are needed). Now lets say your tube maxes out at 1l per minute. There are two things I can do to give you more than 1l per minute. I can give you a bigger tube (increase bandwidth), or I can increase the water pressure. However, in the case of data traffic, the equivalent of "water pressure" is transfer speed, which already happens at the speed of light (give or take), and thus cannot be increased. Hence, speed and capacity are the same thing. I wasn't asking for an explanation on how speed = bandwidth, I was asking for an explanation of what occurred in cities that suddenly doubled speeds. That was exactly what your initial question asked. But fine, have fun: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/google-fiber.htmA shorter article describing the part that I presume you were actually interested in: http://consumerist.com/2014/09/04/google-fiber-may-come-to-phoenix-cox-customers-receive-100-coincidental-speed-boost/How? No clue, but I'm going to throw your favourite line at you: market forces!
lol, how is that my favorite line?
|
So, after my whiny post, I went and looked up Bidenisms and got happy again. "If any Republicans say I'm not religious again, I'll shove my rosary beads down their throats."
(On being asked if he wants to run for President in '08) "I'd rather be making love to my wife after the kids go to sleep"
Or the wonderful:
JB: Mr. Putin, I've looked deep in your eyes, and I don't think you have a soul.
VP: I'm glad we understand one another.
On February 27 2015 08:29 nunez wrote:
this must be what special ed is like.
This is so not cool for a half a dozen reasons.
|
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Thursday said his experience undermining labor unions in Wisconsin has prepared him to take on the threat of the Islamic State in the Middle East.
"If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world," Walker told a packed crowd at the Conservative Political Action Committee, in response to a question about how he would fight the terrorist group, which has killed thousands in Iraq and Syria.
Walker was referring to protesters who led an unsuccessful recall effort against him in 2012, after he proposed a budget that stripped public sector unions of their collective bargaining rights. The protests lasted for months and catapulted Walker onto the national political stage.
The likely 2016 presidential candidate said the nation needs "someone who leads" and who will "send a message, not only that we'll protect American soil, but do not take this upon freedom-loving people anywhere else in the world. We need a leader with that kind of confidence."
Source
|
On February 27 2015 09:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Thursday said his experience undermining labor unions in Wisconsin has prepared him to take on the threat of the Islamic State in the Middle East.
"If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world," Walker told a packed crowd at the Conservative Political Action Committee, in response to a question about how he would fight the terrorist group, which has killed thousands in Iraq and Syria.
Walker was referring to protesters who led an unsuccessful recall effort against him in 2012, after he proposed a budget that stripped public sector unions of their collective bargaining rights. The protests lasted for months and catapulted Walker onto the national political stage.
The likely 2016 presidential candidate said the nation needs "someone who leads" and who will "send a message, not only that we'll protect American soil, but do not take this upon freedom-loving people anywhere else in the world. We need a leader with that kind of confidence." Source
Omg i cant stop laughing.
|
On February 27 2015 09:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Thursday said his experience undermining labor unions in Wisconsin has prepared him to take on the threat of the Islamic State in the Middle East.
"If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world," Walker told a packed crowd at the Conservative Political Action Committee, in response to a question about how he would fight the terrorist group, which has killed thousands in Iraq and Syria.
Walker was referring to protesters who led an unsuccessful recall effort against him in 2012, after he proposed a budget that stripped public sector unions of their collective bargaining rights. The protests lasted for months and catapulted Walker onto the national political stage.
The likely 2016 presidential candidate said the nation needs "someone who leads" and who will "send a message, not only that we'll protect American soil, but do not take this upon freedom-loving people anywhere else in the world. We need a leader with that kind of confidence." Source
I just spit shit all over my monitor! roflmao! Weren't we just talking about saying stupid things...?
On February 27 2015 08:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 08:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:54 Mohdoo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 07:45 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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). The discussion isn't about how the tech works, it's about how it is financed. Fundamental concepts like flux being represented as speed*density are important to the discussion because it is the product being financed. You questioned whether speed was relevant, which made it hard to continue the conversation. It shouldn't affect the conversation. Saying 'yes' is fine enough. If you find that too burdensome, maybe you should not bother? Sounds like you're just trying to be a dick. When someone said "pretty much, yes", you asked them to elaborate :p In that past, you have had a history of arguing through asking people to explain things that should be obvious instead of offering your own points for people to argue. I don't think I'm alone in my frustration with that kind of thing.
Certainly not.
|
|
|
how do people like him get these jobs
Inhofe has made multiple foreign trips, especially to Africa, on missions that he described as "a Jesus thing" and that were paid for by the U.S. government. He has used these trips for activities on behalf of The Fellowship, a Christian organization.[95] Inhofe has said that his trips included some governmental work but also involved "the political philosophy of Jesus, something that had been put together by Doug Coe, the leader of The Fellowship...It's all scripturally based." Inhofe used his access as a Senator to pursue religious goals
I'm pretty sure Jesus would not be amused by his behaviour
|
On February 27 2015 09:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 09:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Thursday said his experience undermining labor unions in Wisconsin has prepared him to take on the threat of the Islamic State in the Middle East.
"If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world," Walker told a packed crowd at the Conservative Political Action Committee, in response to a question about how he would fight the terrorist group, which has killed thousands in Iraq and Syria.
Walker was referring to protesters who led an unsuccessful recall effort against him in 2012, after he proposed a budget that stripped public sector unions of their collective bargaining rights. The protests lasted for months and catapulted Walker onto the national political stage.
The likely 2016 presidential candidate said the nation needs "someone who leads" and who will "send a message, not only that we'll protect American soil, but do not take this upon freedom-loving people anywhere else in the world. We need a leader with that kind of confidence." Source Omg i cant stop laughing.
The fact that XDaunt thinks this guy is electable is even more amusing. We have a good view of Wisconsin from over here in Minnesota and pretty much everyone thinks the dude is batshit insane. He is completely destroying that state and running it into the ground. The place is going to be a disaster zone in a couple years due to him, and the complete mess that he makes in Wisconsin is going to haunt him if he tries to run for office in 2016.
|
He looks so pleased with himself. As if the snowball did the opposite of make him look like a moronic loon. That's the kind of stupid crazy stuff I'm talking about when it comes to Republicans not doing anything about it.
If you have to be a climate change 'skeptic', at least don't be unbelievably stupid about it.
And I'm supposed to take that guys opinion on what's good climate science...? /sigh
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
