dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
20
share rss forum feed

maestro7

join:2004-08-31
Loganville, GA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Southeast
reply to silbaco

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

"...unnecessary speeds."

Legend has it that Bill Gates once stated in 1981 that 640K (not MB) of RAM should be enough to run applications (»www.computerworld.com/s/article/···_say_it_).

Not only this, but the whole reason why, for example, wireless data has caught the telcos unawares (hence data caps and paying increasingly higher prices for what they were effectively offering years ago) is because the market is looking for ways to break through bandwidth barriers.

However, there is no stopping it. So, if we're all going to blame anyone for the need for speed, might as well blame AAPL for creating such a huge market for products and services that use more and more bandwidth.



workablob

join:2004-06-09
Houston, TX
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by maestro7:

"...unnecessary speeds."

Legend has it that Bill Gates once stated in 1981 that 640K (not MB) of RAM should be enough to run applications (»www.computerworld.com/s/article/···_say_it_).

It would be funny if it were true which it is not.

Dave
--
I may have been born yesterday. But it wasn't at night.


n1581j

@wildblue.net

Actually, it was 256k, I happened to be there. It's the reason the original PC from IBM only provided 256K max on it's motherboard. It was only when AST and others with their Advantage, Rampage 384K boards plus ports took it to 640K, did it change. Of course you weren't old enough to know back then.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to maestro7

said by maestro7:

"...unnecessary speeds."

Legend has it that Bill Gates once stated in 1981 that 640K (not MB) of RAM should be enough to run applications (»www.computerworld.com/s/article/···_say_it_).

Not only this, but the whole reason why, for example, wireless data has caught the telcos unawares (hence data caps and paying increasingly higher prices for what they were effectively offering years ago) is because the market is looking for ways to break through bandwidth barriers.

However, there is no stopping it. So, if we're all going to blame anyone for the need for speed, might as well blame AAPL for creating such a huge market for products and services that use more and more bandwidth.

Our 4G wireless services are some of the best, if not the best data networks in the world. Verizon's 4G network is amazing and they did not require special government treatment over their competitors to get it done.

As for our wired services, what is it that people need that Time Warner and At&t cannot provide currently in Kansas City? They exceed our demands by quite a large margin and always seem to be boosting speeds and capabilities. U-Verse can move quite a bit more data than it currently is, but there is no reason to do so at this time.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to n1581j

said by n1581j :

Actually, it was 256k, I happened to be there. It's the reason the original PC from IBM only provided 256K max on it's motherboard. It was only when AST and others with their Advantage, Rampage 384K boards plus ports took it to 640K, did it change. Of course you weren't old enough to know back then.

Wrong about the original PC memory restriction.

The reason IBM only put 256K on-board was:
a) the original PC was an experiment as far as IBM was concerned. They only expected to sell about 10,000 of them over its lifespan.
b) IBM had other machines in their line (not PC's per se but running an IBM proprietary os) at the time which were roughly comparable speedwise but had more memory. These machines cost a lot more than a PC (ie. 4-5x more IIRC).
c) IBM didn't want a 'capable' PC cannibalizing the sales of it's more expensive machines.


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to silbaco

said by silbaco:

Our 4G wireless services are some of the best, if not the best data networks in the world. Verizon's 4G network is amazing and they did not require special government treatment over their competitors to get it done.

Enough with the BS. Verizon specifically crafted deals with the government that excluded their wireless services from any net neutrality provisions to ensure they could limit the amount and type of traffic on their wireless networks. It's actually the same deal Google got because they helped Verizon with it.

Also you can't ignore the national spectrum licenses verizon and att get that are great and fair for large markets and just monopolize other areas where there could be some competitions from small independent carriers that could actually buy licenses for those areas if they weren't tacked onto other expensive by market value areas. The best option they get now is to pay verizon or att to use their network. It's a big stinking government handout to the biggest corporations and it most certainly is special treatment.
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author


Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to silbaco

said by silbaco:

Our 4G wireless services are some of the best, if not the best data networks in the world. Verizon's 4G network is amazing and they did not require special government treatment over their competitors to get it done.

As for our wired services, what is it that people need that Time Warner and At&t cannot provide currently in Kansas City? They exceed our demands by quite a large margin and always seem to be boosting speeds and capabilities. U-Verse can move quite a bit more data than it currently is, but there is no reason to do so at this time.

ROFLMAO

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to firephoto

said by firephoto:

Enough with the BS. Verizon specifically crafted deals with the government that excluded their wireless services from any net neutrality provisions to ensure they could limit the amount and type of traffic on their wireless networks. It's actually the same deal Google got because they helped Verizon with it.

Really? Because I am pretty sure Verizon got fined for blocking tethering on their 4G network because of a net neutrality requirement on their 700 mhz spectrum. Even if they did help craft it, it still applies.

If you notice, they are not limiting traffic. They do have caps so that the network doesn't become saturated. Caps that affected relatively few people.

said by firephoto:

Also you can't ignore the national spectrum licenses verizon and att get that are great and fair for large markets and just monopolize other areas where there could be some competitions from small independent carriers that could actually buy licenses for those areas if they weren't tacked onto other expensive by market value areas. The best option they get now is to pay verizon or att to use their network. It's a big stinking government handout to the biggest corporations and it most certainly is special treatment.

Interesting. You know I happen to live in one of those areas that Verizon and At&t "monopolize". And contrary to beliefs, there is quite a bit of spectrum that belongs to small wireless carriers, such as iWireless. You know that they do with that spectrum? Offer a cutting edge GPRS wireless network at literally dial-up speeds! You know what Verizon does with theirs? Offer 3G AND 4G! The belief that small carriers would use this spectrum and offer real "Service" to people is complete crap. I also have US Cellular in this area. What do they do with their spectrum? Offer services at prices equal to that of Verizon, with poorer performance and awful phones.