qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
1 edit | reply to Uald
Re: Who are all these geeks crying for mo speed?
And let's not mention that Pennsylvania paid Bell half a BILLION DOLLARS for them to wire the state with fiber-and got NOTHING...ZERO for their money! |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | reply to spewak
Who are you? His veep? My old comrade Didkins is harmless  |
|
spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
 ·SureWest Internet
·FrontierNet Intern..
| reply to dadkins
said by dadkins  :Look nonja, learn how to read and spell... it's dadkins. Ninja,
It is not good to fool with Mother Nature, or dadkins for that matter! 
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer! |
|
Uald
@bellsouth.net
 from:
ieolus
| reply to ninjatutle
said by ninjatutle :I'm glad you people think infrastructure magically comes out of thin air  It doesn't. Everybody knows that. What people forget though is we already paid for FTTH.
»www.newnetworks.com/BroadbandSca···ntro.htm
Starting in the early 1990's, driven by the Clinton-Gore Administration’s desire to create a very high-speed network throughout America, the Bell phone companies claimed that instead of the government taking the lead role, the Bell companies would step up to the plate to rewire America’s homes and offices, schools and libraries with a fiber optic broadband network. It would replace the aging, 100-year old copper-based network with a glass-based fiber optic wire that could handle America’s broadband needs.
From 1993 through 1996, there were announcements and plans that would make anyone think that we were in the midst of a fiber optic revolution. In order to make the country believe that these networks were real, the phone companies spent almost a billion dollars on two groups, TELE-TV and Americast. Americast (the group formed by SBC, BellSouth, GTE, Ameritech and Disney to promote fiber optic/broadband content) was promising 68 million fiber optic homes in 28 states.
What was promised? By 2000, according to the Bell companies' annual reports, press releases and state filings, about 50 million households should have been rewired. California's Pacific Telesis (Pac Bell) promised to have 5.5 million households wired with fiber optic services, Ameritech; which covered 5 states including Illinois, Indiana and Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin) promised 6 million homes by 2000, Bell Atlantic claimed 8.75 million homes, and NYNEX said 1.5-2 million by 1996. (Ameritech, Pac Bell, Bell Atlantic and NYNEX were four of the original Bell companies.)
WHAT WAS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS?
The local phone companies are regulated by the state public utility commissions. They are utilities, and offer essential services — phone and data services. The utilities were regulated by controlling the companies’ profits, known as "rate of return". Remember, in the 1990’s there was no competition of any consequence, and so the phone companies had a guaranteed income. It is still guaranteed in that if their profits fail to please, they ask for a price increase.
The plan was to simply get all 50 states to remove this old "rate of return" regulation with "deregulation", meaning the removal of regulation. In this case, it was also called "price caps", or "alternative regulations", or "incentive regulations", all of which would give the phone companies more money to pay for these upgrades.
From the customer side, in essence, these plans allowed the phone companies to either raise the price of specific services, or allowed the companies to not have to give back money for very profitable services. For example, "Calling Features", such as "Call Waiting" or "Call Forwarding", can cost customers $3-$5 a month, and yet cost less than ONE CENT to offer. They could also cut staff, take large tax write-offs for the aging equipment, and get a host of other perks.
(click link above to read the rest of the article)
They got their side of it, they got the deregulation they wanted, the tax incentives, the price caps on public utilities removed, they even talked the government out of doing something they were going to do instead. Meanwhile they feed you a story about how it's just impossible to wire America because we're all so spread out. Why is it they can't even wire our cities? Why can't you even get 100Mbps (heck, now Japan's going to start offering 1Gbps to the home for the price we pay for 6Mbps) in New York where the population density is much higher? Isn't population density the argument everybody loves to use for why we pay the same for speed that is 166 times slower? |
|
eric_n_dfw
join:2001-10-22
Euless, TX
·EarthLink
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to ninjatutle
That looks pretty good, especially for content that I don't really need to see in hi-res. So, for video conferencing that may be fine, but I sure wouldn't want that many compression artifacts on my HD video. Now, I don't use NetFlix or it's competitors, they may look just as bad - I'm too spoiled for ATSC and a pretty good signal from TimeWarner. I've seen UVerse HD at their stores and was not impressed with the HD quality there on sports.
I think people's points are that they do want to see speeds that allow IPTV to compete with the quality cable and satellite can give. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to ninjatutle
said by ninjatutle :I guess little lepercons and gnomes are erecting towers outta thin air too? I doubt it, but it sometimes feels like at&t has trained the gnomes and leprechauns to come into our homes and take all the money out of our wallets and in return leave us a little bit more then thin air....
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to jsz0
said by jsz0 :NetFlix downloads are heavily compressed. 600-700MB for a movie. That means even at 6mbit/sec you can download the movie faster than you can watch it in real-time. NetFlix high-quality runs about 1 GB an hour. 600-700 seems too low an estimate.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA
2 edits | reply to Anon
And I suppose the HD you get from Cable, Sat or any other provider is uncompressed |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | reply to lifela
Re: Who are all these geeks crying for mo speed?
Put up or shut up. Post yer 5 HD tvee's |
|
lifela
@rcn.com
| reply to ninjatutle
said by ninjatutle :Seriously, what would you want 100MB up and down for? What will you be able to do that you can't do now? P2P seems like the only thing that comes to mind... My little mobile 3G card can even handle my needs. Minus the caps... i can watch 5 hd channels on 5 different sets with cable AND run P2P. with att i cant watch more than 2 hd channels. what a joke their system is. how long have u worked for att? |
|
jsz0
join:2008-01-23
Jewett City, CT
·Comcast
| reply to maartena
I'm definitely not against more bandwidth but NetFlix isn't a good example.
NetFlix downloads are heavily compressed. 600-700MB for a movie. That means even at 6mbit/sec you can download the movie faster than you can watch it in real-time.
Even AppleTV/Live quality HD (4GB) can be watched almost real time at 6mbit although realistically you will need some buffering to prevent hiccups.
But yes, i do agree that power users need more than 6mbit/sec. 10 or 15mbit/sec is probably a good middle-ground for non-FTTH services. Not quite as fast as we'd like but realistic given the last mile bandwidth bottle necks of a FTTN system. |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | reply to funchords
I guess little lepercons and gnomes are erecting towers outta thin air too? |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to ninjatutle
said by ninjatutle :I'm glad you people think infrastructure magically comes out of thin air (...he says from his wireless network...) *ignore* |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | reply to funchords
I'm glad you people think infrastructure magically comes out of thin air |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| reply to stomp357
said by stomp357 : All I hear from you is how anyone wanting more speed is stealing. You yourself are using a broadband service. Since all you must do on the internet is email, & websurf (everything else is criminal, or network abuse according to you), just get dialup, or the slowest tiered broadband. Then you would have enough bandwidth, and not be bothered by the bandwidth robbing users. It's ok for him to have highspeed, because he's special!
Everyone else with highspeed is a theif and steals everything... PERIOD!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
maartena
Super Grover
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to JasonX
said by JasonX :Actually, Mozy limits your upload speed to 1 Mbps max anyway, so higher speeds won't help you there (I'm a long time customer of theirs). That's one of the ways Mozy discourages abuse of the "unlimited" storage. The rest of your points are well taken, though. Point taken. But there are other services costing more money that allow you to store at much faster speeds.
I actually have my own domain and full hosting for $9.95, and I can send at 10 Mbps to and from that host, which I tested with my work line which is 15/15 right now (soon 45/45).
I could setup my own backup system utilizing FTP - and for the MOST important stuff I already have. I have 100 Gb of space on that host, which should cover my 60 Gb of important stuff just fine.
As of late, I have been scanning and fixing old photographs, to create a family tree database that is digitized. The need for more bandwidth is everywhere, and I simply don't get why there are people that actually question what we do with out bandwidth because we want some more of it.
I don't do piracy (or at least RARELY) and quite frankly, it is of no ones business what I do with my bandwidth, and those who think that more bandwidth can only be good for the illegal..... have absolutely no clue about the real world, and the future we are moving towards. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| reply to ninjatutle
Look nonja, learn how to read and spell... it's dadkins.
I prefer full backups, incrementals have a higher fail rate, incase you didn't know - I think you just like to argue.
2 full images per month x 3 computers - let me add that up for you:
13GB(smallest image) x 3 computers = 39GB
39GB twice a month is 78GB.
Tell me, how fast do you think I would be able to upload those?
As it stands, I use snail-mail because of bandwidth restrictions.
I use a whopping 30GB per month, even though I have a 16/2 connection.
Now, it sure would be nice to be able to just point n click to send the images, but lack of speed is a hell of a deterrent.
Answer my question pal, why do YOU need Uverse?
Speed = stealing... right?
Yeah.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
maartena
Super Grover
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to ninjatutle
said by ninjatutle :You want to run a little satellite office out of your garage? Pony up for the correct infrastructure. People that want to do teleworking to save on gas and time (we have our entire salesforce working from home) can't afford the $4,000 for a DS3, only the $99 for the 15/2 business plan from TWC, which is the best we can get in our area.
You don't seem to have any clue about small business owners, freelance photographers, journalists, etc.... and just FAMILIES that use broadband. |
|
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
1 edit | reply to ninjatutle
P2P seems to be the only thing that comes to your mind. You sound like a RIAA broken record...day after day. Is there an ignore feature on DSLR? |
|
