|
Well if anyone knows a way to compress web traffic let me know because right now I have images disabled on most sites. edit: Also I forgot to mention that the upload cap is far worse but I don't have the numbers right now. edit:  The "Fiber" stuff makes me laugh because I could get those speeds with Time Warner without fiber. I get the impression that they're not really giving you fiber but just higher speeds through the cable line. Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Jun 4, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Well if anyone knows a way to compress web traffic let me know because right now I have images disabled on most sites. That chart is awful, I am sorry you're having to endure that. Most of the cablecos are doing fiber to the neighborhood or fiber to the pole, then coax the rest of the way. Do they charge you extra for fiber in your scenario? Unfortunately the best place to compress web traffic is at the core, or provider edge, not at the end user location.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Well if anyone knows a way to compress web traffic let me know because right now I have images disabled on most sites. Not really, you need the data first in order to compress it, unless the target location you're connecting to supports doing it at their end (which they never will for basic websites, short of a return to the days when there were 28.8/56k versions of websites). This pretty much only happens with streaming video data at this time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
I've heard that some VPNS can do this but that information was spotty at best and my guess is the compression wouldn't help much anyway since pictures/video are already significantly compressed to a certain degree so it would end up just being text compression. I like the idea of blocking images in general but so far none of the addons I've found will allow me to whitelist which pages I want to show images. IE: blocking everything but SomethingAwful/imgur. The only things I've done so far (which I always did) was use Adblock Plus and Noscript. It would also be sweet if you could block images that are over a certain size. I think I'm going to get an antenna so my wife and I can watch some local programming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:I think I'm going to get an antenna so my wife and I can watch some local programming. This is the best way to do things. The only thing you need that's a bit trickier to find is an impedance-matching transformer (basically an adapter which goes from a coax cable to those two little claw hook things old 70s TV's used), check The Source or similar store in your area, should be something like $5; then you just need a regular coax cable, the rest is literally just wood, screws and copper wire, which should all be readily available at any hardware store. Total cost to build your own is like $15, in my case I got the 6 popular channels in my area and even pick up some U.S. stations on a good day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:I've heard that some VPNS can do this but that information was spotty at best and my guess is the compression wouldn't help much anyway since pictures/video are already significantly compressed to a certain degree so it would end up just being text compression. Check this site out http://www.antennaweb.org/Address.aspx It'll tell you what you can get for over the air HD
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Yeah I was looking into those for a friend who can't afford cable atm (I get the impression a lot of people don't realize there's still free TV) a month ago and saw that my home was in decent range. There are a few good broadcast channel shows we watch and PBS would always be great to have when I have a kid. The kid at the cable company grumbled when I told him I use netflix and the grumbled even louder after I said "Antenna" when he asked me what I did about local channels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
The issue we still seem to be ignoring was when Verizon and Comcast took mountains of cash in benefits to improve infrastructure and then did nothing with it, and now they're starting to hamstring your data limits in order to prevent people from cutting off their cable. They're really going to press this point when 4k becomes the standard because you'll need to sign up for their premium cable packages to watch live content since your bandwidth and datacap won't allow it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:The issue we still seem to be ignoring was when Verizon and Comcast took mountains of cash in benefits to improve infrastructure and then did nothing with it, and now they're starting to hamstring your data limits in order to prevent people from cutting off their cable. I've seen it claimed a number of times that they took mountains of cash and did nothign with it but that seems to be pretty unsupported, incredible amounts of infrastructure have been built in the last 30 years, what are you referring to? You realize that the networks get continually expanded and improved, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:I've seen it claimed a number of times that they took mountains of cash and did nothign with it but that seems to be pretty unsupported, incredible amounts of infrastructure have been built in the last 30 years, what are you referring to? You realize that the networks get continually expanded and improved, right? There's been a meme where everyone thinks that the ISPs were supposed to give Gigabit service to everyone by 1999 but nothing even approaching that was in any of the laws passed on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Just saying if it was me and I was only concerned about my profits/shareholders profits I would pocket every tax cut/incentive I was given if I could get away with it. I'm the loving cable company where else are they going to go? Read a book? Don't make me laugh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:I've seen it claimed a number of times that they took mountains of cash and did nothign with it but that seems to be pretty unsupported, incredible amounts of infrastructure have been built in the last 30 years, what are you referring to? You realize that the networks get continually expanded and improved, right? I'll have to look it up, it was in the early 2000's where (if I remember correctly) they took a shitload of huge tax breaks on the promise that they'd do a massive highspeed push and essentially just pocketed it and continued normal expansion rates because there was no accountability tied to it. Edit: It didn't get much press because we were still arguing about stolen elections, 0 chemical weapons in Iraq, Guantanamo bay, and halliburton cost plus stuff but I'm going on like a 10 year old memory at this point so I could be completely wrong. Gumbel2Gumbel fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Well part of the problem was that the .com bubble burst. I remember reading that one of the few good things that came out of that bubble was that fiber was expanding like crazy due to all the investment. I would assume people were excited to get as many people access to the Internet as possible to expand the growth of those stocks. Once the bubble burst I expect a lot of those incentives were repealed. edit: Also my understanding is that fiber has been around for a long time but it's/was expensive as hell to put down and also very delicate. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
There were a couple tax breaks which people claimed required Verizon to deliver FTTH with certain speeds. The actual deals generally required Verizon to have fiber in position to deliver FTTH, not actual delivery. Verizon fulfilled some and asked the relevant states to withdraw requirements post dotcom crash in other cases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's been a meme where everyone thinks that the ISPs were supposed to give Gigabit service to everyone by 1999 but nothing even approaching that was in any of the laws passed on the matter. "Opportunity new jersey" was a $15b giveaway to Verizon in exchange for the promise of 45gb broadband everywhere in the state by 2010. PA had a similar law, as did New York and some other states.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Well part of the problem was that the .com bubble burst. I remember reading that one of the few good things that came out of that bubble was that fiber was expanding like crazy due to all the investment. I would assume people were excited to get as many people access to the Internet as possible to expand the growth of those stocks. This is a really good point. There was obviously a ton of interest in expanding the reach of broadband, even in the late 90s. Most of what was needed was some kind of 'better than dialup' type offer - nobody that knew anything were talking about what we would consider high speed today. It wasn't just dot coms that burst, it was a lot of telcos as well. I was at WorldCom when they went tits up. it was really ugly. We didn't get any kind of bailout. The issue there was that WCOM had massively overbought and overbuilt - the demand simply wasnt there. That's what I was alluding to earlier in the thread, the days of 'build it and they will come' are OVER. WCOM at the time was the biggest bankruptcy in American history. What ultimately brought WCOM down was bad accounting (lying about balance sheets and such) but that was brought on by the collapse of the telco and ISP markets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Kalman posted:There were a couple tax breaks which people claimed required Verizon to deliver FTTH with certain speeds. The actual deals generally required Verizon to have fiber in position to deliver FTTH, not actual delivery. Verizon fulfilled some and asked the relevant states to withdraw requirements post dotcom crash in other cases. A lot of the suppliers that were most gung ho to be part of these initiatives were dead by the time the dot com boom was over. Hell, Nortel was going to provide broadband to every house via power wires. Too bad Cisco put them so deep in the ground nobody could find the body (bought by Avaya, but still, Nortel was a HUGE company pre-bust, and died because of believing the hype).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Interesting! I didn't know the situation was that nuanced.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:"Opportunity new jersey" was a $15b giveaway to Verizon in exchange for the promise of 45gb broadband everywhere in the state by 2010. PA had a similar law, as did New York and some other states. You need to read up on those laws and what was actually promised. They promise backbone capable of high speed transport by 2010 (was done well before that) and 1.5mb to the home by 2000. 45mb was specifically for high def video, Internet access was not promised. Again, back to the point, VZ is losing money on FiOS customers, because they believed the nerd-hype that once people had access to FiOS, they would go right to the top tier. Almost nobody does. I've seen figures that indicate that they are losing on order of $1000 per customer per year on that platform. It's not a big wonder that they've stopped, for the most part, rolling it out, and instead are focusing on Mobility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:
Fiber costs a fair amount to roll out, but is generally cheaper once it's in. The rule of thumb is that every truck roll costs the telco minimum of $500 (that's the number from 10 years ago when I was closer to that duty) and there are many fewer truck rolls with fiber.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:A lot of the suppliers that were most gung ho to be part of these initiatives were dead by the time the dot com boom was over. Hell, Nortel was going to provide broadband to every house via power wires. Too bad Cisco put them so deep in the ground nobody could find the body (bought by Avaya, but still, Nortel was a HUGE company pre-bust, and died because of believing the hype). Lucent (I.e. the telco portion of Bell Labs) also basically collapsed in that timeframe for much the same reasons (and wound up belonging to Alcatel for the most part, minus some spinoffs - such as Avaya.) The dotcom crash killed a ton of serious telco research labs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:"Opportunity new jersey" was a $15b giveaway to Verizon in exchange for the promise of 45gb broadband everywhere in the state by 2010. PA had a similar law, as did New York and some other states. http://www.nj.gov/bpu/pdf/telecopdfs/City%20of%20Newark.pdf quote:It required the company to transform its “public It sounds like by the letter of the law Verizon had to have the capability to allow 45Mbit internet, but they did not have to offer it. All they had to do was ensure that people can stream HD video and participate in 2-way video chats (ie, Skype), and you can do all of that with a much lower bandwidth connection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's not exactly what I'm finding: Right, but what was promised in the advertising for those deals was high speed internet. That's what people are remembering. And they didn't even meet those requirements in all areas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Lucent (I.e. the telco portion of Bell Labs) also basically collapsed in that timeframe for much the same reasons (and wound up belonging to Alcatel for the most part, minus some spinoffs - such as Avaya.) The dotcom crash killed a ton of serious telco research labs. Yup. Lucent is a special case, maybe local luntic Down With Slavery would be interested because of the finance angle. They financed their own sales to the carriers. This made sense when selling to a baby bell or established IXC like MCI, but not so much when looking at tier 2 and 3 carriers that didn't have legit business plans outside of giving stuff away for free. When those guys started collapsing (company I worked for at the time was the *last* one bought by WCOM before they went bad, and we were weeks away from bankruptcy at the time), they didn't just kill off themselves, but hurt Lucent as well because now Lucent didn't get paid for the gear they sold, and even if they recovered the equipment, it just led to a horrible glut of class 4 and 5 switches.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:Right, but what was promised in the advertising for those deals was high speed internet. That's what people are remembering. Tech journalism is worthless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:Right, but what was promised in the advertising for those deals was high speed internet. That's what people are remembering. 99% of NJ was covered by broadband internet. It just so happens that a fair chunk of it was via 3g/4g cellular, by the deadline. When those things were agreed upon, nobody had any idea how fast cable modems and cellular data would take off. It's like the horse and carriage companies promising one in every driveway 10 years before the mass produced car made it's appearance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:edit: meant also to ask about voice calling. should that be free as well, as in government provided handset, and usage? Well that actually is, up to a certain amount of minutes per month and cutting off at a certain income level. Sephiroth_IRA posted:Is there anything I can do about dl/ul caps? I know our bandwidth could be better but the speed in my area doesn't bother me its the fact that I could go over the 250gb cap just by watching Netflix with my wife everyday after work that pisses me off. Try going over the cap and see if they even do anything. They probably won't. You can also get no caps whatsoever by changing to a "business" internet connection from the same ISP for varying costs more per month, which will be coupled with getting higher priority on tech support. Gumbel2Gumbel posted:The issue we still seem to be ignoring was when Verizon and Comcast took mountains of cash in benefits to improve infrastructure and then did nothing with it, and now they're starting to hamstring your data limits in order to prevent people from cutting off their cable. They didn't do nothing with it, that's why it's being ignored. Also the data caps all came in nearly 5 years ago now when the FCC told ISPs it would no longer be legal to advertise "unlimited" unless they were truly going to provide unlimited and never cut a customer off for using "too much". Gumbel2Gumbel posted:I'll have to look it up, it was in the early 2000's where (if I remember correctly) they took a shitload of huge tax breaks on the promise that they'd do a massive highspeed push and essentially just pocketed it and continued normal expansion rates because there was no accountability tied to it. It was used to build to "high speeds" that were high for the time but are considered slow now, and most of it got used to build out cell networks. The definition of high speed under the grants given meant that 3 megabits down and 768 kilobit up met the qualifications. In all honesty the spending on cell network expansion was a much more important result then giving everyone state-of-the-1999-art connections would have been.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Surprisingly they even have caps for businesses, my guess is they probably charge the suckers per gig after they go past 300-350.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Well if anyone knows a way to compress web traffic let me know because right now I have images disabled on most sites.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Do you think that Internet Access should be 'free' (paid for by taxes) or do you believe there should be a fee associated with it to the end user? Should end users pay by usage? Or should someone who does exabytes of filesharing monthly should pay the same as Joe Sixpack who just uses the Internet for espn.com and email? Yes, no, yes, no, "collective" haha that's a good one 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:I'll have to look it up, it was in the early 2000's where (if I remember correctly) they took a shitload of huge tax breaks on the promise that they'd do a massive highspeed push and essentially just pocketed it and continued normal expansion rates because there was no accountability tied to it. Yeah it was another big tech bubble for the Bay Area since the government handed out piles of money for "broadband" internet, it was right after the famous dotcom bubble.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Is there anything I can do about dl/ul caps? I know our bandwidth could be better but the speed in my area doesn't bother me its the fact that I could go over the 250gb cap just by watching Netflix with my wife everyday after work that pisses me off. Seriously though, I have a 250gb cap and watch Netflix all the time, play online multiplayer games, and torrent most of the shows I watch and I've never once gone over it. The fact that you browse with images off is astounding to me. Do you know much you use in a regular month?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
You filthy pirate. 250 probably wouldn't have bothered me a few months ago because I was the only one in the house downloading large files. After we got Netflix my wife really got into watching it (on her laptop which she just used for email and work stuff before) so that essentially doubled our usage and I knew I was already using quite a bit. I have the impression that I should be OK as long as I'm careful but I wish we could both watch what we want to watch in HD without having to worry about it. Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess with two people both using it that makes it easier, I know I definitely use at least 125g.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:You filthy pirate. You could always drop your HD requirement for what you watch which would reduce your usage by quite a large chunk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
supersnowman posted:You could always drop your HD requirement for what you watch which would reduce your usage by quite a large chunk. 2014, everybody
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Again, back to the point, VZ is losing money on FiOS customers, because they believed the nerd-hype that once people had access to FiOS, they would go right to the top tier. Almost nobody does. I've seen figures that indicate that they are losing on order of $1000 per customer per year on that platform. It's not a big wonder that they've stopped, for the most part, rolling it out, and instead are focusing on Mobility. I wonder how much they're cannabalizing their own broadband revenue with their cable business, since we had three posts just on the last page from goons who looked at broadband prices and went for substitutes. Like cable bundles. I mean obviously that's the entire point if you're looking at it from the cable perspective. But it's pretty rear end-backward to say "Nobody will pay for this service so we can't expand it; also we are the competition to our own service and we offer reasonable prices look over here!" poo poo how is this not anti-trust territory? Is it normal for a company to be its own primary competitor?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I wonder how much they're cannabalizing their own broadband revenue with their cable business, since we had three posts just on the last page from goons who looked at broadband prices and went for substitutes. Like cable bundles. I mean obviously that's the entire point if you're looking at it from the cable perspective. But it's pretty rear end-backward to say "Nobody will pay for this service so we can't expand it; also we are the competition to our own service and we offer reasonable prices look over here!" I don't get it, what's competing with what? Online video versus Cable TV? Typically Verizon wouldn't be the only TV competitor in a market because they're not a cable company.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't get it, what's competing with what? Online video versus Cable TV? I'm not aware of anywhere that vz got a cable franchise where they are the only provider. Cableco fought them tooth and nail every step of the way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:2014, everybody I live in one of the (many) parts of Alabama/Mississippi where the only options for internet faster than dial-up are Satellites. $90 a month for 10 gigs. I had to start browsing somethingawful with images and avatars off because opening a single thread in Games would sometimes eat significant portions of my monthly limit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 18:46
|
|
