how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
149 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| I'm no programmer But what about this from the EFF article?
"In other words, ISPs could become an omnipresent adversary that developers have to constantly worry about when writing their code."
Wouldn't that pretty much mean that they're (trying to) change the internet for what they believe is in their best interests?
The other thing I still don't get is why not just keep improving capacity?
Sure, cable networks are generally shared and not as individualized as, say, DSL, but surely there are ways to actually allot a certain DEDICATED amount of bandwidth to each location.
If they could figure that out, and have the capacity to do it, then there would be no excuse for even having to bother with so much "management."
Do we hear about this much from DSL users? Gee, I wonder why not. Maybe it's because such a network is already prepared for users to actually use their bandwidth as they see fit.
Here's an idea, stop with all the little nudges in speed and fix the freaking networks such that ALL users can expect their connection to run full blast as often as desired.
...I think they call that FiOS in some circles  ...
If companies can afford all this new shiny network equipment for faster speeds, more fiber, more routers, more switches, more everything - why even bother spending all this time, money, and trouble to BLOCK things? Oh, that's right, it might actually make sense. Nevermind.
So instead, we have this fight for "neutrality" and I'm starting to think it'll only end up being worse than things are now no matter what the outcome.
For now, the cat (Comcast) and mouse (people) game continues.
Personally, I don't use bt much. Live shows on occasion and such, but even then it's rare.
If you take what bt was created for (sharing many lossless audio files, which combined are larger than your average youtube clip...), what it's now being used for, and what it could someday be used for, it's really a great idea. If it didn't already exist, I'm sure somebody, somewhere would've created something similar anyway.
I'm also pretty sure that somewhere there's already work being done on something else like it that's hopefully more friendly (doesn't try to use a billion connections at once...), more reliable, easier to use, and cannot be disrupted by things like fancy overpriced disruptor machines..... | | |
|
| said by amungus:Do we hear about this much from DSL users? Gee, I wonder why not. Maybe it's because such a network is already prepared for users to actually use their bandwidth as they see fit. [...] Here's an idea, stop with all the little nudges in speed and fix the freaking networks such that ALL users can expect their connection to run full blast as often as desired. ...I think they call that FiOS in some circles ... [...] If companies can afford all this new shiny network equipment for faster speeds, more fiber, more routers, more switches, more everything - why even bother spending all this time, money, and trouble to BLOCK things? Oh, that's right, it might actually make sense. Nevermind. And therein lies the rub. You nailed it. It's not that providers haven't already arrived at your conclusions. The fact of the matter is that they want to be gatekeepers of thet Net and decide for the users everything we see and everything we hear. They have realized long ago that the Net is a powerful medium and they want to control it as is the wont of every mega corporation in America.
They have been slowly but surely edging towards a federally blessed, wink and nod "policy" (See also FCC) that allows them to have their cake and eat it too. In other words, if it's going to cost $$$$$, then the providers find a reason not to have to supply it (bandwidth), or, insert other reason here (See also Verizon/AT*T/Comcast censorship et al).
You see things as clearly as you do because if you, or I, or anyone else for that matter ran their personal business the way the U.S. government does, then we'd all be bankrupt, living on the street, in prison or all of the above. | |
| reply to amungus
said by amungus:The other thing I still don't get is why not just keep improving capacity? Sure, cable networks are generally shared and not as individualized as, say, DSL, but surely there are ways to actually allot a certain DEDICATED amount of bandwidth to each location. It's easy, here's now. Let's assume you share your cable connection with 150 other users. We have 39 mbits/sec on that connection (assuming QAM 256) so let's divide that by 150 and set the modems cap for ... .26 mbits/second (or about 256 Kbits/sec).
That is why you don't do it that way. All networks are oversubscribed to some extent, that is just good network design as you know not everyone will be hitting it full blast all the time. It is even more extreme on the upstream side. If you are on a new upgraded system you can use QAM 16 on the upstream and get about 10 mbits/second. Divide that by 150 and you end up with .074 mbits/second or about 74 Kbits/second. That is why the modems are capped at certain rates so that not one user can use all the bandwidth but if you even have 5 users using the full 8 mbits/second, you have basically saturated the network. It is even worst on the upstream side (and why most Cable ISPs don't want you running a server.) | |
jp10558Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY | reply to amungus
Personally I prefer having my slow 1Mbps that my provider treats as a problem if my speedtest is less than 1000kbps. Oh, and they don't send me letters if I max it out all the time. I can use what I pay for, and they make sure I get it.
It's not that I wouldn't love 6Mbps, but I much prefer the provider setting a reasonable, achievable service for the money than all the tricks and scams cable seems to do. | |
 PiggieI Actually use WindstreamPremium
join:2005-11-23
Orange Springs, FL | reply to SilverSurfer1
said by SilverSurfer1:said by amungus:Here's an idea, stop with all the little nudges in speed and fix the freaking networks such that ALL users can expect their connection to run full blast as often as desired. ...I think they call that FiOS in some circles ... [...] If companies can afford all this new shiny network equipment for faster speeds, more fiber, more routers, more switches, more everything - why even bother spending all this time, money, and trouble to BLOCK things? Oh, that's right, it might actually make sense. Nevermind. And therein lies the rub. You nailed it. It's not that providers haven't already arrived at your conclusions. The fact of the matter is that they want to be gatekeepers of thet Net and decide for the users everything we see and everything we hear. They have realized long ago that the Net is a powerful medium and they want to control it as is the wont of every mega corporation in America. They have been slowly but surely edging towards a federally blessed, wink and nod "policy" (See also FCC) that allows them to have their cake and eat it too. In other words, if it's going to cost $$$$$, then the providers find a reason not to have to supply it (bandwidth), or, insert other reason here (See also Verizon/AT*T/Comcast censorship et al). These two posters totally get it. All these other little side arguments are moot to a large degree.
The companies that really have a bandwidth limit are the ISPs, limited by their local WAN. But the backbone providers that started the argument toward a filtered network are so over built still, they just are trying to recover looses and never let the telco stock crash of 2000/2001 ever happen again.
They throw out little bones words like "Bit Torrent" and let the public argue about that, laughing their collect butts off all the while you argue about it. Meanwhile, they own the FCC and do what they want while the public is distracted on nonsequter conversations.
PS: If you haven't noticed the entire spectrum of the Oligarchy now running the United States operates with this philosophy. The same manipulation of the public has been used by a list of fascists and dictators through out history. If whose names I list most will label me a black helicopter watcher, not someone that studied history.
--
| Speedstream 4200 Modem - 3m/384 plan | W98-W2KSP4-XPSP2 - All AMD | Buffalo WHR G54S with OpenWRT WR0.9 | 3 downstream switches feeding 6 total clients (no wireless) | Including the Data port on the side of my pork belly | | |
|
