axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC |
to hottboiinnc4
Re: Nothing strange about this objective.Not if a democratic majority of the people demand a regulation saying otherwise  |
|
|
 tobyTroy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA |
to 88615298
said by 88615298:said by canestim:Do you realize how many gigs one hd stream from Netflix is? How are you going to stream movies to replaces your non-digital copies with that 10GB data cap with your Verizon LTE Home Fusion service? You realize in areas where one's only option is something like HomeFusion DSL doesn't even exist anyway. Places where DSL exists are in populated areas that are serviced by cable. Where CenturyLink provides (?) DSL service in large areas of the Western USA, there is no cable or any other choice of ISP, thats right, no wireless either. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:See you corporate friendly folks seem to forget what the internet was and why it was corrected.
...
The internet exist to provide it's users whatever they want.
As long as you're willing to pay for the use, so be it. But don't expect a free ride, subsidized by your neighbors. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
to Desertisp
Is it your opinion then that the backbones could also be replaced with wireless? |
|
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
to toby
said by toby:said by 88615298:said by canestim:Do you realize how many gigs one hd stream from Netflix is? How are you going to stream movies to replaces your non-digital copies with that 10GB data cap with your Verizon LTE Home Fusion service? You realize in areas where one's only option is something like HomeFusion DSL doesn't even exist anyway. Places where DSL exists are in populated areas that are serviced by cable. Where CenturyLink provides (?) DSL service in large areas of the Western USA, there is no cable or any other choice of ISP, thats right, no wireless either. good for them but this story is about at&t ditching DSL not CenturyLink. So did you have a point? |
|
| 88615298 |
to canestim
said by canestim:There are millions and millions of people where DSL is the only option for wired Internet, wired Internet aka the real Internet aka not capped and/or dodgy signal 3G, LTE, or Satellite. And these people (like me) actually do live in populated cities. So yes I do realize that but why don't you go tell that to the millions of people (who only have DSL no cable option) who could possibly have their DSL shut of because of this. Perhaps I should be more specific. This story is about AT&T ditching DSL not any other DSL company. In MOST areas( most not ALL ) where at&t has DSL they have cable available. The % of areas where at&t has DSL but there isn't a cable provider is small. And until someone has numbers proving otherwise I'll stand by that statement. It probably doesn't matter to you because you probably have both options and don't care, outta sight outta mind. if you bothered to read any of many many numerous posts here over the years on the topic you would know your statement is 100% the opposite of reality |
|
| |
to CXM_Splicer
Sure, if you can put all the waves in a vacuum. |
|
| Skippy25 |
to elray
You continue to beat the dead horse of blocking content, creating intertubes for special access and wanting an AOL style internet of the late 90's along with your AT&T corporate fat cats.
While me and the rest of world move on past AOL days. |
|
| |
to viperlmw
Who needs the price them out at the middle layer, just use the monopoly to undercut prices till they go under then raise them back up. No investor in their right mind would overbuild because of that.
Look at what is happening to Utopia? Both Comcast and USworst (Now centurylink) both offer sweetheart deals to everyone that can get Utopia service, in fact prices are less than half the rest of the state. No one can reasonably compete against an entity that can simply price service below cost to drive you out of business. |
|
| |
to CXM_Splicer
In my opinion? No. You can't reach the throughput of fiber over the air, however for places that's its physically impossible to run fiber I feel microwave is viable as a backbone, yes. Concerning wired connections such as cable, DSL, FTTH then there really is no replacement for a fiber backbone to the distribution point whether its a node, DSLAM or (obviously for FTTH) the optical splitter in the neighborhood. Seeing how AT&T and others refuse to go this route (upgrading backbones, removing caps due to increased capacity) I think they have no business doing wired connections and their wired customers should be handed over for pennies on the dollar to companies who will upgrade and maintain these networks since they won't. |
|
| |
to viperlmw
Sir, you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT on the problem being the Middle Mile!
After talking to some small town Telcos, they blame the high prices of their Middle Mile suppliers for not going to fiber as quickly as many would like.
In my area, the finger was pointed to AT&T as the WORST offender. One small Telco finally just installed their own 70 mile fiber line, to get around the Death Star and their high costs! |
|
| |
to 88615298
said by canestim:Places where DSL exists are in populated areas that are serviced by cable.
Do you even know what DSL is? It's internet, provided through telephone lines. What does all of America have? Telephone lines. I live in a small town with something around 300 people, with other similar sized towns around. The only utilities coming to all the houses are electricity and telephone, and through the telephone lines-- DSL. You know what is completely absent? Cable. Why would this place be wired with cable? It would use tons of wire, and there is not a very high population density. So, we are stuck with 100- 700 kb/s internet depending on how far we are from the "magic wire-shack." |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
to Skippy25
Wrong.
Not once, have I ever, called for walled-garden or blocking content.
It is you who seems to confuse AOL with internet access.
I never used their service. |
|
| |
to Desertisp
I have family that is pretty damn country and you will drive for a long time before seeing a single house or evidence of another home somewhere and yet they all still have phone service over copper wires and they all have electricity. Even in very mountainous places they have these services. So it is possible and it was economically feasible then, just as it is now.
Can you name one city/town/community that does not have copper ran to it in one form or another?
I would agree with you about them handing over their assets as part of imminent domain, being they are unwilling to serve the people themselves. |
|
| Skippy25 |
to elray
My bad... what did you mean by "But don't expect a free ride, subsidized by your neighbors."?
BTW, the entire network has been subsidized by the entire country through taxes incentives and several other "perks" given to these companies. |
|
| |
to shrraga
Dude, pratice your quote edit skills, BF69 should be quoted for that mess  Your exactly right, and what BF69 and others fail to realize is that small amount of people who only have DS and not cableL probably numbers 10-15 million people (I need to reevaluate my definition of small maybe?) |
|
Sukunai
Premium Member
join:2008-05-07 |
Sukunai
Premium Member
2012-Sep-21 9:07 am
Hmm some replies.
I don't always need HD quality. In fact if it really matters (in a film of merit) I will likely buy a copy (like I did for Lord of the Rings). I watch all my TV shows on Netflix in crud quality, why not, it was only so good when it aired originally. I like the nostalgia feel of watching it how I recall it. Currently enjoying MacGuyver.
I should mention, it took me 3 years to burn out 20 years of accumulated video collecting in VHS format. Old movie classic, old TV show classics, documentaries. I no longer require massive sums of data movement, as I finished getting what I wanted around 2005.
Can't speak for anyone south of the border, or even in the rest of Canada, but, I don't suffer overages. Ever. But then I have had the brains to get my service from Teksavvy. Nexicom could likely do the same level of service though. I watch Netflix all the time, the wife uses it too and I have an 18 year old hardcore gamer. We seem to be happy with our capacity.
Then again, I am not being forced to endure some idiotic cap. I have 300 a month with Teksavvy at the moment. I could always get unlimited from Nexicom for the same price.
Making comments like 'wireless will never...." is folly. I've seen too many technologies do things we said couldn't be done just a few years earlier. The specs of my first PC in 1990 are laughable now. They seemed impressive then. And the internet in 1990 sure wasn't what it is today.
Things change.
Oh and I am not saying I have any love of corporations, but, I am also not one of those 'the customer is king', or 'the customer is always right' idiots. Nope, I believe make a good product or service and it will succeed if there is a market. Bend over for the customer without question and you will get it up the ass too.
I am not saying that copper cable is worse, but, I have no use for cable companies. I can't recall where I watched it, but I saw something about fibre that mentioned already present fibre that merely needs to be exploited the same way cable was made an option when before it was not even being used. Once upon a time, a phone line was only used for telephone calls. The phone lines were not put there for internet traffic. |
|
| |
to 88615298
said by 88615298:Perhaps I should be more specific. This story is about AT&T ditching DSL not any other DSL company. In MOST areas( most not ALL ) where at&t has DSL they have cable available. The % of areas where at&t has DSL but there isn't a cable provider is small. And until someone has numbers proving otherwise I'll stand by that statement. That's interesting. The burden of proof is on you to support your opinion, not for someone else to prove otherwise. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:My bad... what did you mean by "But don't expect a free ride, subsidized by your neighbors."? That actually has two contexts. (1) Don't expect the taxpayers to fund a "muni" network, just because you want fiber optics and you're not willing to pay the cost yourself. Verizon has shown for six years that the majority does not want to pay for fiber; Google KC will reaffirm this. When you bang the drum to have City Hall install and operate a network for you, inevitably the funding for that network comes not only from general tax revenues and municipal giveaways (tax $), but also federal tax money and some form of property tax - all paid for by folks who may not want the service - your neighbors, near and far. (2) By insisting that all of us pay the same flat rate - "socializing" the price of broadband, you are, in effect, asking low-volume users to pay the same as high-volume users - that's a subsidy. We can disagree on the extent of the subsidy - be it a penny or a hundred bucks, but it is a subsidy. said by Skippy25:BTW, the entire network has been subsidized by the entire country through taxes incentives and several other "perks" given to these companies.
If you have a beef with the "large companies" that have "benefited" from these "perks" over the years, I suggest you research their stock and buy in, rather than ranting over perceived injustices. Plenty of large companies have gone bankrupt chasing broadband/cable/telecom dreams, incentives or no. There is a reason AT&T and Verizon turn down rural broadband grants. I'm not opposed to re-regulating the last-mile in non-competitive markets, i.e. rural settings, in order to assure fiber or VDSL/ADSL2+ or fixed-LTE is deployed, and the FCC has some rights to examine the issue. But beware, re-establishing a monopoly would result in much higher rates, when rural subscribers are already, largely unwilling to pay even today's modest urban rates. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
(1) You are going to compare uptake of an expensive commercial service to cheap (sometimes FREE) broadband? Why don't you simply admit that if free municipal fiber was in YOUR area, you would dump your current provider in a second. True there will be some people who don't use/want the service but there are also some people who don't have kids that still pay school taxes... people who never call the police that still pay their salary... do you need me to go on? We live in socialistic communities whether you like it or not. Municipal broadband projects are the way to go. (2) Are you saying that I should pay more for my 10 Mb/s connection than you pay for the same connection because I download twice as much as you? Ridiculous! You are paying your ISP for a pipe... not what gets send down the pipe. That is not a subsidy, it is getting what you pay for. quote:
If you have a beef with the "large companies" that have "benefited" from these "perks" over the years, I suggest you research their stock and buy in, rather than ranting over perceived injustices.
Haha but when business gets a subsidy you are fine with that?!?! Sorry, but what a system has obvious flaws you don't jump on the bandwagon and make the situation worse... you FIX the problem. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2012-Sep-24 7:33 pm
said by CXM_Splicer:(1) You are going to compare uptake of an expensive commercial service to cheap (sometimes FREE) broadband? Why don't you simply admit that if free municipal fiber was in YOUR area, you would dump your current provider in a second. True there will be some people who don't use/want the service but there are also some people who don't have kids that still pay school taxes... people who never call the police that still pay their salary... do you need me to go on? We live in socialistic communities whether you like it or not. Municipal broadband projects are the way to go. There is no such thing as "free". If there was a municipal service in my area, claiming to be "free", I would evaluate it, but I would choose to pay a commercial provider. said by CXM_Splicer:(2) Are you saying that I should pay more for my 10 Mb/s connection than you pay for the same connection because I download twice as much as you? Ridiculous! You are paying your ISP for a pipe... not what gets send down the pipe. That is not a subsidy, it is getting what you pay for. If you have a household of six, with twelve connected devices and HDTV's, downloading and streaming to your hearts' content, yes, you probably should pay more than the little old lady reading her email in her single apartment on her iPad. While this can mostly be addressed with speed tiers, the entry-level plan would probably have to have a cap. quote:
If you have a beef with the "large companies" that have "benefited" from these "perks" over the years, I suggest you research their stock and buy in, rather than ranting over perceived injustices.
said by CXM_Splicer:Haha but when business gets a subsidy you are fine with that?!?! Sorry, but what a system has obvious flaws you don't jump on the bandwagon and make the situation worse... you FIX the problem.
I'm completely against business getting any form of subsidy. But the reality is that as individuals, while we rarely have the opportunity to influence our government to stop stealing from us, we usually do have the choice to buy stock in the companies that may, or may not, be profiting, at our expense. When the populists rail against the Fortune 500, they neglect to observe that most of those companies are held by our mutual funds - pensions and retirement accounts. You can whine all you want, and in fact, I'll join you in calling for certain regulations, but in the end, the big picture isn't going to change much, so buying-in is your best defense. Munis do not fix the problem; they just assign the cost to the taxpayers. |
|
| |
I'm not real sure why you would say a family of 6 should pay more than some old lady being that the cost to deliver the bytes is quite negligible and their standard price has plenty of room in there to make up her not using her line at all and the family using a terabyte of data.
It does not cost more to deliver 100mb than it does 10mb speeds over the same infrastructure, at least it is low enough to not even bother measuring. ISP's charging different prices for different speeds is pretty much a farce to be begin with. They do it only because it is more valuable to us thus allows them to charge us more. From a management perspective if it actually better for them to get you on the network, get what you need and get off the network as fast as possible. |
|
