|
Paul MaudDib posted:I guess the US wasn't very developed circa 1990, who knew? A better analogy for fish mechs point might be to think of it like so. And, though I can't remember the relevant smiley, it is a car analogy. The US graduated college in 1996, moved out, got a job, needed a car. So they bought a 1996 Lumina. And I mean, it was a pretty nice car! Plush seats, decent gas mileage, ran well, etc. Romania graduated in 2005. They moved out and got a job too. So they bought a 2005 Prius. And it's a nice car. Great gas mileage, nifty dashboard GPS, etc. The US took a look at the Prius and said "well, I could replace my Lumina - which gets me there just about as fast, even if it costs a bit more to operate - and get those bells and whistles too." Of course, then the US would have to pay for a new car, which is a pretty big investment when you have a perfectly functional car right there. It's not that installing fiber costs more than installing coax - it's that the coax is already there, so you work with what you have. More recent entrants put in better stuff because it cost the same to install as technology developed.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
 Areas in the US with gigabit or faster service available. (Note: this is "retail" service. You can get gigabit pretty much everywhere else that's part of civilization as part of making specific orders from large time ISPs.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:I remember when American exceptionalism used to mean this country did great things. Now it seems to be an excuse for why we can't have nice things like south korea or japan. It's a shame we're not allowed to empty quote, because good lord is this ever true today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:It's a shame we're not allowed to empty quote, because good lord is this ever true today. It's only true in the sense that a bunch of people are just flat out lying and claiming the US is exceptionally bad in an area where it's actually very good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Actually the fact that the metrics in the original article are from Speedtest.net make me question their authenticity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Kalman posted:
And it's still thousand upon thousand of miles of fiber that need to be laid down to cover everybody. You can't just click a button and your infra is upgraded. While passing all those lines, you also have to get the new hubs equipped to handle the new tech because your coax system most likely can't support fibers but while doing this, your coax still has to be running. Anyone who ever saw some tech install fibers can quickly understand why we can't cover the whole country instantly even if the cost was 0.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:
Haha holy poo poo, North Dakota.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Haha holy poo poo, North Dakota. That's exactly what I though when I saw the map. I'm probably an idiot but I will ask anyway. Why is it so developed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
supersnowman posted:That's exactly what I though when I saw the map. I'm probably an idiot but I will ask anyway. Why is it so developed? North Dakota is currently undergoing an energy boom. Not too many people lived in ND before hand, and now there's a large demand for internet to deal with the increased population. Since there was little coverage beforehand, it was easier to set up with a ton of more modern infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
supersnowman posted:That's exactly what I though when I saw the map. I'm probably an idiot but I will ask anyway. Why is it so developed? North Dakota's state government is investing in it, and in a smaller part the massive rush of oil/gas companies are demanding it too. Similar to why almost all of Rhode Island has gigabit available, without the energy companies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
supersnowman posted:That's exactly what I though when I saw the map. I'm probably an idiot but I will ask anyway. Why is it so developed? North Dakota basically went from 50 year old copper and very lovely 28k connections to fiber over the last 5 years. The lack of coax and the state having more money than they know what to do with means the state can implement some awesome infrastructure plans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
#47 in population density and looks like #2 in gigabit coverage. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
There are issues beyond pure advertised speed and price as well, such as that Comcast is so dominant when they are well known for providing such exceptionally lovely service. It might just be my area but I don't know a single Comcast user who gets their actual advertised speed and doesn't have problems with outages, and God help you if you actually need to call customer support. On top of that they're going to implement data caps on their service just as everyone is ramping up their use of streaming content. Luckily there's a fiber ISP that moved into the area that's literally an order of magnitude better than Comcast as far as megabits/dollar but they're still a pretty small operation and they're booked out months in advance for installations for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Anyone have any anecdotal evidence of the price of broadband in Alaska for example? So I'm here in Anchorage, and Alaska Communications (ACS) is essentially garbage that doesn't work anywhere. My section of town - which is pretty densely populated - only gets 3 Mbps and it's $100 a month. Downtown Fairbanks gets sub 10 Mbps, $100+ a month.I don't know of anywhere that actually gets 15 Mbps. GCI really is the only game in the state, and their prices online barely represent what you pay. If you don't bundle poo poo together it's another $25+ on top of whatever you're signing up for. The speed is fine, but whew boy those data caps suck rear end, especially since you have to spend $200+ a month to get in the reasonable multiple user or family tiers (Re:D stuff). At least we're getting 1Gbps speed in the next year or so? GCI has been tight lipped about bandwidth caps so everyone is expecting 500GB caps for fiber. The thing that really confuses me is that ACS essentially owns the connection between Alaska and the contiguous US, yet they haven't jumped into the home broadband game with any kind of energy. It's essentially a cartel where ACS are charging GCI to run data out of the state, and GCI charges people in state for cell phone and broadband service. We're just kind of hosed because as difficult as it is to run municipal fiber, it is a fuckload more difficult to run submarine fiber. http://investors.alsk.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=375843 http://akorn.alaskacommunications.com/
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:09
|
|
spoon0042 posted:#47 in population density and looks like #2 in gigabit coverage. Nice. It's almost as if private entities don't have an interest in investing in infrastructure upgrades unless there's enough money to justify it. I mean, times have been tough for the broadband providers, I think they've barely made any profit whatsoever over the past 20 years so it's pretty unreasonable to think that we, being the richest country on earth by a wide margin, could afford to provide state of the art internet service in metropolitan areas.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:There are issues beyond pure advertised speed and price as well, such as that Comcast is so dominant when they are well known for providing such exceptionally lovely service. It might just be my area but I don't know a single Comcast user who gets their actual advertised speed and doesn't have problems with outages, and God help you if you actually need to call customer support. On top of that they're going to implement data caps on their service just as everyone is ramping up their use of streaming content. Luckily there's a fiber ISP that moved into the area that's literally an order of magnitude better than Comcast as far as megabits/dollar but they're still a pretty small operation and they're booked out months in advance for installations for obvious reasons. Comcast is proven to be among the ISPs that stick closest to their advertised speeds. Please refer to the FCC/SamKnows reports I've linked multiple times earlier. Also data caps were "implemented" years ago dude - as a result of a ruling by the FCC that it was impermissable for companies to advertise unlimited service yet cut off very high usage customers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Also data caps were "implemented" years ago dude - as a result of a ruling by the FCC that it was impermissable for companies to advertise unlimited service yet cut off very high usage customers. From the sources I have found it says that they had a 250GB cap which was scrapped two years ago, I'm assuming as a result of that ruling, and that they're trialing new caps in several states currently which will be implemented in every state over the next few years. http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/17/3026798/comcast-abandons-250gb-data-caps-will-trial-tiered-plans-starting-at (from 2012) quote:Comcast just announced that it's getting rid of its controversial 250GB data cap on home internet connections in favor of what it calls a "more flexible data usage management approach." That basically means that the company will eventually switch to a tiered plan arrangement with overage fees just like wireless providers, with base plans starting at 300GB per month. http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/comcast-looks-cap-data-usage-potentially-impacting-cord-cutters/#!TUHPO quote:At this time, Comcast current uses 300GB monthly data caps in seven states that include Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Tennessee and South Carolina. Comcast raised monthly data caps in those states from 250GB a month to the current 300GB a month in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:From the sources I have found it says that they had a 250GB cap which was scrapped two years ago, I'm assuming as a result of that ruling, and that they're trialing new caps in several states currently which will be implemented in every state over the next few years. The cap has been "in effect" continuously for the past nearly 5 years. I use quotes because in actuality they do not enforce the cap in most markets. They essentially use it as a fig leaf when they want to shut down a customer under the general "you used too much" criteria they used in the past when they were still allowed to put "unlimited!" in their ads for internet service. A particularly egregious example of this is that when I go to check the bandwidth page on my Comcast account, it's continuously said "temporarily unavailable" or displayed a page that purported to show my usage but was reading ridiculously low figures for the past several years and that's with service in two different states. However, some markets have seen continuous cap enforcement despite a refusal to rollout to the rest of the nation, while others see them enforced sporadically. And again, notice that whenever you see ads for internet service these days, the ISPs are careful not to use the word unlimited in relation to bandwidth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
I'm not sure why someone would choose to err on the side of thinking industry is justified in charging a higher price for something. Like, what exactly is the worst case scenario if people demand lower internet prices? That people working for an ISP would be personally offended? The default assumption should always be "corporations are going to overcharge for things in an attempt to maximize profits." This is especially true in an industry for a service/good that is both necessary and has extremely high barriers to entry; healthy competition doesn't tend to thrive in that sort of environment*. If I were a shareholder (without any moral qualms) for an ISP, I would be upset if the ISP wasn't enjoying significant profit margins. Why in the world would you want to put effort towards debunking the claims of people who are trying to argue against something being a higher price? If you're correct (and they really can't reasonably lower prices), the outcome is just going to be...ISPs not lowering prices. What in the world is it that you're worried about? edit: Also, regarding comparisons - doesn't it only make sense to compare to the places with a similar environment and the absolute lowest prices? Taking an average doesn't make sense in that sort of situation. If even just one place with a similar environment manages to have lowest costs, the comparison should be made there. *There are exceptions to this; it seems like automobile companies manage to charge reasonable prices despite automobiles usually being necessary and the automobile industry having some other characteristics that would normally be barriers to healthy competition. Maybe ISPs are like this, but it just seems completely useless and unproductive to advocate on their behalf. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Here's what I want to know. Why did all of the cellular companies that offered unlimited 4G service at first all collectively figure out that they actually meant 10 GB/month at the most and why do bytes after those caps cost 3x as much. Do they use special premium electricity to transmit or what
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:I mean, it's hard not to be. Netflix is straight up lying about what net neutrality is and does, in what ought to be a transparent attempt to extort services for free. But it fits nicely into the narrative that big corporations suck (if for some reason you don't count Netflix as a big corporation), so people are just uncritically buying it. This thread isn't even about net neutrality. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 11:25
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:
Can you please provide a link to this? I live in the middle of the Chicago blue spot and i know for a fact you can't get gigabit speeds here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:Can you please provide a link to this? I live in the middle of the Chicago blue spot and i know for a fact you can't get gigabit speeds here. http://gigabit-chicago.com/residential/index.html ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Look at this Google master, finding a website thats talking about plans to build a gigabit network in Chicago and calling it available.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Top Bunk Wanker posted:Here's what I want to know. Why did all of the cellular companies that offered unlimited 4G service at first all collectively figure out that they actually meant 10 GB/month at the most and why do bytes after those caps cost 3x as much. Do they use special premium electricity to transmit or what Because 10GB/month covers the vast majority of user cases (like not 90% but 99.9%). If you notice they don't offer unlimited plans anymore either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Are there any quantifiable arguments for how much density (or lack thereof) increases telco costs, or do we just have to assume that telcos offer perfect pricing? There is a relatively sweet spot in terms of density. Too little, and you have to overengineer with repeaters and expensive network edge equipment. Too much, and it becomes physically difficult to actually make any changes without major effort. I work for a big (big!) telco, and used to work for the other big telco. My service area is NYC, and has in the past included upstate NY. It's a lot easier and cheaper to roll out a new service in Westchester than it is in Manhattan. Because of the Public Service Commission, the pricing will typically be postalized across the state/city, but all that really means is that every gets stuck paying whatever the highest rate would be if all the locations could be priced as standalone entities like how cable does it. Having said that, both big carriers (the red and black guys and the blue and orange guys) are going all fiber/all IP. It's happening. By 2020, the vast majority of services from either company will be delivered either via cellular or by fiber. We're literally getting out of the copper business. The regulation regime around IP is much different than TDM, which is one reason we're seeing this, along with a lot of other advantages of going to next gen comms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's only true in the sense that a bunch of people are just flat out lying and claiming the US is exceptionally bad in an area where it's actually very good. This is correct. The hype around gigabit connections is so dumb, nobody uses that much bandwidth. Nobody. I have customers where thousands of people are using a single 100mb connection, and rarely get over 50% utilization. The curve has been amazingly flat for the last 5 years or so. All this cloud stuff for business caused a little bump, but nothing that would require that they run out and quadruple their spend to satisfy demand. I have yet to see any legit claims of utilization of any significant portion of a 1gb internet access circuit. Hell the only place I even see that sort of usage across the private networks I sell is for purposes of database replication and backup/recovery, and that's enterprise level stuff. Tell me, someone who has a 1gb fiber connection to their home. What's the fastest observed throughput you've had in any kind of production activity (not speedtest, an actual application that real earth human beings use their internet connection for)? I ask because I have hosting in my product set, and when you sell hosting, you also sell dedicated bandwidth for the hosted site. We host some major websites on our network, and few, if any, have more than 1gb of connectivity dedicated connectivity. Some do, and most have some kind of flexible capacity for spiky traffic. If you had thousands of people with 1gb connection hitting a site with only 1gb connection to the internet, even with edge acceleration and all the other tricks we have up our sleeves for network optimization, nobody's getting much more than a mb or two of REAL throughput. That's why these numbers are stupid. Also, it should be noted, since people tend to get dazzled by the 1gb number, that once again, you might have a gb connection to the provider's edge, but no way in hell is the provider trunked to the internet with that much bandwidth. You *might* have 1gb connection to the peering point for every 500 houses connected at 1gb. The cheaper the ISP, the worse the trunking scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:This is correct. The hype around gigabit connections is so dumb, nobody uses that much bandwidth. Nobody. I have customers where thousands of people are using a single 100mb connection, and rarely get over 50% utilization. The curve has been amazingly flat for the last 5 years or so. All this cloud stuff for business caused a little bump, but nothing that would require that they run out and quadruple their spend to satisfy demand. I have yet to see any legit claims of utilization of any significant portion of a 1gb internet access circuit. Hell the only place I even see that sort of usage across the private networks I sell is for purposes of database replication and backup/recovery, and that's enterprise level stuff. I use somewhere between 100 Megs and 1 gig. I might not utilize the full circuit of a 1gb connection, but if I have one, I know it meets my minimum needs. My ISP isn't going to offer me a 147.5 meg plan just to meet my specific needs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Top Bunk Wanker posted:Here's what I want to know. Why did all of the cellular companies that offered unlimited 4G service at first all collectively figure out that they actually meant 10 GB/month at the most and why do bytes after those caps cost 3x as much. Do they use special premium electricity to transmit or what Oy vey. Technology lesson time... From your phone, the data travels to the cell tower (over what's called the air link. From the cell tower, there is a connection back to the macro network, or backbone. This connection, which used to be T1 or multiple T1 (generally less than 10mb) or microwave, is now in most cases fiber, either dedicated or switched ethernet. Common speeds are 10mb, 100mb, or 1gb, depending on the density of users in a given cell tower's footprint. That circuit has a cost associated with it. It's a non trivial cost, running into the thousands of dollars a month. At first, T1 connectivity was plenty. Most people didn't have smartphones, and the ones that did really didn't use them like we use them now. It really wasn't impacting the network to have a few smartphones with unlimited usage. After the iPhone came out, we saw 5000% increase in data usage in 2 years. It killed the network. even though we were pouring over $20 billion a year into the network, it wasnt enough. Any time some moron says that the telcos need to invest in infrastructure, note that they have outed themselves as ignorant. The $20b a year was just the telco I work for. I know the other guys probably spent a like amount. One way to ease congestion on the network was to put limits on how much data can be used per month, or raising the per-gb price. The truth is that only 2% of the users were using more than 2gb a month. Given that it's a shared medium, those users were squeezing out the other 98%. The network is being built out continually. Nobody invests more in infrastructure than the 2 big telcos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:I use somewhere between 100 Megs and 1 gig. I might not utilize the full circuit of a 1gb connection, but if I have one, I know it meets my minimum needs. My ISP isn't going to offer me a 147.5 meg plan just to meet my specific needs. What are you using 147.5mbps for? What site are you connecting to? Is it all point to point filesharing? There's few commercial sites that have the sort of connectivity that would allow more than a few users to connect at that level. Perhaps you're doing multiple sessions of Cisco Telepresence at once, on full immersion? That still wouldn't fill up 147.5mb. I'd love to see your charts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Look at this Google master, finding a website thats talking about plans to build a gigabit network in Chicago and calling it available. Yeah, I went to look at that site and the proposed coverage areas don't match up to the blue spots Nintendo Kid had on his first map. Total bullshit. It's especially bullshit because they neighborhoods they propose to serve are all in the ghetto. Pauline Kael posted:What are you using 147.5mbps for? What site are you connecting to? Is it all point to point filesharing? There's few commercial sites that have the sort of connectivity that would allow more than a few users to connect at that level. Perhaps you're doing multiple sessions of Cisco Telepresence at once, on full immersion? That still wouldn't fill up 147.5mb. I'd love to see your charts. I should have clarified that it was a hypothetical. But my point still stands. Gigabit connections are just useful for anyone who needs something between 0.1 to 1 gigs. You don't think home businesses with multiple internet users can hit those numbers? Let's see your charts. Something tells me you're one of those guys who likes to seem smarter than he is. The X-man cometh fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:
Well, we know that Netflix represents a large part if not the majority of web traffic in the US. For the Netflix 1080p "Super HD" option, you need around 7Mb/s for the best possible picture quality. Even if you have all five Netflix users streaming Super HD level Netflix that only comes up to about 35Mb/s - about a third of your 100Mbit/s minimum. Even if Netflix only represents a third of all of the traffic a household uses at a given time, that means that their needs are still perfectly met with a 100Mbit/s connection - they simply don't need a gigabit connection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:Yeah, I went to look at that site and the proposed coverage areas don't match up to the blue spots Nintendo Kid had on his first map. Total bullshit. Yeah, i'll share my customers network utilization reports on internet forum something awful dot com. I don't really care if you believe me or not, I'm sharing with you the reality. The edge access speed inflation doesn't have anything to do with the capabilities of the core networks, or of what people are actually doing with their PCs/devices at home. There was a huge leap from dial up to early broadband, but the improvements since have been incremental. can you name for me 1 actual application for which you could use anything over 100mb? Keep in mind while you're making up some bullshit that the top end Cisco telepresence full immersion, 3 screen system, with all collaboration tools enabled, averages 15mbps,peaking at ~20mpbs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Yeah, i'll share my customers network utilization reports on internet forum something awful dot com. I don't really care if you believe me or not, I'm sharing with you the reality. The edge access speed inflation doesn't have anything to do with the capabilities of the core networks, or of what people are actually doing with their PCs/devices at home. There was a huge leap from dial up to early broadband, but the improvements since have been incremental. can you name for me 1 actual application for which you could use anything over 100mb? Keep in mind while you're making up some bullshit that the top end Cisco telepresence full immersion, 3 screen system, with all collaboration tools enabled, averages 15mbps,peaking at ~20mpbs. Ever think that the applications don't exist* because the connections don't? *They actually do, as I speak I've got an application running at work that is saturating a frame with multiple fiber cards. But applications like that aren't for home use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Yeah, i'll share my customers network utilization reports on internet forum something awful dot com. I don't really care if you believe me or not, I'm sharing with you the reality. The edge access speed inflation doesn't have anything to do with the capabilities of the core networks, or of what people are actually doing with their PCs/devices at home. There was a huge leap from dial up to early broadband, but the improvements since have been incremental. can you name for me 1 actual application for which you could use anything over 100mb? Keep in mind while you're making up some bullshit that the top end Cisco telepresence full immersion, 3 screen system, with all collaboration tools enabled, averages 15mbps,peaking at ~20mpbs. I don't even believe you have customers. I think you're a low-level drone who doesn't have access to that, if you even work in the field.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Xae posted:Ever think that the applications don't exist because the connections don't? Sure, but we already have a lot more bandwidth available than the existing apps are using. What's next? Real time holography? Maybe, I'm not sure the source technology is there. If there was a demand, we could build networks to suit. I can bring 40gbps to a location, more on ICB. Nobody outside of other ISPs need that. Well a couple big named govt agencies have it, but they're multi-hundred thousand person orgs doing really intensive stuff, not playing at home. edit: I should add, there are a few specific things, like database replication using proprietary protocols like ficon and escon, where you arent only moving huge volumes of data, but also doing it in a fashion that is delay/latency/jitter sensitive. Those are always (for most values of always) done over private networks, not the Internet, and are slowly being phased out by more modern approaches over MPLS networks, which are generally private as well. Pauline Kael fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:I don't even believe you have customers. I think you're a low-level drone who doesn't have access to that, if you even work in the field. Right, you won't goad me into sharing proprietary information, but I'd like some proof from you that you've ever used 100mb at once, since you're the one making the outrageous claim. edit: I'd also like to point out, because it's painfully obvious that you fundamentally unfamiliar with the telco world, you dont need to be some sort of VP to have access to customer network utilization reports. Typically everyone on the sales and service teams can get at them. They're quite handy. Pauline Kael fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Sure, but we already have a lot more bandwidth available than the existing apps are using. What's next? Real time holography? Maybe, I'm not sure the source technology is there. If there was a demand, we could build networks to suit. I can bring 40gbps to a location, more on ICB. Nobody outside of other ISPs need that. Well a couple big named govt agencies have it, but they're multi-hundred thousand person orgs doing really intensive stuff, not playing at home. Explain to me how your position is substantively different than "64KB of Memory ought to be enough for anyone".
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Xae posted:Explain to me how your position is substantively different than "64KB of Memory ought to be enough for anyone". Because he's not saying "there is no reason to ever expand the service", he's saying "we have a lot of unused service right now so there's no reason to expand it until that gets filled out".
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
Xae posted:Explain to me how your position is substantively different than "64KB of Memory ought to be enough for anyone". "640kb of memory is enough for everyone at present time and our systems are theoretically capable of supporting a terabyte of memory if needed, but no one has shown a need for it yet. Also, installing support for that terabyte of memory costs an incredibly large amount of money, with no benefit to us, so we are holding off on it until there's a use case people will pay for."
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:28
|
|