|
FRINGE posted:Sorry. It was a big-boy enterprise solution. Your 'big boy enterprise solution' sounds like you bought 3mb time warner business class for $59 a month and were mad that you only got 3mb. Did your mean boss make you shut down your quake server? If you knew anything about the ISP business, at least at tier 1, you would know what a SLA is and why overselling bandwidth isn't a good idea, but of course you don't.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
We ranged from a stranglehold where we passed off 256k over aged DSLAMS (to people that had no choice, so LOL at them right?) up to 100M over radio. If you think that overselling is a rare event then that is comical. Funny how you think its "trolling" to call out a lovely industry and its apologists, but not "trolling" to spam threads with distractions and lovely highschool logic arguments over what words mean. Vested interest? Nintendo Kid posted:So you admit you never worked for an ISP, and thus had no idea what actually went on with them. Ok, thanks for showing you were lying before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:We ranged from a stranglehold where we passed off 256k over aged DSLAMS (to people that had no choice, so LOL at them right?) up to 100M over radio. So you worked for some customer of a tier 3, 10 years ago. You're certainly well qualified to comment on recent network investment by tier 1s. Say, I drove a 1976 Buick once, this qualifies me to tell GE what is wrong with their 2014 models! Edit; it sounds like your company ripped off your customers. This is why my enterprise customers avoid tiers 2 and 3 like the plague. You should feel bad that you were a part of that. Pauline Kael fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:
There's nothing sad about pointing out the fact you just revealed you utterly lied in your attempt to assert false authority. You resold another ISP a decade or more ago, and tried to use that to argue you worked fro an actual ISP and thus knew nothing was upgraded or being upgraded now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So you worked for some customer of a tier 3, 10 years ago. You're certainly well qualified to comment on recent network investment by tier 1s. Say, I drove a 1976 Buick once, this qualifies me to tell GE what is wrong with their 2014 models! Youre not one of the usual trio, but I do you feel that the industry deserves to gut the neutrality rules and create privileged tiers, charging both sides of a connection? Nintendo Kid posted:There's nothing sad about pointing out the fact you just revealed you utterly lied in your attempt to assert false authority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:
So once again you're admitting that you lied, repeatedly, about the experience you claimed to have. YOu will continue to be called out on this fact as long as you keep trying it. FRINGE posted:charging both sides of a connection Here's a great example: you're claiming that the only person who should pay for internet access is the customer, the server owners should get it for free. How anti-corporate of you... oh wait that's a massive handout to corporations! Note to sane people: No ISP has proposed any form of double-charging. Only thing that's come up is having large providers switch from using transit networks (which they pay money to) to directly interfacing with ISPs (which would cost money as well). Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So once again you're admitting that you lied, repeatedly, about the experience you claimed to have. YOu will continue to be called out on this fact as long as you keep trying it. Fishmech, addressing Fishmech: "So once again you're admitting that you lied, repeatedly" And so here you are lying again. This kind of repetitive projection is not a good sign. It has spanned years and many topics. It is predictable. It is a sign that you need some manner of legitimate psychological aid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:No one is doing that except you, because it is a lie. Which makes sense since you have some long-standing mental problem where you post at yourself as if it were someone else. You are lying about your experience and proving repeatedly that you do not comprehend any aspect of internet service. Stop crying about how facts are mean to you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:No one is doing that except you, because it is a lie. Which makes sense since you have some long-standing mental problem where you post at yourself as if it were someone else. This post would be better if you posted a bunch of unrelated articles you googled and highlighted passages at random in order to construct an "argument" or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You are lying about your experience In your strange world "working for an ISP" is some badge of honor that someone would create to feel important. In reality it is a job that I (and several of my ex-coworkers) would never return to. It is a corrupt industry full of incompetent layers of management that pocket a lot of money while doing as little as possible to improve the product. Are you housebound? Do you have a job?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I left there two years ago, and we purchased a range of DS3s and GB fiber connections from Level 3, ATT, and Verizon in the area I covered. I've seen both sides of the net neutrality debate, and I get what both sides say. working for a major network provider, we sell Class of Service as a chargeable item on private networks - you want your voice and video (or latency sensitive legacy mainframe) traffic to get priority through the edge and core? sure, that'll be an extra 10% monthly cost, and you can only dedicate a portion of your traffic for that. That's nothing mysterious, and shouldn't be any more controversial than buying the express pass at Disney so your kids don't have to stand in line as long On the other hand, as a consumer, one who has been using the network since my bitnet account on dedicated 56k at the University in the 80s, not allowing unfettered access *will* stifle innovation. I honestly have no idea how this will play out. Money talks, and the telcos/major ISPs have a lot of it, so the rules will probably continue to be in their favor. Some ISP can try to build out a tier 1 network and promise to be 100% neutral, but that really wont give them an advantage in the market, unless people feel strongly enough to vote with their wallets. I'm also not sure how you make it 100% fair in any event. A content or application company that can afford colo or hosting and multiple tier 1 connections, geographically dispersed, will always have better response that rinky dink contentco operating over a tier 2 connection from their mom's basement. I know on our backbone, outside of traffic we're carrying between nodes to and from *our* end customers, all traffic is passed in the order in which it came. Private IP networks that pay for QoS will get theirs passed with priority though. I don't think anyone is talking about changing it for Private networks, but the line between Private and Public IP isn't some magnificent thing, it's route reflectors in the core.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:No matter how many times you repeat your lies Fishmech, it does not change things. You explicitly tried to claim you know how ISPs worked and are operating now because you "worked for an ISP" alongside the lies of how you thought ISPs worked. The fact that you have never worked for an ISP is extremely relevant especially in combination with the fact that nothing else you said was backed up by evidence. So stop posting about things you know nothing about and then those "horrible shills who are following me"* won't "harass"** you by posting how you're full of poo poo. * Not following you or shills ** Just explaining you're wrong. Heads up friend, the "double charging" he's talking about is ISPs being paid instead of transit networks when providers sign direct connection agreements, or ISPs rightfully charging data center hosting/power/maintence fees for in-network caches and similar services.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:On the other hand, as a consumer, one who has been using the network since my bitnet account on dedicated 56k at the University in the 80s, not allowing unfettered access *will* stifle innovation. I honestly have no idea how this will play out. Money talks, and the telcos/major ISPs have a lot of it, so the rules will probably continue to be in their favor. Some ISP can try to build out a tier 1 network and promise to be 100% neutral, but that really wont give them an advantage in the market, unless people feel strongly enough to vote with their wallets. I'm also not sure how you make it 100% fair in any event. A content or application company that can afford colo or hosting and multiple tier 1 connections, geographically dispersed, will always have better response that rinky dink contentco operating over a tier 2 connection from their mom's basement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You explicitly tried to claim you know how ISPs worked and are operating now because you "worked for an ISP" alongside the lies of how you thought ISPs worked. The fact that you have never worked for an ISP is extremely relevant especially in combination with the fact that nothing else you said was backed up by evidence. Here: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/choose-therapist.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You explicitly tried to claim you know how ISPs worked and are operating now because you "worked for an ISP" alongside the lies of how you thought ISPs worked. The fact that you have never worked for an ISP is extremely relevant especially in combination with the fact that nothing else you said was backed up by evidence. Ha, ok, never mind then. Yeah, ISPs are going to charge to 'provide service to the internet' where service can mean something beyond the strict physical connection. I should have known better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Of course, but at the lease those kinds of differences will not create financial blockades against the proverbial news-blogger or app-startup. Wall Street HFT pirates will continue to pay for geographical advantages, and Silicon Valley giants will buy/build the advantages they want, but no one else gets shut down. I still haven't really seen anyone show me where a lack of net neutrality has caused harm. Actual, quantifiable harm, not ....my bytes!... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:I still haven't really seen anyone show me where a lack of net neutrality has caused harm. Actual, quantifiable harm, not
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I dont even want to keep kicking you. You've still yet to post anything accurate with regards to ISPs over the past few pages. When are you going to come to your senses and start posting any single thing which is true and relevant? Pauline Kael posted:Ha, ok, never mind then. Yeah, ISPs are going to charge to 'provide service to the internet' where service can mean something beyond the strict physical connection. I should have known better. Yeah it's a phraseology that's been going around because some lovely tech reporters read about things like Netflix paying for direct connection, and thinking that it somehow meant Netflix was still paying for the same data to go over cogent and level 3 to comcast and separately through the direct connection. So a whole bunch of people who don't understand anything about ISPs think they're all trying to get extra money that the company serving wouldn't otherwise pay. It's what sealed it for me to prove that FRINGE in particular has never worked for an ISP, they would otherwise know what ISPs actually do in these circumstances. FRINGE posted:It has not yet AFAIK. People are arguing that it will if they are allowed to kill it. Net neutrality has had no legal enforcement at all for all but a few months of the past 20 years, why hasn't it happened?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's what sealed it for me to prove that FRINGE in particular has never worked for an ISP So Fishmech, aside from lying and screaming on the internet - do you have a job? Are you on substantial medications? Can you leave your place of residence?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Which is solid proof that your posting has been based on some form of illness that leads to self-confirming delusions for a long time. There's nothing delusional about pointing out the fact you're full of poo poo, and use the phraseology of other people who are full of poo poo on a topic. It's just like when people start talking about the laffer curve as an actual policy proposal - you know they're colossally uninformed just as someone who talks about "double charging by ISPs".
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
I'm paying $55 a month for 6/1 but the actual speed is more like 5/0.5. This is two blocks from a university with great internet but no one wants to extend it over here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:That's nothing mysterious, and shouldn't be any more controversial than buying the express pass at Disney so your kids don't have to stand in line as long This isn't a good analogy, though; internet is far more important to people than going on a ride in Disneyland (and giving priority to some people inherently has a negative impact on others who don't receive that same priority). And having good/equal bandwidth can be vital if you're a business (as you seem to mention). I don't really see a downside to encoding into law a set of net neutrality standards. In the worst case scenario it just wasn't necessary, and in the best it prevents a lot of pretty serious problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:AT&T is spending around $20 billion a year in the US on network upgrades and has been for the last 6+ years! I don't know the spend for VZ but I bet it's not far from that. How much would they have to spend in order for you to agree that they are, in fact, investing in network? Is therea number or do you just have a feeling? Yeah, and AT&T still pulls $30b of operating income after that expense, so whoopty-loving-doo I guess? It would be just as easy to nationalize them and invest the full $50b, or lower prices/raise salaries/whatever with that money instead of lining shareholder pockets e: If we're going to be a bit more technical, AT&T had a bit over $21b of cash capex expenses in 2013 and FCF of about $4b. Add back another $9.7b in dividends and $13b in stock repurchases that are irrelevant for a state-owned company, and that could have been just shy of $48b of cash capital investments. The only people who would be impacted negatively are shareholders - all of this is possible without raising prices, cutting salaries, etc. e2: Last edit I promise, but jesus loving christ, how disingenuous do you have to be to applaud a utility that's handing out more cash to shareholders than it is investing in infrastructure? How in the world can anyone claim that this is the best model to serve the public good? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Yeah, and AT&T still pulls $30b of operating income after that expense, so whoopty-loving-doo I guess? It would be just as easy to nationalize them and invest the full $50b, or lower prices/raise salaries/whatever with that money instead of lining shareholder pockets Why did AT&T invest 21b in 2013 rather than 25b or 15b? That would probably be a better way to start getting technical.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Why did AT&T invest 21b in 2013 rather than 25b or 15b? That would probably be a better way to start getting technical. Because their executive team and analysts decided that this was the appropriate amount to maximize profits going forward, what answer were you expecting exactly? Getting utilities under public control means that these decisions become a matter of maximizing public good for the resources spent rather than profits. If $21b is in fact the appropriate amount of investment under those criteria, wonderful, the utility can cut prices substantially - $22.6b of shareholder distributions indicate that a state-owned AT&T could cut prices 17.5% and maintain the same level of service and investment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:
No one said anything about "best model", it was to refute the claim that ISPs are raising rates and not doing anything about service.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 21:55
|
|
computer parts posted:No one said anything about "best model", it was to refute the claim that ISPs are raising rates and not doing anything about service. Do you understand how to not take things 100% literally? AreWeDrunkYet posted:Because their executive team and analysts decided that this was the appropriate amount to maximize profits going forward, what answer were you expecting exactly? Getting utilities under public control means that these decisions become a matter of maximizing public good for the resources spent rather than profits. If $21b is in fact the appropriate amount of investment under those criteria, wonderful, the utility can cut prices substantially - $22.6b of shareholder distributions indicate that a state-owned AT&T could cut prices 17.5% and maintain the same level of service and investment.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Do you understand how to not take things 100% literally? Are you going to say I hate black people again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 22:04
|
|
computer parts posted:Are you going to say I hate black people again? No I'm going to say you are a very dumb poster Like, incapable of understanding what people are saying Pretty sad imo http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3639456&userid=170322 Straight shillin
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:I still haven't really seen anyone show me where a lack of net neutrality has caused harm. Actual, quantifiable harm, not Netflix has to pay ISPs to do their loving job. I would call that harm to Netflix. Of course Comcast Xfinity doesn't have to pay Comcast ISP for the same privilege. Since the cost to Netflix will be passed to consumers this means that Netflix is getting more expensive and people are being guided/coerced to Xfinity (which also doesn't count against your monthly 250GB Cap). Reducing competition is a bad thing. Also in ISP news: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/06/verizon-bungled-attempts-to-get-fiber-in-nyc-buildings-landlords-say/ TL;DR Verizon is trying to back out of their commitments. And is probably bullshitting the numbers that show them failing to show them as failing by less than the amount they are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Xae posted:Netflix has to pay ISPs to do their loving job. I would call that harm to Netflix. The job Netflix created for them by stopping the use of transit providers to access their networks and instead doing direct access. Xae posted:Xfinity (which also doesn't count against your monthly 250GB Cap). In most Comcast territory the cap only exists on paper, in the rest real world customer experience has shown that they got traffic to the comcast service counted the same as other traffic (this is mostly Tennessee systems, IIRC).
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No one said anything about "best model", it was to refute the claim that ISPs are raising rates and not doing anything about service. You're right, "not doing anything" (if anyone actually said that) is hyperbolic. If you prefer, how about "pocketing more money than they are investing, all the while bathing themselves in self-congratulatory praise and lobbying for additional public largess"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You're right, "not doing anything" (if anyone actually said that) is hyperbolic. If you prefer, how about "pocketing more money than they are investing, all the while bathing themselves in self-congratulatory praise and lobbying for additional public largess"? So you mean "every corporation ever"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So you mean "every corporation ever"? Which is why utilities should be nationalized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Let's try to keep things civil
Xandu fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Which is why utilities should be nationalized. Thanks for your realistic and practical suggestion. Maybe once they are nationalized we'll all get exabyte fiber to the desktop for free. I mean everything is free in Venezuela now, right? Can anyone provide data on nationalized telcos that's aren't complete poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
There aren't many countries with actual nationalized telecoms these days, because a whole bunch of governments fell for the "privatize this infrastructure we spent decades building up" poo poo in the 80s-2000s. Not even Venezuela is fully nationalized, their government run telecom company was privatized in 1991, re-nationalized in 2007, but in the mean time had had a lot of other companies spring up that are still around and had major parts spun off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Thanks for your realistic and practical suggestion. Maybe once they are nationalized we'll all get exabyte fiber to the desktop for free. I mean everything is free in Venezuela now, right? Can anyone provide data on nationalized telcos that's aren't complete poo poo? Thanks for engaging with the posts that break down how AT&T could more than double its supposedly impressive capex (or lower prices 17.5% if you prefer) were it not handing out cash hand over first to private shareholders and instead just tossing out non-sequitors about developing countries?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Thanks for engaging with the posts that break down how AT&T could more than double its supposedly impressive capex (or lower prices 17.5% if you prefer) were it not handing out cash hand over first to private shareholders and instead just tossing out non-sequitors about developing countries? Like, you realize that the telcom companies in any given country you'd praise as having a better internet service market than the US spend similar proportions and keep similar proportions for profit right? AT&T is doing nothing unusual for telecom companies the world around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Thanks for engaging with the posts that break down how AT&T could more than double its supposedly impressive capex (or lower prices 17.5% if you prefer) were it not handing out cash hand over first to private shareholders and instead just tossing out non-sequitors about developing countries? Actually AT&T lowered it's mobility pricing by almost 40% this year for most popular plans. And when you say 'supposedly' impressive capex, would you care to provide a corporation that spends more on capex, in a manor you find acceptable? No doubt captains of industry and government are waiting for your stamp of approval!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:45
|
|