Why is reclassifying politically tricky? Is it just the lobbyists or is there actual ideological disagreement about this among members of the FCC/administration?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/14/d-c-circuit-court-strikes-down-net-neutrality-rules/
QuoteFederal appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules
By Brian Fung
January 14 at 11:34 am
A federal appeals court has struck down the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules, which prohibited Internet providers from blocking or prioritizing Web traffic.
The decision on Tuesday is the latest in a lengthy legal battle over whether the FCC can regulate the Internet. In an opinion written by Judge David Tatel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the network neutrality rules contradicted a previous FCC decision that put broadband companies beyond its regulatory reach.
"Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers," Tatel wrote, "the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such."
At stake here is an Internet provider's ability to charge Web companies such as Netflix for better service, which public interest advocates say may harm consumers.
Verizon led the charge against the FCC's net neutrality order, suggesting in oral arguments last fall that it would like to pursue different service pricing models.
"I'm authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements," said Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker in September.
In a statement Tuesday, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler indicated he was considering an appeal to the decision.
"We will consider all available options, including those for appeal," Wheeler said, "to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans."
Broadband is currently classified by the FCC as an information service, a category that gives the agency a fairly limited set of regulatory options. If Internet providers were classified instead as common carriers, the FCC's rule would likely stand. In fact, the federal ruling on Tuesday upheld the FCC's net neutrality rules as a matter of principle; the problem is that the agency effectively tried to apply its powers in the wrong context.
Faced with this dilemma, the FCC may either choose to argue that its regulations do not fall under the rubric of common carriage, or attempt to reclassify broadband as a common carrier, according to outside observers. Neither path is likely to be easy, as major industry players are likely to resist any attempt to reclassify broadband under Title II of the Communications Act.
"The reclassification is politically tricky but legally clear," said John Bergmayer, a senior staff attorney at Public Knowledge, which supported the FCC's rule. "The other question involves lawyers arguing for hours about what is and isn't common carriage. That's politically easier, but legally more difficult."
Denying that the FCC's open Internet order reflects common carriage regulation isn't likely to be a winning strategy, said Tim Wu, the Columbia University law professor who first coined the term "net neutrality." That's because the very notion of non-discrimination is central to common carriage, an idea that itself dates back to medieval times.
:mad: Monstrous.
I'd be okay with this if most places offered multiple high speed internet provides.
Not sure if this article is accurate, but I'm sure our resident Languish experts will point out the problems. :)
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/131317-Update-Net-Neutrality-Restrictions-Struck-Down-by-U-S-Appeals-Court
QuoteNet Neutrality Restrictions Struck Down by U.S. Appeals Court
The U.S. Appeals Court has ruled that the FCC cannot impose net neutrality rules on broadband internet providers.
In case you haven't heard of net neutrality, it's kind of a big deal. Put in the simplest terms it means that the government and internet service providers must treat all data (i.e. websites) as being equal. For instance, if a provider were to decide that it wanted to charge you a dollar every time you visited Facebook, it would have to charge you a dollar to visit every other website too.
All of this said, net neutrality in the United States took a substantial hit today thanks to a ruling from the U.S. Appeals Court invalidating current neutrality rules previously upheld by the FCC. According to the court, "the [FCC] has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers." In turn because "the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such" it lacks the authority to impose net neutrality rules on broadband providers.
What this ruling means is that broadband companies like Verizon and Time Warner Cable could potentially start selling special treatment to websites interested in faster loading speeds compared to their competitors. It could also give them the freedom to charge users for entry to specific, popular sites. The court ruling apparently includes a stipulation that broadband providers would need to inform customers which sites are being favored, but it could still be a hit for internet users who may now be left even more at the mercy of corporate whims. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has said he's still "committed" to upholding previous ideals of net neutrality, but only time will tell if the previous rules will be restored.
Update: Verizon, responding to the Appeals Court ruling, has issued a statement affirming that "today's decision will not change consumers' ability to access and use the Internet as they do now." That said, the company says that the decision will "allow more room for innovation" and that "consumers [in the future] will have more choices to determine for themselves how they access and experience the Internet." The statement also claimed that "Verizon has been and remains committed to the open Internet that provides consumers with competitive choices and unblocked access to lawful websites and content when, where, and how they want. This will not change in light of the court's decision."
Also: Americans Paying More For Worse Internet (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/130931-Americans-Paying-More-For-Worse-Internet)
Quote from: Syt on January 15, 2014, 12:35:21 AM
Not sure if this article is accurate, but I'm sure our resident Languish experts will point out the problems. :)
I see one problem already. You got ninja'd by Tim.
:face:
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2014, 01:05:47 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 15, 2014, 12:35:21 AM
Not sure if this article is accurate, but I'm sure our resident Languish experts will point out the problems. :)
I see one problem already. You got ninja'd by Tim.
Yes, but he sources the ill reputed WaPo, whereas I chose the high quality journalistic product The Escapist.
:(
Yeah, they should probably nationalize this sort of thing. It's like having the roads being private.
I support the idea of net neutrality, but thought the FCC was overstepping.
I liked the compromise proposed a while back that cemented net neutrality for cable, dsl, etc. but exempted wireless internet connections.
The FCC needs to turn the ISPs back into common carriers.
Still, this will serve as another example as to why Republicans can never be put in charge of anything until they renounce deregulation.
Quote from: Neil on January 15, 2014, 12:43:22 PM
The FCC needs to turn the ISPs back into common carriers.
Still, this will serve as another example as to why Republicans can never be put in charge of anything until they renounce deregulation.
Were they ever common carriers?
From what I understand this is the essence of the issue. If they were common carriers, it would be problem solved, but they are not. And congress is too far in the pockets of the big telecom companies to make them so.
I'm not really sure what Net Neutrality even means, therefore I'm against it, unless I'm for it....
Quote from: KRonn on January 15, 2014, 02:55:47 PM
I'm not really sure what Net Neutrality even means, therefore I'm against it, unless I'm for it....
Net Neutrality means an ISP can not prioritize or throttle any type of content.
Examples:
- Verizon is paid by Google so that Youtube is faster than anything else. If the net is neutral, this is an illegal business practice.
- A local, smallish ISP, notices that 10% of its clients uses bittorent and other P2P protocols, but these 10% take up 95% of the bandwith, making it so that non torrent users get slow speed when trying to access a website. Under net neutrality, the ISP can not do anything about it. As it is now, they can throttle down the BitTorrent protocols.
- Disney, through one of its subsidiaries owns a large ISP in America. Under net neutrality law, all content must be accessed equal. If no net neutrality law, they could throttle down the speed for streaming content other than their own. It's highly unlikely such a scenario would happen, because in a fair market, consumers would drop Disney's ISP in favour of another, open one.
So, there could be good, there could be bad, there could be very bad but it is highly unlikely it would change anything, unless there was a drastic reduction in the number of ISPs in the US.
Here's a piece opposing net neutrality:
I hope net neutrality is really dead this time (http://www.zdnet.com/i-hope-net-neutrality-is-really-dead-this-time-7000025167/)
Here is one in favor of net neutrality:
Net neutrality gets a kick in the teeth (http://www.zdnet.com/net-neutrality-gets-a-kick-in-the-teeth-7000025154/)
Quote from: viper37 on January 15, 2014, 03:14:53 PM
• A local, smallish ISP, notices that 10% of its clients uses bittorent and other P2P protocols, but these 10% take up 95% of the bandwith, making it so that non torrent users get slow speed when trying to access a website. Under net neutrality, the ISP can not do anything about it. As it is now, they can throttle down the BitTorrent protocols.
Actually, this has already caused a stink. Around 2008-2009, Comcast picked up Sandvine software to start scanning for and throttling BitTorrent traffic- it was around the same time that Comcast and Verizon were starting to pick up some massive flack for instituting bandwidth caps (really low ones, too- Verizon was trying to push something like a 200MB/month data cap).
Quote from: viper37 on January 15, 2014, 03:14:53 PM
- Disney, through one of its subsidiaries owns a large ISP in America. Under net neutrality law, all content must be accessed equal. If no net neutrality law, they could throttle down the speed for streaming content other than their own. It's highly unlikely such a scenario would happen, because in a fair market, consumers would drop Disney's ISP in favour of another, open one.
There is no competition in the US for ISPs. They are regional monopolies that should be nationalized.
?
Quote from: Neil on January 15, 2014, 03:45:11 PM
There is no competition in the US for ISPs. They are regional monopolies
For ground-based ISPs this is correct. For wireless there is some competition
Quote from: Maximus on January 15, 2014, 03:52:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 15, 2014, 03:45:11 PM
There is no competition in the US for ISPs. They are regional monopolies
For ground-based ISPs this is correct.
What?
Quote from: The Brain on January 15, 2014, 03:54:51 PM
What?
The FCC has extra teeth when it comes to wireless data providers. Verizon tried to cry "common carrier" to the courts in December, but the courts pointed out that since they're using radio spectrum, the FCC does have jurisdiction to regulate them. It's actually probably a big chunk of why the net neutrality rules got struck, in fact.
http://www.commlawblog.com/tags/common-carrier/
US ground-based ISPs are regional monopolies?
Quote from: Maximus on January 15, 2014, 03:52:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 15, 2014, 03:45:11 PM
There is no competition in the US for ISPs. They are regional monopolies
For ground-based ISPs this is correct. For wireless there is some competition
Then why can I choose between my cable and my phone provider for my ground based internet service?
Quote from: Valmy on January 15, 2014, 04:24:07 PM
Quote from: Maximus on January 15, 2014, 03:52:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 15, 2014, 03:45:11 PM
There is no competition in the US for ISPs. They are regional monopolies
For ground-based ISPs this is correct. For wireless there is some competition
Then why can I choose between my cable and my phone provider for my ground based internet service?
Because you're in the minority.
Quote from: Valmy on January 15, 2014, 04:24:07 PM
Quote from: Maximus on January 15, 2014, 03:52:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 15, 2014, 03:45:11 PM
There is no competition in the US for ISPs. They are regional monopolies
For ground-based ISPs this is correct. For wireless there is some competition
Then why can I choose between my cable and my phone provider for my ground based internet service?
All of two choices? What a radical free market it is!
Nationalize it. And this isn't even me being a commie; like Neil said, it's like the roads being owned by private corporations.
Or banks.
*takes a drink*
My local phonebook lists 7 ISPs, and the ISP I use isn't even one of them, so I take the assertion that there is no competition among ISP with a huge grain of salt.
Viper, thanks for the info and links on Net Neutrality. As you say though, it seems good or bad either way it goes, though I think now I'd favor Net Neutrality.
Quote from: dps on January 16, 2014, 01:11:37 AM
My local phonebook lists 7 ISPs, and the ISP I use isn't even one of them, so I take the assertion that there is no competition among ISP with a huge grain of salt.
How many of those own infrastructure, though? There was a time when there were dozens if not hundreds of ISPs in Spain, yet pretty much all leased the local loop from Telefónica, so actual competition was non-existent.
They all lease their loops. Currently, the owners aren't allowed to deny their competitors access to the infrastructure or discriminate between them. In my experience, the guys who own them always try to sell you on the fact that the competitors are leasing from them so they have a market advantage, but they don't beat the others in price any more often than the competitors beat them.
Currently I have 2 completely different ISPs for my 2 completely different ground-based connections. I could get more connections, should I want to.
Quote from: The Brain on January 15, 2014, 04:22:15 PM
US ground-based ISPs are regional monopolies?
America doesn't understand the concept of free markets except when it comes to employee rights and selling guns. :P
Quote from: Zanza on January 16, 2014, 11:42:24 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 15, 2014, 04:22:15 PM
US ground-based ISPs are regional monopolies?
America doesn't understand the concept of free markets except when it comes to employee rights and selling guns. :P
Germany doesn't understand the concept of how foolish it is to answer questions to which its response is wrong. :P
US ground-based ISPs are not regional monopolies. There are markets where there is only one good choice, but that isn't because of a monopoly so much as a lack of economies of scale that attract competition. I live in a town of 600 and can choose between AT&T, Comcast, Time-Warner, Charter, and Cox Cable. Plus a bunch of dial-ups.
I live in Manhattan and can pick between Time Warner, Time Warner and Time Warner. I could I suppose "choose" Verizon or Comcast if I moved apartments.
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2014, 01:55:07 PM
Germany doesn't understand the concept of how foolish it is to answer questions to which its response is wrong. :P
US ground-based ISPs are not regional monopolies. There are markets where there is only one good choice, but that isn't because of a monopoly so much as a lack of economies of scale that attract competition. I live in a town of 600 and can choose between AT&T, Comcast, Time-Warner, Charter, and Cox Cable. Plus a bunch of dial-ups.
Not a 100% convincing argument. Plenty of ISPs advertise in areas where they don't actually offer service. In my town, Comcast Xfininity and Verizon FIOS are both advertised as broadband options, but Verizon doesn't actually service my town. I wouldn't even count last-gasp efforts at advertising dial-up as viable options. Forums are pretty much the last significant sites remaining that can function on dial-up bandwidth; even some subreddits would get bogged down due to the current web's reliance on Flash or Silverlight for interactive elements.
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 02:35:01 PM
I live in Manhattan and can pick between Time Warner, Time Warner and Time Warner.
You should move to a town of 600 where they have much more choice.
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 02:35:01 PM
I live in Manhattan and can pick between Time Warner, Time Warner and Time Warner. I could I suppose "choose" Verizon or Comcast if I moved apartments.
I have been told that America has crappy internet infrastructure compared to Sweden because it's so big and the population so spread out. So a place like Manhattan must have better infrastructure than Sweden.
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2014, 03:05:32 PM
I have been told that America has crappy internet infrastructure compared to Sweden because it's so big and the population so spread out. So a place like Manhattan must have better infrastructure than Sweden.
It's got great infrastructure. What it doesn't have is competition, because (apparently) the city never went through the hassle of laying underground fiber optic.
In Vienna landbound broadband is divided between two competitors: UPC for offering digital TV and broadband via cable TV. And A1 (former Telekom Austria) offering digital TV and broadband via phone line.
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2014, 01:55:07 PM
Plus a bunch of dial-ups.
wait. what? What is this thing? Is it 1995 all over again? I thought these were long dead...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2014, 03:18:55 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2014, 03:05:32 PM
I have been told that America has crappy internet infrastructure compared to Sweden because it's so big and the population so spread out. So a place like Manhattan must have better infrastructure than Sweden.
It's got great infrastructure. What it doesn't have is competition, because (apparently) the city never went through the hassle of laying underground fiber optic.
I don't follow.
So I went trying to look up services available at all the places I've lived (well abbreviated list but Southern California, Central Mass, SF and NYC). For each, I was directed to one provider.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2014, 03:18:55 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2014, 03:05:32 PM
I have been told that America has crappy internet infrastructure compared to Sweden because it's so big and the population so spread out. So a place like Manhattan must have better infrastructure than Sweden.
It's got great infrastructure. What it doesn't have is competition, because (apparently) the city never went through the hassle of laying underground fiber optic.
Its got great infrastructure, just not fiber optic cables? :huh:
And why is it the City's responsibility to lay fibre optic cables?
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 03:26:41 PM
So I went trying to look up services available at all the places I've lived (well abbreviated list but Southern California, Central Mass, SF and NYC). For each, I was directed to one provider.
Like I said, you need to move out to the sticks where you will have much better service. And you can play with Grumbler. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2014, 03:26:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2014, 03:25:41 PM
I don't follow.
Are you being serious?
You said it got great infrastructure, but it doesn't have competition because it doesn't have great infrastructure.
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2014, 03:29:10 PM
Yes.
Everyone in NY, or any metropolitan area for that matter, is bound to have a cable hookup, and therefore access to broadband. However cable providers are regulated, regional monopolies, and are not required to provide access to their cable lines for other ISPs.
A cable hookup is "good infrastructure." But it does not allow competition. To get competition you have to have fiber optic running to your house.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2014, 03:38:12 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2014, 03:29:10 PM
Yes.
Everyone in NY, or any metropolitan area for that matter, is bound to have a cable hookup, and therefore access to broadband. However cable providers are regulated, regional monopolies, and are not required to provide access to their cable lines for other ISPs.
A cable hookup is "good infrastructure." But it does not allow competition. To get competition you have to have fiber optic running to your house.
OK. Freedom is slavery and all that jazz. Gotcha.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2014, 03:38:12 PM
A cable hookup is "good infrastructure." But it does not allow competition. To get competition you have to have fiber optic running to your house.
Ah, good infrastructure if you are comparing yourself to something with really really bad infrastructure.
Is it crippling for everyone not to have 100mbps connections? Cable is good enough for most. It's good enough for me at the moment.
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2014, 03:47:05 PM
Is it crippling for everyone not to have 100mbps connections? Cable is good enough for most. It's good enough for me at the moment.
You go girl. Own your cripplitude.
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2014, 03:40:20 PM
OK. Freedom is slavery and all that jazz. Gotcha.
I don't understand your irony.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2014, 03:51:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2014, 03:40:20 PM
OK. Freedom is slavery and all that jazz. Gotcha.
I don't understand your irony.
It seems to me that Manhattan has crappy internet infrastructure compared to Sweden. And yet it has an enormous concentration of people in a small area.
OK. If you want to call cable crappy infrastructure I guess that's your prerogative.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2014, 03:56:00 PM
OK. If you want to call cable crappy infrastructure I guess that's your prerogative.
:huh: Are you tired and emotional? It's stone age compared to the country I live in.
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2014, 03:58:31 PM
:huh: Are you tired and emotional? It's stone age compared to the country I live in.
No.
That's great.
:) Uverse and TWC are both in my neighborhood. Granted, that's not really much of a choice since TWC is fucking horrible, but hey.
Speaking of Uverse and competition, I noticed they've set up some super fast shit in Austin only in order to compete with Google Fiber. Valmy is going to be able to refresh Languish lightning quick.
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2014, 03:47:05 PM
Is it crippling for everyone not to have 100mbps connections? Cable is good enough for most. It's good enough for me at the moment.
The claim was that there was "great" infrastructure. Not merely good enough. Cable is the basic model these days. To have "great" infrastructure one would hope that it goes beyond the merely adequate.
The inconvenient douche may have invented the internet, but he didn't perfect it.
Quote from: viper37 on January 16, 2014, 03:23:32 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2014, 01:55:07 PM
Plus a bunch of dial-ups.
wait. what? What is this thing? Is it 1995 all over again? I thought these were long dead...
So did I. :lol:
Here apparently is the coverage map of New York with fiber optics as of last year.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theepochtimes.com%2Fn3%2Feet-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2FFactSheet-FiberAvailability-2-676x450.jpg&hash=a46f87844b7e0202780c38e2c688a04e34cbe79a)
It looks like delicate salmon roe sprinkled on a bed of kelp.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art has crappy internet.
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2014, 03:05:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 02:35:01 PM
I live in Manhattan and can pick between Time Warner, Time Warner and Time Warner. I could I suppose "choose" Verizon or Comcast if I moved apartments.
I have been told that America has crappy internet infrastructure compared to Sweden because it's so big and the population so spread out. So a place like Manhattan must have better infrastructure than Sweden.
I'm not really sure what the situation is now, but at one time most major cities generally had poor communications infrastrucure relative to medium sized places. For example, many larger cities were among the last places to get cable TV, because the initial appeal of cable was simply to get broadcast channels you could only pick up poorly or not at all with an antenna, and in major cities you had plenty of local broadcast channels you could get good reception on without cable, so there was really no market for cable in big cities. OTOH, if you lived waaaay out in the boonies, you had no cable access because it simply wasn't cost-effective for anyone to run cable to you.
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 04:29:37 PM
Here apparently is the coverage map of New York with fiber optics as of last year.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theepochtimes.com%2Fn3%2Feet-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2FFactSheet-FiberAvailability-2-676x450.jpg&hash=a46f87844b7e0202780c38e2c688a04e34cbe79a)
Looks like you are good. What about DG across the river?
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2014, 03:47:05 PM
Is it crippling for everyone not to have 100mbps connections? Cable is good enough for most. It's good enough for me at the moment.
?
I have cable and it is a 101 Mbps connection.
FIOS offers 500 in Manhattan.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2014, 05:07:38 PM
Looks like you are good. What about DG across the river?
I'm in the patchy gray spot. Also it is a New York map. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2014, 05:07:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 04:29:37 PM
Here apparently is the coverage map of New York with fiber optics as of last year.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theepochtimes.com%2Fn3%2Feet-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2FFactSheet-FiberAvailability-2-676x450.jpg&hash=a46f87844b7e0202780c38e2c688a04e34cbe79a)
Looks like you are good. What about DG across the river?
Got FiOS some time ago, but before it became available, Comcast was the only serious broadband option available to me, which is a fate I wish on no one.
Quote from: DGuller on January 16, 2014, 05:20:40 PM
Got FiOS some time ago, but before it became available, Comcast was the only serious broadband option available to me, which is a fate I wish on no one.
That's actually one of the minor annoyance reasons that I want to leave NJ.
Fiber optic coverage is really poor in NJ, and there has been push to improve it, but it's still pretty terrible: http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13/10/03/new-jersey-towns-tell-verizon-they-want-their-fios/
QuoteAccording to the original franchise order, Verizon only had to deploy the service in 70 of the most densely populated communities in New Jersey, targets both the BPU and Division of Rate Counsel agree the telecommunications company has either met or is expected to achieve, according to previously set timelines.
I'm too cheap to pay for more than 20mb/sec.
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 05:18:49 PM
I'm in the patchy gray spot.
Washington Heights? Sunnyside? Riverdale?
FIOS is cutting back on investment because the demand just isn't there for super high speed broadband and the expense of the infrastructure is very high.
I think Grab On said he lives in The Village.
I was just joshin' since the grey patches covers quite a few neighborhoods, some of which are very different from garbon's actual neighborhood. :sleep:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 16, 2014, 06:28:00 PM
I was just joshin' since the grey patches covers quite a few neighborhoods, some of which are very different from garbon's actual neighborhood. :sleep:
Okay, counselor, should have thrown an "a" in there. :P
America seems to be doing okay with Sweden not much better.
http://mashable.com/2013/08/22/fastest-internet-world/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frack.3.mshcdn.com%2Fmedia%2FZgkyMDEzLzA4LzIyL2ZjLzIwMTNfMDhfMjEuYWIzYzkuanBnCnAJdGh1bWIJMTIwMHg5NjAwPg%2Fd389f07c%2Fee0%2F2013_08_21_Internet.jpg&hash=a160cc1dd7c3a7a974722757cded98c3035c7558)
Except that your stats are useless because they're top internet speed rather than average. I am annoyed with your attempt to distort. Find me different numbers.
I get like 3.5. :sleep:
"Average measured internet speed" doesn't mean average?
Those certainly aren't top speeds.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 17, 2014, 09:14:58 AM
I get like 3.5. :sleep:
About 6.5 for me. Although if I wanted to I could shell out for a dearer service and possibly get into the late teens, early twenties.
And since I've got that pretty consistently, my average isn't actually that much lower.
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2014, 09:13:35 AM
Except that your stats are useless because they're top internet speed rather than average. I am annoyed with your attempt to distort. Find me different numbers.
Average is the new top.
Quote from: katmai on January 17, 2014, 09:15:56 AM
"Average measured internet speed" doesn't mean average?
Trolls cannot into reading.
Quote from: Agelastus on January 17, 2014, 09:37:40 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 17, 2014, 09:14:58 AM
I get like 3.5. :sleep:
About 6.5 for me. Although if I wanted to I could shell out for a dearer service and possibly get into the late teens, early twenties.
I just went from 10.0 to 22.0, didn't have to pay any more since i was in such an antiquated contract that was unlimited use to now have a monthly 200gb limit.
I want to move away from 6mb/no data cap to something in the ~20mb but all those tiers have data caps or the unlimited ones are very expensive.
Fucking Canada.
Yeah I researched what my usage has been for like last 6 months before deciding to move to plan i am at now. Almost hit my limit this month cause of the Steam sale :blush:
Quote from: katmai on January 17, 2014, 09:40:47 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on January 17, 2014, 09:37:40 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 17, 2014, 09:14:58 AM
I get like 3.5. :sleep:
About 6.5 for me. Although if I wanted to I could shell out for a dearer service and possibly get into the late teens, early twenties.
I just went from 10.0 to 22.0, didn't have to pay any more since i was in such an antiquated contract that was unlimited use to now have a monthly 200gb limit.
:hmm:
Speedtest told me I was at 16. I had no idea.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3238636941.png&hash=b9ebcddd3eb702c815b610ac61e1e5631b01a035) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3238636941)
:yeah:
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 10:02:00 AM
I want to move away from 6mb/no data cap to something in the ~20mb but all those tiers have data caps or the unlimited ones are very expensive.
Fucking Canada.
Videotron offers TGV 15 unlimited for 62.95$/month. It is damn expensive!
They had a promotion last summer where they offered me unlimited download for the same price, I took it then.
Quote from: DGuller on January 17, 2014, 10:19:31 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3238636941.png&hash=b9ebcddd3eb702c815b610ac61e1e5631b01a035) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3238636941)
:yeah:
Your job location don't count.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3238681107.png&hash=0bd2b3d7995d6ba379b3c233ed57fddcdfbe9824)
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 10:02:00 AM
I want to move away from 6mb/no data cap to something in the ~20mb but all those tiers have data caps or the unlimited ones are very expensive.
Fucking Canada.
Data caps. How Plebian.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 17, 2014, 10:45:26 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 10:02:00 AM
I want to move away from 6mb/no data cap to something in the ~20mb but all those tiers have data caps or the unlimited ones are very expensive.
Fucking Canada.
Data caps. How Plebian.
Heh that is the main selling point of the other ISP in area against the ISP i am at now, the problem is their top speeds max out at 10mbps, whereas if willing to spend I could get up to 100mbps.
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2014, 09:13:35 AM
Except that your stats are useless because they're top internet speed rather than average. I am annoyed with your attempt to distort. Find me different numbers.
Reading is hard. :console:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftayaradio.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F07%2Freading.jpg&hash=7ba3d8317dc752b875cbd36d537285567fa5ae14)
Saw this article a couple of days ago.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131012/02124724852/decades-failed-promises-verizon-it-promises-fiber-to-get-tax-breaks-then-never-delivers.shtml
QuoteDecades Of Failed Promises From Verizon: It Promises Fiber To Get Tax Breaks... Then Never Delivers
from the this-again? dept
A decade ago, we wrote about how Verizon had made an agreement in Pennsylvania in 1994 that it would wire up the state with fiber optic cables to every home in exchange for tax breaks equalling $2.1 billion. In exchange for such a massive tax break, Verizon promised that all homes and businesses would have access to 45Mbps symmetrical fiber by 2015. By 2004, the deal was that 50% of all homes were supposed to have that. In reality, 0% did, and some people started asking for their money back. That never happened, and it appeared that Verizon learned a valuable lesson: it can flat out lie to governments, promise 100% fiber coverage in exchange for subsidies, then not deliver, and no one will do a damn thing about it.
Because here we are about a decade later, and basically the same damn thing has happened in New York City. At least this time, Verizon actually had a fiber service to offer -- the well-known FiOS -- which it "promised" to cover 100% of NYC by 2014. Back when that was announced in 2008, Karl Bode at BroadbandReports correctly warned that you should take that promise with a large grain of salt, both because of Verizon's past failures to live up to promises, as well as the loopholes hidden in the agreement.
It looks like he was right on both accounts. As the account (linked above) at the Verge notes, the language actually is that Verizon just needs to "pass all households," which is interpreted loosely:
There were a lot of caveats in the contract, however. Verizon is only required to "pass all households," a vague term that means the fiber need to extend "to a point from which the building can be connected to the network." Verizon is not obligated to make that connection, however. As a result, the company is now claiming around 75 percent accessibility, even though the number of New Yorkers who can actually sign up for FiOS is probably much lower. A study by public advocate Bill de Blasio concluded that just 51 percent of households in New York have fiber access. The city and Verizon dispute these figures.
Verizon is blaming landlords, but as the Verge points out, when someone made a big stink on the radio recently about the lack of FiOS in his apartment, Verizon contacted him the very next day, and had service at his apartment within 3 weeks. The simple fact is that Verizon has been trying its damnest to get out of the wired business altogether. Back when Ivan Seidenberg was in charge, he made a giant bet on fiber, which is why Verizon became such a national leader in broadband with FiOS -- a service that people really seem to love. However, Wall Street has always hated it, because it's capital intensive, and Wall St. recognizes that without any real competition in the broadband space, Verizon can avoid investing in such infrastructure upgrades, and just swim in larger profits while America's broadband infrastructure suffers and falls further and further behind other countries. Once Seidenberg left, the beancounters quickly took over and looked for ways to stop all that investment. Why invest in the future if there are no competitors to push you to do so?
The fact that Verizon had made this big deal with NYC? Well, Verizon knows it doesn't need to care because it doesn't appear that the NYC government cares at all. The most telling part of the article at the Verge is this tidbit:
The city seems satisfied with how Verizon has held up its end of the bargain. When asked whether Verizon had met its contract obligations, the mayor's office first asked The Verge what Verizon had said, then referred us to DOITT [the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications], which actually has the contract. DOITT referred us to the mayor's office. When told that the mayor wasn't commenting, DOITT suggested we speak with Verizon. When pressed, a spokesperson said, "We just don't have anything to add here."
Nice work, Verizon: you've fleeced yet another place.
Not sure how accurate it is, but apparently Verizon lobbied for several billion dollars in tax breaks to provide high speed internet to Pennsylvania and New York but failed to deliver even close to their initial claims.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 17, 2014, 10:45:26 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 10:02:00 AM
I want to move away from 6mb/no data cap to something in the ~20mb but all those tiers have data caps or the unlimited ones are very expensive.
Fucking Canada.
Data caps. How Plebian.
Canadian, you mean.
Quote from: viper37 on January 17, 2014, 10:23:17 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 10:02:00 AM
I want to move away from 6mb/no data cap to something in the ~20mb but all those tiers have data caps or the unlimited ones are very expensive.
Fucking Canada.
Videotron offers TGV 15 unlimited for 62.95$/month. It is damn expensive!
They had a promotion last summer where they offered me unlimited download for the same price, I took it then.
I never look at first party internet offer.
My ISP offers 20mb/unlimited for 60$ 30mb/unlimited for 72$. It also offers same speed with 300gb data cap for ~10$ less.
http://www.zid.com/access/cable.cfm
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 10:57:22 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 17, 2014, 10:45:26 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 10:02:00 AM
I want to move away from 6mb/no data cap to something in the ~20mb but all those tiers have data caps or the unlimited ones are very expensive.
Fucking Canada.
Data caps. How Plebian.
Canadian, you mean.
AT&T DSL has a data cap. Never had a problem with it years ago.
Years ago are the operative words, yes.
I'd throttle your speeds on general principles.
Quote from: katmai on January 17, 2014, 10:36:16 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 17, 2014, 10:19:31 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3238636941.png&hash=b9ebcddd3eb702c815b610ac61e1e5631b01a035) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3238636941)
:yeah:
Your job location don't count.
That's not from my job location.
FSB safe house has good internet.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 17, 2014, 11:23:26 AM
FSB safe house has good internet.
:huh: I don't need to be in the safe house.
I'm not answering your skype requests....comrade.
Quote from: Alcibiades on January 17, 2014, 10:57:15 AM
QuoteDecades Of Failed Promises From Verizon: It Promises Fiber To Get Tax Breaks... Then Never Delivers
. . . Verizon is blaming landlords, but as the Verge points out, when someone made a big stink on the radio recently about the lack of FiOS in his apartment, Verizon contacted him the very next day, and had service at his apartment within 3 weeks. The simple fact is that Verizon has been trying its damnest to get out of the wired business altogether. Back when Ivan Seidenberg was in charge, he made a giant bet on fiber, which is why Verizon became such a national leader in broadband with FiOS -- a service that people really seem to love. However, Wall Street has always hated it, because it's capital intensive, and Wall St. recognizes that without any real competition in the broadband space, Verizon can avoid investing in such infrastructure upgrades, and just swim in larger profits while America's broadband infrastructure suffers and falls further and further behind other countries. Once Seidenberg left, the beancounters quickly took over and looked for ways to stop all that investment. Why invest in the future if there are no competitors to push you to do so? .
Not sure how accurate it is, but apparently Verizon lobbied for several billion dollars in tax breaks to provide high speed internet to Pennsylvania and New York but failed to deliver even close to their initial claims.
There is some kernels of truth here but it is definitely an anti-Verizon spin.
In NYC lots of people live in apartment buildings and yes it is the case that either the co-op/condo or the landlord has to make arrangements to bring the the service into the building. The fiber doesn't just magically leap into private property.
AS for the broader economic point -- ", Wall Street has always hated it, because it's capital intensive, and Wall St. recognizes that without any real competition in the broadband space, Verizon can avoid investing in such infrastructure upgrades, and just swim in larger profits while America's broadband infrastructure suffers " -- invoking the "Wall Street" bogeyman is always good for selling copy but the heat-to-light ratio of this analysis is on the high side. Laying fiber IS capital intensive -- brutally so. There is "real competition" because everywhere Verizon offers FIOS there is a least one other major player. But the problem for FIOS as a business is not so much vigorous competition but that there just isn't enough demand for its high-end product (ultra fast connections) to recoup all those expenses at a profit. If enough Americans will willing to pay for 100 -1000 mbit speeds at a price reflecting the cost of the infrastructure and maintenance, then Verizon would keep building. But most Americans are like Ed and others here and content with much less -- and quite rationally so beause even bandwidth intensive uses like HD video streaming don't require anywhere near that bandwidth.
What this means for Verizon's business can be seen very starkly in their last published quarterly results.
Here are the operating margins for their two key business segments;
Wireless: 33.8%
Wireline: 1.6%
It might be objected that looking at operating margin treats FIOS unfairly because of the big non-cash depreciation charges. But the EBITDA margins are just are slanted towards wireless - the wireless EBITDA margins are over 50% (!) compared to a little over 20% for wireline.
One doesn't need to conjure dark conspiracy theories about big bad "Wall Street" here. It's pretty obvious why Verizon is pursuing a strategy of directing investment to wireless at the expense of the wireline business. They would have to be foolish not to.
That's what "Wall Street" means. It's the pursuit of cheap & easy profits over profits coming from the improvement of infrastructures for the common good.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 11:54:42 AM
That's what "Wall Street" market capitalism means. It's the pursuit of cheap & easy profits over profits coming from the improvement of infrastructures for the common good losses.
Marked up for accuracy.
Quote from: DGuller on January 17, 2014, 10:19:31 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3238636941.png&hash=b9ebcddd3eb702c815b610ac61e1e5631b01a035) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3238636941)
:yeah:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3238905547.png&hash=c1deade50e53f8e05b268825233729abfcebac53) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3238905547)
No wonder Max wins all the FPS multiplayer games.
Here at work I get a whopping .47Mbps down. They're throttling the hell out of us. And we call ourselves a technology company :rolleyes:
I'd be better off downloading large files on my phone.
Quote from: Maximus on January 17, 2014, 12:09:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 17, 2014, 10:19:31 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3238636941.png&hash=b9ebcddd3eb702c815b610ac61e1e5631b01a035) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3238636941)
:yeah:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3238905547.png&hash=c1deade50e53f8e05b268825233729abfcebac53) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3238905547)
:Embarrass:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 17, 2014, 11:58:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 11:54:42 AM
That's what "Wall Street" market capitalism means. It's the pursuit of cheap & easy profits over profits coming from the improvement of infrastructures for the common good losses.
Marked up for accuracy.
Yes, wall street.
It's such a deplorable state of things. :weep:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 17, 2014, 11:58:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 11:54:42 AM
That's what "Wall Street" market capitalism means. It's the pursuit of cheap & easy profits over profits coming from the improvement of infrastructures for the common good losses.
Marked up for accuracy.
The problem is that market capitalism has never been fair to private actors investing in capital-intensive infrastructure. There are a host of positive externalities that they can't cash in to recoup their investment.
Quote from: DGuller on January 17, 2014, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 17, 2014, 11:58:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 11:54:42 AM
That's what "Wall Street" market capitalism means. It's the pursuit of cheap & easy profits over profits coming from the improvement of infrastructures for the common good losses.
Marked up for accuracy.
The problem is that market capitalism has never been fair to private actors investing in capital-intensive infrastructure. There are a host of positive externalities that they can't cash in to recoup their investment.
There is a strong case that internet access should be a public service. When you think about what the government spends on education, public health, job search assistance, etc., the achievement / dollar by making sure everyone has good internet is probably high in comparison.
Quote from: DGuller on January 17, 2014, 12:26:22 PM
The problem is that market capitalism has never been fair to private actors investing in capital-intensive infrastructure. There are a host of positive externalities that they can't cash in to recoup their investment.
I don't think that is the issue here.
Let's say there is $100 billion available for use in the tri-state area - is the highest and best use for those funds really to lay high speed fiber optic cable? What about transport infrastructure or education or any one of a hundred other priorities?
The only positive externality I can see that could result from this is that if there are commercial enterprises in the city paying premium for custom high speed connections they could save some IT $$ if such connections become ubiquitous and relatively low cost. It's not the most compelling case.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3239086322.png&hash=a227d8abb3f26fc1698cf97e5a5575729e3ec54e)
And what's that about data limits? :huh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3239118376.png&hash=101da399e65c0b2c7e4ca8c905cf503fbd7b0a5a) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3239118376)
I could have 1000 but since 100 comes free with the apartment I don't bother.
I also have a second independent broadband connection. For safety.
Quote from: Syt on January 17, 2014, 01:22:31 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3239086322.png&hash=a227d8abb3f26fc1698cf97e5a5575729e3ec54e)
And what's that about data limits? :huh:
North American ISPs have plans/tiers with Data usage limits and overcharge.
Around here, the most popular plan is 50$/month with 60gb of data. When you go over the ISP charges you. It's about 4.50$ per gb of usage over the cap.
Quebec law caps over chage like that at 50$/month.
Quote from: katmai on January 17, 2014, 09:15:56 AM
"Average measured internet speed" doesn't mean average?
No, I am shamed. I transposed the 'top' into the sentence below it in my head.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 17, 2014, 01:02:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 17, 2014, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 17, 2014, 11:58:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 11:54:42 AM
That's what "Wall Street" market capitalism means. It's the pursuit of cheap & easy profits over profits coming from the improvement of infrastructures for the common good losses.
Marked up for accuracy.
The problem is that market capitalism has never been fair to private actors investing in capital-intensive infrastructure. There are a host of positive externalities that they can't cash in to recoup their investment.
There is a strong case that internet access should be a public service. When you think about what the government spends on education, public health, job search assistance, etc., the achievement / dollar by making sure everyone has good internet is probably high in comparison.
While I would agree that "high speed" internet is a requirement for almost everyone now days, what is "good enough" for the majority of people? What percentage of the population need or would notice the difference between 10 Mb/s and 25 Mb/s, or even higher? I am guessing the number would be low enough that it wouldn't be worth the government getting involved and building out their own nationalized fiber network (sorry Ide :()
That puts the people that want or need it in a sucky spot, but I assume they can get it if they really want it. That is me just talking out my ass for the most prt though.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 01:36:53 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 17, 2014, 01:22:31 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3239086322.png&hash=a227d8abb3f26fc1698cf97e5a5575729e3ec54e)
And what's that about data limits? :huh:
Third-World Canadian ISPs have plans/tiers with Data usage limits and overcharge.
ftfy
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 01:36:53 PM
North American ISPs have plans/tiers with Data usage limits and overcharge.
Around here, the most popular plan is 50$/month with 60gb of data. When you go over the ISP charges you. It's about 4.50$ per gb of usage over the cap.
Quebec law caps over chage like that at 50$/month.
I know. :P Over here it's mostly for mobile internet, though, and even they will usually only throttle you down (e.g. T-Mobile moves you from 100M to 256k if you exceed 100GB/month). I think (may be mistaken) that companies have to at least warn you if you are near the limit, though it may also be that they're not allowed to overcharge unless you ok it.
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2014, 01:36:54 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 17, 2014, 09:15:56 AM
"Average measured internet speed" doesn't mean average?
No, I am shamed. I transposed the 'top' into the sentence below it in my head.
I was guessing that was what happened, but shamed you none the less!
Quote from: katmai on January 17, 2014, 02:24:35 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2014, 01:36:54 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 17, 2014, 09:15:56 AM
"Average measured internet speed" doesn't mean average?
No, I am shamed. I transposed the 'top' into the sentence below it in my head.
I was guessing that was what happened, but shamed you none the less!
Naturally. We're all terrible people here, and we reap as we sow.
Reap reap?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2014, 12:13:17 PM
No wonder Max wins all the FPS multiplayer games.
Max must have been quite the LPB.
Mine:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3242459928.png&hash=f20dc463fbc928557092f0c63b6daad4d42115cb) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3242459928)
Looks like I have the best one so far. A few have slightly higher download speeds, but not comparable upload speeds.
EDIT: With the exception of Max's, don't know how I missed his.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3243017395.png&hash=93f2090c6df6a47a8b3f6407fb17af6176293702) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3243017395)
That's quite a few threads per minute.
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2014, 07:41:01 AM
That's quite a few threads per minute.
Assburgers per minute.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3243553457.png&hash=8afc310c18b0e59391137863048bdbf2f86ef888) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3243553457)
:showoff:
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 10:59:02 AM
I never look at first party internet offer.
My ISP offers 20mb/unlimited for 60$ 30mb/unlimited for 72$. It also offers same speed with 300gb data cap for ~10$ less.
http://www.zid.com/access/cable.cfm (http://www.zid.com/access/cable.cfm)
There wasn't a ton of choice for where I live, and Videotron had the best deal to offer me when I renewed, so I took their offer. Combined with the office phone, it wasn't so bad. I pay the exact same amount as I paid before for phone service, but I got 20mbps internet with it, unlimited download&upload.
Quote from: Syt on January 17, 2014, 02:12:55 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 01:36:53 PM
North American ISPs have plans/tiers with Data usage limits and overcharge.
Around here, the most popular plan is 50$/month with 60gb of data. When you go over the ISP charges you. It's about 4.50$ per gb of usage over the cap.
Quebec law caps over chage like that at 50$/month.
I know. :P Over here it's mostly for mobile internet, though, and even they will usually only throttle you down (e.g. T-Mobile moves you from 100M to 256k if you exceed 100GB/month). I think (may be mistaken) that companies have to at least warn you if you are near the limit, though it may also be that they're not allowed to overcharge unless you ok it.
eh ;) I wasn't sure how to take it so I chose seriously.
Quote from: viper37 on January 20, 2014, 10:17:21 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2014, 10:59:02 AM
I never look at first party internet offer.
My ISP offers 20mb/unlimited for 60$ 30mb/unlimited for 72$. It also offers same speed with 300gb data cap for ~10$ less.
http://www.zid.com/access/cable.cfm (http://www.zid.com/access/cable.cfm)
There wasn't a ton of choice for where I live, and Videotron had the best deal to offer me when I renewed, so I took their offer. Combined with the office phone, it wasn't so bad. I pay the exact same amount as I paid before for phone service, but I got 20mbps internet with it, unlimited download&upload.
Videotron has pretty good deals when you combine services.
Quote from: sbr on January 17, 2014, 02:02:12 PM
While I would agree that "high speed" internet is a requirement for almost everyone now days, what is "good enough" for the majority of people? What percentage of the population need or would notice the difference between 10 Mb/s and 25 Mb/s, or even higher? I am guessing the number would be low enough that it wouldn't be worth the government getting involved and building out their own nationalized fiber network (sorry Ide :( )
That puts the people that want or need it in a sucky spot, but I assume they can get it if they really want it. That is me just talking out my ass for the most prt though.
Simple. 10mbps = Youtube lag on 1080p. 20mbps = no Youtube lag.
And now that they plan to introduce 4k streaming within the year... Well, we will all require an upgrade soon.
Unless you run an auditorium-sized screen, 4k is a novelty.
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2014, 03:24:23 PM
Unless you run an auditorium-sized screen, 4k is a novelty.
Maybe for now. The fact that a 23" monitor has the same resolution as a 60" TV means that there are some resolution gains to be made for TVs, not to mention retina display monitors.
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2014, 03:42:15 PM
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2014, 03:24:23 PM
Unless you run an auditorium-sized screen, 4k is a novelty.
Maybe for now. The fact that a 23" monitor has the same resolution as a 60" TV means that there are some resolution gains to be made for TVs, not to mention retina display monitors.
Not really, the eye just can't perceive such minute details in such screen sizes unless you're sticking your nose to the screen, which is not how you will watch TV.
This guy makes a very good write-up on the issue: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57566079-221/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
Sad part is that I pay extra for higher speed...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3246492895.png&hash=6094a4e80900ebd2de22ace6eed1076bf0d31886)
A fellow Time Warner brother!
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2014, 04:42:52 PM
Sad part is that I pay extra for higher speed...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3246492895.png&hash=6094a4e80900ebd2de22ace6eed1076bf0d31886)
Apparently because my upload speed is worse than yours, my internet is worse. /perhaps that's what your extra cost goes to. :D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F3246559628.png&hash=907548061a47b0bc79f25e1613f7f1735ea6a831)
What does the ping number tell you?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2014, 05:41:50 PM
What does the ping number tell you?
Doesn't it have to do with how long it takes to send (a packet?) and get an echo (or response back)? So you want that to be lower.
Quote from: garbon on January 20, 2014, 05:55:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2014, 05:41:50 PM
What does the ping number tell you?
Doesn't it have to do with how long it takes to send (a packet?) and get an echo (or response back)? So you want that to be lower.
Yep.
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2014, 03:48:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2014, 03:42:15 PM
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2014, 03:24:23 PM
Unless you run an auditorium-sized screen, 4k is a novelty.
Maybe for now. The fact that a 23" monitor has the same resolution as a 60" TV means that there are some resolution gains to be made for TVs, not to mention retina display monitors.
Not really, the eye just can't perceive such minute details in such screen sizes unless you're sticking your nose to the screen, which is not how you will watch TV.
This guy makes a very good write-up on the issue: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57566079-221/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
The same guy did a write-up about all things that could improved in screened media besides pure resolution, which I thought was very spot-on. His big ones were color (RGB is arguably insufficient) and motion blur (which is a huge, huge, huge problem, and something I notice even in the best-shot pictures, but if I am not mistaking it solving it would require new cinematographic methods as well as new displays).
My wife offered to get me one of those 84 inch Toshiba 4K TEEVEES. fucker is way overpriced.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 20, 2014, 07:58:36 PM
My wife offered to get me one of those 84 inch Toshiba 4K TEEVEES. fucker is way overpriced.
What the fuck does she need to watch on such a thing?
Quote from: katmai on January 20, 2014, 07:59:16 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 20, 2014, 07:58:36 PM
My wife offered to get me one of those 84 inch Toshiba 4K TEEVEES. fucker is way overpriced.
What the fuck does she need to watch on such a thing?
GET ME ONE.
Try reading harder.
OKAY, WHY DO YOU NEED ONE?!?!
I'd watch Scanners on it.
I dunno, re: wide-screens: HD projectors have made leaps and bounds resolution-wise in recent years. Pretty sure it's OttoVB that has one and swears by it.
My dad has an SD projector, but 480p it may be, it does throw a pretty fucking huge image on the wall.
Quote from: katmai on January 20, 2014, 08:07:22 PM
OKAY, WHY DO YOU NEED ONE?!?!
Did I say I was getting it?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2014, 07:56:43 PM
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2014, 03:48:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2014, 03:42:15 PM
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2014, 03:24:23 PM
Unless you run an auditorium-sized screen, 4k is a novelty.
Maybe for now. The fact that a 23" monitor has the same resolution as a 60" TV means that there are some resolution gains to be made for TVs, not to mention retina display monitors.
Not really, the eye just can't perceive such minute details in such screen sizes unless you're sticking your nose to the screen, which is not how you will watch TV.
This guy makes a very good write-up on the issue: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57566079-221/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
The same guy did a write-up about all things that could improved in screened media besides pure resolution, which I thought was very spot-on. His big ones were color (RGB is arguably insufficient) and motion blur (which is a huge, huge, huge problem, and something I notice even in the best-shot pictures, but if I am not mistaking it solving it would require new cinematographic methods as well as new displays).
Motion blur is WAD regarding film, it gives it that weird dream-like aura that films have. My aunt has a TV that purposedly reduces it and watching movies in it feels positively weird, more video-like. But that's probably because I'm not used to it. I never saw The Hobbit at 48 fps on that regard, how did that look?
But yeah, the problem with dealing with stuff like overhauling legacy standards like color systems is that it would be a titanic undertaking compared to just bumping up the resolution.
Fucking bullshit <_<
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/05/network_neutrality_dinosaurs_like_time_warner_and_at_t_have_nothing_to_worry.html
QuoteYes, Your Internet Is Getting Slower
Your provider likes it that way. And the government doesn't care.
By David Auerbach
The ongoing battle over broadband network neutrality is confusing, and the stakes for consumers and businesses are high. What's the worst that can happen if network neutrality doesn't prevail? Yes, you will pay more for worse service, but just how bad will it get? To answer that complicated question, there's one easy analogy available: the California energy crisis of 2000.
David Auerbach David Auerbach
In the late 1990s, the deregulation of the California utilities—which forced them to sell off their power supplies to independent electricity wholesalers—proved to be a disaster. The magic hand of the market was supposed to bring down energy fees for all. What happened instead was that "efficient markets" turned out to be nothing of the sort. In 2000, market manipulation, artificial scarcity created by shutting down power plants to reduce supply, and deliberately inferior service resulted in blackouts and brownouts, an 800 percent rise in energy prices, and lucrative profiteering by Enron. Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric went bankrupt, and the whole crisis cost somewhere upward of $40 billion.
Electricity wholesalers such as Enron are akin to Internet service providers such as Time Warner and Comcast in important ways. The electricity wholesalers had incentives to starve the energy market in order to extract greater fees from utilities and consumers. ISPs have similar incentives to manipulate their bandwidth in order to extract fees from websites (such as Netflix and YouTube), as well as not build out any infrastructure that would make bandwidth cheaper or make your Internet faster.
This is, in fact, what is already happening. Ars Technica reports that gigabit broadband could easily become a reality, but the ISPs have no interest in pursuing that path. Instead, ISPs like Time Warner repeatedly try to switch to capped bandwidth plans, despite widespread customer opposition to what is basically price gouging. In the face of actual competition, they wouldn't dare.
Many customers are already living with a virtual Internet brownout. Tier 1 Internet provider Level 3, which provides top-level "backbone" services that reach the entire world, has posted several scary updates on the state of affairs. General counsel Michael Mooney observes that the ISPs are playing a game of chicken by demanding content providers pay them before they build out any further infrastructure. "These ISPs break the Internet by refusing to increase the size of their networks unless their tolls are paid," Mooney said. Worse, they don't even use the capacity they have, artificially starving their customers and slowing down the Internet. (Which explains why Game of Thrones is always buffering on your HBO Go, for example.) Level 3 Vice President Mark Taylor provided evidence that five U.S. ISPs (and one European ISP) are refusing to upgrade their infrastructure despite their connection ports being saturated. In other words, these ISPs are intentionally letting their service degrade because they're cheap, like a city not fixing potholes in its roads.
If your Internet connection and streaming seem to have slowed down over the last year (as mine certainly has), Taylor has an answer: "permanent congestion" that has been in place for "well over a year," because your ISP "refuses to augment capacity." These ISPs, according to Taylor, "are deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers. They are not allowing us to fulfill the requests their customers make for content." He provided a graph showing one Dallas ISP in constant saturation, effectively an Internet brownout for its customers.
140513_TECH_chart_utilization Dallas' Internet brownout: a week of ongoing bandwidth saturation and hundreds of millions of dropped and delayed packets for an unnamed Dallas ISP refusing to upgrade service.
Taylor did not identify the ISPs, but Time picked up on some clues, pointing to AT&T, Charter, CenturyLink, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast. (Time Warner and AT&T both serve Dallas, incidentally.) These titans exist in a market with very little competition, and it's only getting worse: Time Warner is set to merge with the equally giant Comcast to form a behemoth that would cover 40 percent of the broadband market and 30 percent of the cable market. If network neutrality is weakened, as the Federal Communications Commission has been trying to do, ISPs will now be able to slow down traffic on a case-by-case basis. As "Future Tense" writer Marvin Ammori put it, "Once the court voids the nondiscrimination rule, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will be able to deliver some sites and services more quickly and reliably than others for any reason. Whim. Envy. Ignorance. Competition. Vengeance. Whatever. Or, no reason at all."
Alongside the terrible level of customer satisfaction with broadband ISPs, these existing abuses by ISPs with near-monopoly power should have policymakers raring for action. Yet regulatory capture is clearly in place. The head of the FCC, Obama appointee Tom Wheeler, is a former lobbyist for the very cable companies and telecoms he purports to regulate. Wheeler has done nothing to address existing problems while seeking to loosen what regulations there are by allowing ISPs to give preferential treatment to content providers. ISPs will be able to privilege—or deprivilege—traffic purely arbitrarily, creating Internet "fast lanes" for content providers who pay up and "slow lanes" for those who don't ... or just for content providers they don't like. It's payola, basically, wherein YouTube and Netflix will have to pony up (as Netflix just did to Comcast) so that customers can get the speeds they're supposedly already entitled to.
Every country gets the government it deserves. It's a miracle our governance is as good as it is, with half the country brainwashed by crony capitalists into thinking that sabotaging government at every step is actually a good thing for them.
That article makes no sense at multiple levels.
Aside from the bizarre analogy to the California energy deregulation of the 1990s, apparently so that it could throw the scare word "Enron" into the picture, it is trying to make an argument about the impact of departing from net neturality by talking about ISP behavior under net neutrality.
It's a bad article.
Ending net neutrality will leave America behind in the future. Russia will have won.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 15, 2014, 11:01:57 AM
It's a bad article.
Ending net neutrality will leave America behind in the future. Russia will have won.
As long as we are permanently in the future when we get left behind, I can live with it. Russia will have won by being left behind in the present, while the US is left behind in the future.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 20, 2014, 08:31:41 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 20, 2014, 08:07:22 PM
OKAY, WHY DO YOU NEED ONE?!?!
Did I say I was getting it?
I got excited this morning reading about a Chinese company making a 49" 4K TV that will sell for $640. Until I read the line buried at the end of the article that they won't be sold outside China :rolleyes:
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2014, 12:42:13 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 15, 2014, 11:01:57 AM
It's a bad article.
Ending net neutrality will leave America behind in the future. Russia will have won.
As long as we are permanently in the future when we get left behind, I can live with it. Russia will have won by being left behind in the present, while the US is left behind in the future.
Well, obviously.