|
Pauline Kael posted:Again, I'd be a lot more concerned if people were taxing the connections they have. It's impossible to "tax the connection" by the definition you've given. If you saturated your residential internet connection 24/7 the data caps kick in about 25% of the way through a billing period. Are there times when residential users push their connection to 100% utilization of available bandwidth? Absolutely! The cable company just makes it clear that they're not allowed to fully utilize the connections in the way you're describing. Cord-cutters typically average 212gb of data usage per month, by the way. Yeah, there's a lot of grandmas who just check their email once a week that drag the "average user" down, but it's certainly possible to burn through a lot of data with "normal" usage patterns. That trend is only going to continue to accelerate over time. Multiple user households can easily run into the limits set by the cable company, which are ostensibly set because of the limited capacity of the network. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Jun 3, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Cord-cutters typically average 212gb of data usage per month, by the way. Yeah, there's a lot of grandmas who just check their email once a week, but it's certainly possible to burn through a lot of data with "normal" usage patterns. That trend is only going to continue to accelerate over time. That poo poo sure as hell can't be done on a throttled 5Mb connection. Plus, the digital futures of Steam, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will ask for hefty downloads of their 4+ gigabyte games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Cord-cutters typically average 212gb of data usage per month, by the way. Yeah, there's a lot of grandmas who just check their email once a week that drag the "average user" down, but it's certainly possible to burn through a lot of data with "normal" usage patterns. "Cord cutters" there are defined as people in the top 15% of online video usage so that's not exactly "normal" usage. The other thing is that that's an average, the 85th percentile does not use 212GB of data per month.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Capitalism dictates that nothing will change unless it makes financial sense to do so. People are still willing to pay for marginal service over outdated infrastructure because they can't be without their internet. ISPs will do the bare minimum necessary to keep people paying as long as subscriber loss remains at acceptable levels. FCC is not going to "drive" any initiative not in the best interest of their board members. Ideally we need an ambitious politician to a push nationwide communications infrastructure initiative through a federal program like the American Infrastructure Fund http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/2014/01/27/the-senates-latest-twist-the-american-infrastructure-fund/ Federal money should be made available for local governments to implement their own fiber rollouts. The initiative can start with major metropolitan areas and work its way out into more rural areas as time goes on. Local governments then have more oversight into who charges what for how much speed/data/etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:"Cord cutters" there are defined as people in the top 15% of online video usage so that's not exactly "normal" usage. They are also becoming more common. Hell, my 70 year old uncle has ditched his Platinum+ cable TV package for basic and Netflix. I know very few people in the under 30 crowd who pay for anything more than basic cable, if that. That is part of the problem though. If the AT&T/DirectTV merger goes through every single major Internet provider will also be a Media (Cable/Satellite) provider. It will be in their best interest to keep internet connections lovely so they can stop people from cord cutting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:"Cord cutters" there are defined as people in the top 15% of online video usage so that's not exactly "normal" usage. And fit well under even what I would consider a draconian 250gb per month cap like Comcast has
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:And fit well under even what I would consider a draconian 250gb per month cap like Comcast has This will get very interesting when 4K becomes the new standard in 5 years or so
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Xae posted:They are also becoming more common. Again though you missed the point. "Cord cutters" are being defined as "people who use online video a lot" instead of "people who don't use cable". It's perfectly possible to have cable and use online video a lot (my household, now) and perfectly possible to not have cable and not have a large online video presence (basically lots of old people). The other thing is again is that it's an average that's being reported, not an actual percentile. If it was a strictly linear increase in data you would expect the average to be the midpoint between the 85th percentile and the (effectively) 100th percentile - the 92.5th percentile, in other words. The way data usage is actually distributed, it's much more likely that that average is skewed to an even higher percentile. To put another way - what's the internet usage of the 85th percentile?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again though you missed the point. "Cord cutters" are being defined as "people who use online video a lot" instead of "people who don't use cable". Everywhere else in the world "cord cutting" means canceling/reducing Cable/Satellite subscriptions and relying on Streaming Video services.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
lunatikfringe posted:People are still willing to pay for marginal service over outdated infrastructure because they can't be without their internet. Nope. As I posted above, per FCC studies on this topic, availability of high speed Internet outstrips adoption and lack of adoption is primarily due to lack of interest and secondarily due to inability to take advantage (digital literacy concerns), not cost considerations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
lunatikfringe posted:Capitalism dictates that nothing will change unless it makes financial sense to do so. People are still willing to pay for marginal service over outdated infrastructure because they can't be without their internet. ISPs will do the bare minimum necessary to keep people paying as long as subscriber loss remains at acceptable levels. FCC is not going to "drive" any initiative not in the best interest of their board members. We've found in customer surveys that people are actually much more concerned with cellular data speeds than with their home broadband performance. There's been a trend towards tablets as media consumption devices. They'll never fully displace TVs, but anecdotally I know we get more complaints (by a huge margin) about cellular data performance than about DSL/ftth performance because people spend more time with their smart phone and tablet than with their TV and desktop pc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:No poo poo people buy the least expensive tier, it's loving pricey and the company you work for makes it living hell to get anything done so people loving hate them. Why would I pay $89.99 for Comcast's top tier when A. I won't even get the advertised speed, B. my reliability will still be subpar which is honestly all that matters and C. the company is run by a bunch of rich assholes who can't even stop sending me marketing materials when IM ALREADY A CUSTOMER. Did Comcast murder your parents in Crime Alley or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:44
|
|
Slanderer posted:Did Comcast murder your parents in Crime Alley or something? No I'm just not a little pussy who takes corporate america's past 30 years of vampirism lightly. You should be angry. Americans are paying these plutocrats (as in the executive salaries) tens of millions of dollars to provide subpar service. It's ridiculous.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:No I'm just not a little pussy who takes corporate america's past 30 years of vampirism lightly. You should be angry. Oh, ok that's a really well thought out and reasoned argument about the specific details of US broadband infrastructure and oh wait nevermind this isn't LF.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:52
|
|
Slanderer posted:Oh, ok that's a really well thought out and reasoned argument about the specific details of US broadband infrastructure and oh wait nevermind this isn't LF. I'm not some kind of robot who insists on seperating ethos and logos. An argument is composed of many elements, and I've provided plenty of support for my arguments. Forgive me for not being cordial towards a guy who's sitting here with the express intent of defending the status quo from criticisms he feels are inaccurate while ignoring the giant elephant in the room. Not everything is up for "reasonable and polite debate", some things are just hosed up and worth pointing out.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I'm not some kind of robot who insists on seperating ethos and logos. An argument is composed of many elements, and I've provided plenty of support for my arguments. Forgive me for not being cordial towards a guy who's sitting here with the express intent of defending the status quo from criticisms he feels are inaccurate while ignoring the giant elephant in the room. Well informed, you're not. Sorry about your parents in crime alley, it must be horrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I'm not some kind of robot who insists on seperating ethos and logos. An argument is composed of many elements, and I've provided plenty of support for my arguments. Forgive me for not being cordial towards a guy who's sitting here with the express intent of defending the status quo from criticisms he feels are inaccurate while ignoring the giant elephant in the room. Haha yeah, who needs facts or logic when you're really loving mad that we don't have Full Socialism Now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:00
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Well informed, you're not. Sorry about your parents in crime alley, it must be horrible. Haha yes, very compelling counter-argument. "Well informed, you're not". You know as well as I do that the US could do way better when it comes to our infrastructure, we don't need more industry shills, sorry bud. Slanderer posted:Haha yeah, who needs facts or logic when you're really loving mad that we don't have Full Socialism Now. I already gave you the facts. We're paying executives tens of millions of dollars to provide sub-par service under the guise of competition. This is bullshit, as has already been demonstrated in the thread multiple times. Awesome strawman though! It's not about socialism, it's about recognizing our communication networks as a common good and treating them like one. Same story with Healthcare. Sorry that the answer is easy (kick the profit out of the industry) and it frustrates you that there isn't a more nuanced answer, but such is life when we've allowed private industry to get such a hold on the market. Feel free to continue writing paragraphs about irrelevant technical details and determining whether or not our internet is "terrible", definitely a much more productive and informative line of discussion. Who wants to make things better anyways? down with slavery fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Haha yes, very compelling counter-argument. "Well informed, you're not". "Irrelevant technical details" like "bandwidth isn't free" and "that 1gb you think you're getting, it's actually more like 50mb of actual usable internet bandwidth" Yeah really what bearing does that have on this discussion, we should be more focused on executives because I'm 100% angry 100% of the time about executives!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Haha yeah, who needs facts or logic when you're really loving mad that we don't have Full Socialism Now. I'm starting to think that Internet Socialist is the new Internet Libertarian. Problem with Society? You just need
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Haha yeah, who needs facts or logic when you're really loving mad that we don't have Full Socialism Now. We already do though? The government gave a ton of money to telecoms to upgrade infrastructure and they just pocketed it. I always love the final line of 'OMG SOCIALISM' when in fact we're already loving socialist as hell. Socialize loses and capitalize profits! It's just that it goes to the rich that's all. Embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:12
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:"Irrelevant technical details" like "bandwidth isn't free" and "that 1gb you think you're getting, it's actually more like 50mb of actual usable internet bandwidth" Yes, neither of these are relevant as to why the US's communication networks are not state of the art. Yes, there is a cost. No, it's not prohibitive (unless you're a publically traded corporation that is bound by law to maximize profits for your shareholders) quote:Yeah really what bearing does that have on this discussion, we should be more focused on executives because I'm 100% angry 100% of the time about executives! We should be focused on removing the profit motive from building our communication infrastructure. If you're so concerned about the cost, I direct you to the executive's wealth. We can afford it, it should be done. There's no good reason not to. gently caress big telco. Xae posted:Problem with Society? You just need Congratulations on lifting your talking points from the Anti-Obamacare push!
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:We already do though? The government gave a ton of money to telecoms to upgrade infrastructure and they just pocketed it. I always love the final line of 'OMG SOCIALISM' when in fact we're already loving socialist as hell. Socialize loses and capitalize profits! It's just that it goes to the rich that's all. Embarrassing. What telecom losses have been socialized?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Nope. As I posted above, per FCC studies on this topic, availability of high speed Internet outstrips adoption and lack of adoption is primarily due to lack of interest and secondarily due to inability to take advantage (digital literacy concerns), not cost considerations. Pauline Kael posted:We've found in customer surveys that people are actually much more concerned with cellular data speeds than with their home broadband performance. There's been a trend towards tablets as media consumption devices. They'll never fully displace TVs, but anecdotally I know we get more complaints (by a huge margin) about cellular data performance than about DSL/ftth performance because people spend more time with their smart phone and tablet than with their TV and desktop pc. Again ISPs have carefully crafted their industry to be able to provide the bare minimum just to keep enough people happy. Copper wire that maxed out at 30mbps 10 years ago is somehow pushing upward of 100mbps now. ISPs will innovate when necessary, but there is no incentive there to give you any more than the majority is currently asking for. We as a people have not pressured our government to change this mindset. Yet other countries do not give corporations this power and are now surpassing US infrastructure capabilities by leaps and bounds. Case in point. Singapore, a small densely populated country of 8+ million, pushed fiber directly to the home regardless if the population wanted it or not. They know that having faster infrastructure breeds innovation and spurs commerce. Their infrastructure is the fastest in the world per capita and they are a popular destination for tech companies to set up shop with state of the art datacenters. Forward thinking vs ISP "capitalism" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
lunatikfringe posted:Again ISPs have carefully crafted their industry to be able to provide the bare minimum just to keep enough people happy. Apparently not because a lot of people have access to 10Mbit internet but use slower speeds instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:We already do though? The government gave a ton of money to telecoms to upgrade infrastructure and they just pocketed it. I always love the final line of 'OMG SOCIALISM' when in fact we're already loving socialist as hell. Socialize loses and capitalize profits! It's just that it goes to the rich that's all. Embarrassing. The funding was for broadband as defined in like 1995 or 1996 (I forget), which was basically ADSL speeds, and they came through on this. I would have to dig up the actual source from the lovely Net Neutrality threa...
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:29
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:What telecom losses have been socialized? The entire failing of the economic model that led to these megacorps existing was socialized via TARP and other bailout programs. The people who own Comcast (the big shareholders) are the same people who are big shareholders for the other huge multinationals. When their "investment" models went tits up and the banks who fund these corps failed, who stepped up to bail them out? The US Government ie the citizens. And now we're still stuck with the same poo poo sandwich. Smoothed over that "bump" that was the financial collapse of 2008 and the fat cats at the top are back to raking in billions in profits while we continue to be provided with subpar service. The only answer is to cut the parasite that is private industry out of the market for common goods. There's no reason to have them there, and it really is as simple as that.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
lunatikfringe posted:Again ISPs have carefully crafted their industry to be able to provide the bare minimum just to keep enough people happy. Copper wire that maxed out at 30mbps 10 years ago is somehow pushing upward of 100mbps now. ISPs will innovate when necessary, but there is no incentive there to give you any more than the majority is currently asking for. We as a people have not pressured our government to change this mindset. Yet other countries do not give corporations this power and are now surpassing US infrastructure capabilities by leaps and bounds. Define for me what countries are surpassing the US's IT infrastructure by leaps and bounds, and define leaps and bounds, please. Define how 1gb to each home provides a quantifiable benefit over 100mb, or hell, even 20mb, to anyone other than 1% of the heaviest users.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:31
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Define for me what countries are surpassing the US's IT infrastructure by leaps and bounds, and define leaps and bounds, please. Define how 1gb to each home provides a quantifiable benefit over 100mb, or hell, even 20mb, to anyone other than 1% of the heaviest users. Tell me why it matters.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:The entire failing of the economic model that led to these megacorps existing was socialized via TARP and other bailout programs. The people who own Comcast (the big shareholders) are the same people who are big shareholders for the other huge multinationals. When their "investment" models went tits up and the banks who fund these corps failed, who stepped up to bail them out? The US Government ie the citizens. And now we're still stuck with the same poo poo sandwich. Smoothed over that "bump" that was the financial collapse of 2008 and the fat cats at the top are back to raking in billions in profits while we continue to be provided with subpar service. OK sorry have to call bullshit on this. Show me where TARP money went to big telcos. Go on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Tell me why it matters. You and your ilk are the ones asserting that it's a national tragedy that it costs $10 more a month to get 50mb than 25, and that somehow this is the lynchpin holding back our economy, while other nations with higher advertised bandwidth tiers are surpassing us by leaps and bounds. It should be pretty simple for you to prove me wrong here, just pick a country or two with these fantastic 1gb to the home offers, and show me how much they've grown as a result of that. edit; growth that can be linked, even a little bit, to the faster home internet access. China growing because they ship millions of flat panel TVs to the US has nothing to do with the availability of high bandwidth to the home Pauline Kael fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
lunatikfringe posted:Case in point. Singapore, a small densely populated country of 8+ million, pushed fiber directly to the home regardless if the population wanted it or not. They know that having faster infrastructure breeds innovation and spurs commerce. Their infrastructure is the fastest in the world per capita and they are a popular destination for tech companies to set up shop with state of the art datacenters. Forward thinking vs ISP "capitalism" As discussed earlier in the thread, poo poo like this requires context. What was the consumer internet infrastructure like in Singapore before the fiber roll out? When you're doing all new development, fiber is cheaper (or comparable) to anything else, which is why goddamn North Dakota has gigabit. If you already have a huge cable infrastructure that you've sunk money into for the past 15 years, it makes no sense to tear all that out for fiber without an actual consumer need at this point. Sure it's newer and better, but it would be stupid to make the upgrade years before it is actually needed in most places.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:35
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:OK sorry have to call bullshit on this. Show me where TARP money went to big telcos. Go on. I already told you, it went to the large institutional investors who own Comcast, Time Warner, etc. TARP bailed them out so they wouldn't have to liquidate their stock(in order to raise capital) in companies like Comcast, which would have led to a devaluation as the market adjusted. The entire point of the bailout was to ensure that this didn't happen. End result: The rich have gotten richer, the poor continue to get poorer. Comcast profits go up, our networks continue to become less and less competitive while other states/organizations pursue different models (public munis, other countries, etc) because they've realized what you haven't. The problem is big telco. Pauline Kael posted:You and your ilk are the ones asserting that it's a national tragedy that it costs $10 more a month to get 50mb than 25, and that somehow this is the lynchpin holding back our economy, while other nations with higher advertised bandwidth tiers are surpassing us by leaps and bounds. What a beautiful strawman you've crafted. I'll take "some things I've never said" for $1000 Pauline. I'll let you ask your question again once you've actually read my posts.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:36
|
|
Slanderer posted:When you're doing all new development, fiber is cheaper (or comparable) to anything else, which is why goddamn North Dakota has gigabit. If you already have a huge cable infrastructure that you've sunk money into for the past 15 years, it makes no sense to tear all that out for fiber without an actual consumer need at this point. Yeah, that's probably why Google's roll-out of fiber has been met with low interest and nobody wanting it, because there's no consumer demand. How can you say this poo poo with a straight face? Take look at reality once in a while maybe?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I already told you, it went to the large institutional investors who own Comcast, Time Warner, etc. TARP bailed them out so they wouldn't have to liquidate their stock(in order to raise capital) in companies like Comcast, which would have led to a devaluation as the market adjusted. The entire point of the bailout was to ensure that this didn't happen. End result: The rich have gotten richer, the poor continue to get poorer. Comcast profits go up, our networks continue to become less and less competitive while other states/organizations pursue different models (public munis, other countries, etc) because they've realized what you haven't. The problem is big telco. So, let me get this straight: bailout money -> wall-street fatcats -> BIG BUSINESS -> any company ever So, because Capitalism, every company is culpable for the injustice of the system and you don't need to make any specific argument about any specific issue. You're a moron.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Yeah, that's probably why Google's roll-out of fiber has been met with low interest and nobody wanting it, because there's no consumer demand. How can you say this poo poo with a straight face? Take look at reality once in a while maybe? What does Google Fiber's demand actually look like? Please don't point to actions of other ISPs, I mean how many people are actually switching to it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I already told you, it went to the large institutional investors who own Comcast, Time Warner, etc. TARP bailed them out so they wouldn't have to liquidate their stock(in order to raise capital) in companies like Comcast, which would have led to a devaluation as the market adjusted. The entire point of the bailout was to ensure that this didn't happen. End result: The rich have gotten richer, the poor continue to get poorer. Comcast profits go up, our networks continue to become less and less competitive while other states/organizations pursue different models (public munis, other countries, etc) because they've realized what you haven't. The problem is big telco. I know you *said* that TARP payments went to telcos, but you've provided zero evidence except for some accusations of a shadowy international cabal and chemtrails something something, but rage isn't a substitute for facts. Keep trying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Did any of the major telcos wind up taking the ARRA broadband stimulus money? I recall there being some language about net neutrality that they didn't like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
lunatikfringe posted:Again ISPs have carefully crafted their industry to be able to provide the bare minimum just to keep enough people happy. 2012. 90% had 10 mb or greater downlink available. 28% had bought it. The most common reason given for why someone chooses not to get service? "Not relevant/desired." Some more FCC data to shut up people arguing their anecdotes: 2012, ISPs averaged 96 percent advertised speed during evening peak time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:3rd #4, you're referring to cellular data? What do you think is a fair price? Is there a margin that the telco should reasonably expect to earn from it's investment, or should it all be done at cost? Just out of curiosity, what would the pricing on cellular data be like if it were at or close to cost? I've always had the assumption that charging $30 a month for a measly 5GB of data would result in huge margins, considering that they used to offer unlimited plans. Is that a correct or incorrect assumption?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:48
|
|
