Thursday Evening Links
|
  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  RE:Google ordered to censor by French Supreme Court
quote:
Google ordered to censor 'torrent', 'megaupload' and more words as French Supreme Court bans pirate lingo from searches
People should remember that the government regulation that can order line sharing and fast broadband speeds can also order censorship when they are extolling fast broadband in other countries.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care | |
|  | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: RE:Google ordered to censor by French Supreme Court Funny thing is this ban can only be pushed on Google's french domain.
Google.com is technically their USA domain... people from france will just go to the US domain if they want.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: RE:Google ordered to censor by French Supreme Court Until the USA joins in anyway.
Fighting piracy is way more important then freedom. | |
| | | |  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: RE:Google ordered to censor by French Supreme Court Better not. I like getting my FreeBSD discs via Torrents. It's better than the alternative, which is usually a slow FTP site. | |
|
| | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Even more funny is that it's only for autocomplete. These terms can still be easily searched for using Google. | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Verizon CFO: "Because we Can" "We can, and we will." | |
|  w0go.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR
2 edits | 450MB average use my ass... unless it includes non users been casually surfing on my phone and doing very Standard phone tasks like updating and customizing a few apps and Facebook, etc. I have been averaging about 200MB per day, and since the 11th I have chewed through the non throttle period of my cap. did no vídeo until I uploaded something to Facebook last Night, it was a short 720p clip that turned out to be 500MB alone. this has all led me to firmly believe that data caps are nortoriously stingy, not like I didn't know that, but for someone with a 2GB cap you have to super conserve and find alternative Access through wifi to make it through the month actually doing anything on your device. the results are definitely being skewed by people who don't use or rely on their device much, people who might subscibe to data service to get their phone functional and fulfil subscription requirements but don't use their phone for much of anything. maybe they're even of the group who do less on the Internet then true users, I mean the Type who Subscribe to comcast at $50 per month and use mere gigabytes at most to occasionally check email or do online banking, while the true broadband.user are sucking up 100-300GB a month doing just a few hours a day of surfing, gaming, or video. this has skewed the statistics allowing providers to say the average broadband user consumes only 30GB a month, because of those who don't utilize their service (non user subscribers use 2-4GB per month, and true users using 100-300GB per month, average it out and they can claim low average utilization that makes true users look bad, and justify higher rates, restrictions, monopolies, lack of innovation and poor network performance). the way these smartphone data plans are being sold, they only want you to check a few sites, avoid video, and do basically nothing to stay within your cap. the other problem I see in this statistic is providers may now try to claim that this is really all the average user needs, but because of strong caps that were put into place around the boom of the smartphone, heavy traffic is being hampered so we don't really know what true utilization would look like. so basically this number means little because the restrictions are preventing usage, and cutting the moderate and high end of usage out of the equation. very few people I know will Pay to use data outside of their plan due to outrageuos price gouging. they are truly charging just to charge high rates, too, and prices reflect nothing close to what data actually costs the provider. they have modeled data pricing around getting guaranteed income, to prevent usage and remove the incentive they has to invent, innovate, maintain and upgrade their systems and network.
--
www.aimless.us - irc.aimless.us channel #fix | |
| | | | Re: 450MB average use my ass... unless it includes non users With one day to go, my monthly usage is 1.8GB. My wife has used 2.1GB and my father-in-law has used 30MB. (Yes, Megabytes.) That's an average of about 1.3GB each. If we include my mother-in-law (who doesn't use any data because she's not on a smartphone), then we average out to 940MB each.
In fact, the article states that feature phones are included in the average. I'd wager that this average would skyrocket if Nielsen were to filter those out and release a figure that was just for smartphones.
--
-Jason Levine | |
| | | | Try using wi-fi? Why? Because even with all of the BS I do on my phone, I've never come close to a single gig of mobile usage, even though I have unlimited data. I'm a geek, i use my phone a LOT. I'm one of those annoying connected types you find staring at his phone at a restaurant or bar. Most people use wi-fi, even my 'don't have a clue on how to use a phone' friends.
| |
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | As usual, the forum data hogs can't see beyond the bubble, so they can only contradict the inconvenient facts laid before them.
Yes, comrades, the average subscriber simply doesn't use much bandwidth.
Most people with smart phones and data plans simply don't need or want to undertake any of the activities you'd elaborated upon, in any substantial amount.
They have ... lives.
Current data plan pricing does not, in any way, thwart invention or innovation; they only encourage the designers, engineers and programmers to innovate while conserving data consumption. If you can't figure out how to get things done without saturating a communal fat pipe, you probably shouldn't be in the business. | |
| | | Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: 450MB average use my ass... unless it includes non users I have a "life". I also enjoy streaming Netflix and Slacker while on the go where there isn't WiFi.
..also.. You can only compress a video or audio feed to a point where it becomes annoying to your customers. | |
| | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: 450MB average use my ass... unless it includes non users Audio can be compressed fairly efficiently. Video is more challenging, but when streaming content on a 4" screen, things can be compressed quite a bit. Pandora (not sure about Slacker) uses around 40 MB/hr. | |
| | | | | w0go.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR | Re: 450MB average use my ass... unless it includes non users compression is why the digital age fucking sucks. compression is bad, it means quality loss and compromise. mp3, ac3, and AAC are some common compression formats we use for audio, making the waveform "blurry", removing detail and stripping frequencies we can in fact hear and perceive. jpg does the dame thing pretty much with images and graphics, making every thing blocky, unrepresentative of the original, blury and cutting out details. same for MPEG4 and video. we should be striving to have everything uncompressed or losslessly so, in its originality, and to remove any bottlenecks forcing us to conserve. compression is bad because its keeping us from innovating and pushing the envolope, no need to upgrade networks, deploy fiber and multi gigabits or faster to the home, and we can get by with less, at the expense of quality.
we shouldn't rely on it much if that means lowering caps and stifeling network deployments. if we got rid of compression we might find that people would use more data, enough for network operators to make easy money off of by charging less, and thats what the caps and overages are really about. guaranteeing high costs and profit.
--
www.aimless.us - irc.aimless.us channel #fix | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 450MB average use my ass... unless it includes non users Enjoy downloading your large music and video files over a slow link, and storing a limited amount of tracks and titles on your expensive player. Even if the speeds were faster, I would prefer to sacrifice quality for quantity. I am no music archivist, and don't care about the difference beyond 192kbps music. If I were editing and constantly re-using these compressed files, I would care. But I'm not.
Your use case is not the use case of most of us. I was monitoring my 3G usage last month, and only came up with 229MB. I know that is very low, but I didn't do that much out of the ordinary to conserve to that level. Most of my mobile usage is email and navigation. I browse some, and youtube some, but I save the heavier usage for at home on my wifi. I have the google play store only automatically update apps on wifi, I have my podcast app (doggcatcher) only download new episodes on wifi. I don't use Pandora or other music streaming because I have everything I want to listen to already downloaded (in doggcatcher).
Granted, last month was an exception for me, but on average I don't use more than 500MB/month, and looking at my wife's and her sister's usage, they don't use much more than 150-250MB (one has a droid incredible, and the other has an iPhone 4) | |
|
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | I well understand the physics and the math.
I think we disagree on the economic factors.
Netflix isn't "innovative" if its business model is dependent on the wireless carriers delivering up massive amounts of spectrum on the cheap, or if the average wireless customer must suffer performance losses because a few heavy consumers like to watch movies or run torrents. We saw this happen within weeks when VMUSA launched their $40 "unlimited" broadband. | |
| | | | | Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: 450MB average use my ass... unless it includes non users If a few "heavy" customers can grind your network to a halt, you'd better feed it a bigger pipe.
It's like feeding a tower a T3 pipe and expecting everyone not to fully saturate it.. When they do, they whine that the "heavy" users are using it all. Bull. This is Piss Poor Planning. You should feed it with an OC3 (or an OC12) so future technologies (EDGE -> HSDA -> LTE -> LTE-A -> who knows) will have enough bandwidth to handle it.
Like I said in the past, if they'd rip out *ALL* the copper lines and replace them with fiber, we wouldn't be in this "bandwidth crunch".
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.3G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo] | |
| | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: 450MB average use my ass... unless it includes non users said by Simba7:If a few "heavy" customers can grind your network to a halt, you'd better feed it a bigger pipe.
It's like feeding a tower a T3 pipe and expecting everyone not to fully saturate it.. When they do, they whine that the "heavy" users are using it all. Bull. This is Piss Poor Planning. You should feed it with an OC3 (or an OC12) so future technologies (EDGE -> HSDA -> LTE -> LTE-A -> who knows) will have enough bandwidth to handle it.
Like I said in the past, if they'd rip out *ALL* the copper lines and replace them with fiber, we wouldn't be in this "bandwidth crunch".
While there are cases that tower feeds are the choke point, primarily, the limitation is found within the spectrum the carrier owns. Just exactly how much spectrum do you think is available, on a given carrier, on a given tower?
New technologies may increase the signalling rate somewhat, but we're not talking about phenomenal increases, certainly not enough to support wireless for video streaming. | |
| | | | | | | Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: 450MB average use my ass... unless it includes non users said by elray:While there are cases that tower feeds are the choke point, primarily, the limitation is found within the spectrum the carrier owns. Just exactly how much spectrum do you think is available, on a given carrier, on a given tower? Given carrier? Probably quite a bit since they keep buying as much as they can and hoard it until they decide to actually use it.
said by elray:New technologies may increase the signalling rate somewhat, but we're not talking about phenomenal increases, certainly not enough to support wireless for video streaming. Well, maybe they shouldn't advertise that they can.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.3G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo] | |
| | | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: 450MB average use my ass... unless it includes non users Yes, a given carrier.
How much spectrum do you think any one carrier has on a tower?
Not what you think they "hoard", but what they can actually use? | |
| | | | | | | | | Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: 450MB average use my ass... unless it includes non users said by elray:How much spectrum do you think any one carrier has on a tower? Quite a bit with all the antennas on each tower.
said by elray:Not what you think they "hoard", but what they can actually use? Riiiight. Why buy the spectrum if you can't use it? Sounds like an idiotic business move to me.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.3G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo] | |
| | | | | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: 450MB average use my ass... unless it includes non users said by Simba7:said by elray:How much spectrum do you think any one carrier has on a tower? Quite a bit with all the antennas on each tower. said by elray:Not what you think they "hoard", but what they can actually use? Riiiight. Why buy the spectrum if you can't use it? Sounds like an idiotic business move to me. What's "quite a bit"?
Please, define your guess.
Evidently, you don't know?
Spectrum costs billions to license. Carriers have to bid against each other, way in advance of deployment - and based on what they win, then attempt to utilize it on the towers, which is a yet another maze they have to wend their way through, over the course of years.
You're right, its not a great business plan - but it is the only plan, given the way the government licenses radio and simultaneously discourages collaboration. | |
|
| | JellyBean on the HP TouchPad... Thought this was exciting. For those of you that bought the HP TouchPad tablet during the firesale they had several months ago, Android JellyBean is currently being ported to the device (previous versions of Android were also ported.)
»richard.blogdns.com/posts/androi···VqrSe5Ik
You can also find more info on xda-developers.
Disclaimer: The link is my blog, but I thought this news was awesome. | |
| | | | | | | Re: JellyBean on the HP TouchPad... I would bet that most of the usage came from app updates... I wish they could make "patch" style updates, and not make my phone re-download the whole 15MB app file for Words with Friends every time they want to work another ad placement in there... | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
·