|
Pauline Kael posted: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! The company spent $21.2b on cash capex while distributing $22.6b of cash to shareholders in 2013. Were the company not under private ownership, that larger number would be irrelevant, freeing up cash to spend on other things including additonal capex. How many different ways can be explained to you?
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
And yet, most of the other countries that are doing telecom so much better also privatized their government telecom monopolies. While, yes, I agree with the thread consensus that doing so was a mistake (hell, even fishmech agrees with this), their relative success suggests that capitalism is, shockingly, not the only problem here. I suppose that when all you have is a hammer and sickle everything looks like a nail. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:The company spent $21.2b on cash capex while distributing $22.6b of cash to shareholders in 2013. Were the company not under private ownership, that larger number would be irrelevant, freeing up cash to spend on other things including additonal capex. How many different ways can be explained to you? So you're opposed to private ownership of companies. Got it, Trotsky. There aren't many places in the world left that can still be argued with a strait face. Congratulations on not having a realistic view of how real earth humans conduct business, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
No, opposition to private ownership of companies generally is ridiculous. Opposition of private ownership of industries that have inherently monopolistic tendencies and exist to provide access to a public good (like utilities) is not the same thing though, and is actually not an uncommon arrangement in any number of industries in the United Soviet States of America.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:And yet, most of the other countries that are doing telecom so much better also privatized their government telecom monopolies. While, yes, I agree with the thread consensus that doing so was a mistake (hell, even fishmech agrees with this), their relative success suggests that capitalism is, shockingly, not the only problem here. Most of them aren't doing much better to begin with, is the thing. Some areas, Europe in particular, have an epidemic of companies vastly overpromising speeds in their advertising and not even coming close to matching the promises in actual service, AreWeDrunkYet posted:No, opposition to private ownership of companies generally is ridiculous. Opposition of private ownership of industries that have inherently monopolistic tendencies and exist to provide access to a public good (like utilities) is not the same thing though, and is actually not an uncommon arrangement in any number of industries in the United Soviet States of America. On the other hand, telecommunications have almost never been nationalized in the US, with the possible exception of certain telegraph services during I think the Civil War and nationialization of telegraph and telephone from 1918 to 1919 for WWI. Data networks also never were. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
A guy at a Verizon store once explained to me that the reason prices are so high and deals so lovely is because there's too much competition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
i am harry posted:A guy at a Verizon store once explained to me that the reason prices are so high and deals so lovely is because there's too much competition. Well, I'm convinced.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Now if we just had the one guy the deals would be great since they'd have so much business!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
I'm still really mad that Big Broadband hasn't spent a dime on infrastructure since 1980. *places phone on acoustic coupler, dial into BBS, chats about star trek*
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
i am harry posted:A guy at a Verizon store once explained to me that the reason prices are so high and deals so lovely is because there's too much competition. Theres no reason to let the bottom feeders survive in the market when their next victim may be the proverbial grandmother or undereducated worker barely getting by. When you find one try and remove them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:I'm still really mad that Big Broadband hasn't spent a dime on infrastructure since 1980. How quickly people forget Big Broadband brought us the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:*places phone on acoustic coupler, dial into BBS, chats about star trek*
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:that's not infrastructure :loller: Right because the modem dialed in over magik air and connected to unicorn veins
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Hey everyone who thinks that all of our farmland is why broadband suck so bad in the US, why is it that most major metropolitan areas (high population density) also have lovely and expensive broadband service compared to most other countries?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Hey everyone who thinks that all of our farmland is why broadband suck so bad in the US, why is it that most major metropolitan areas (high population density) also have lovely and expensive broadband service compared to most other countries? If you had read the thread, it's been pointed out, repeatedly, that the countries with better broadband, many of them are just overadvertising their speeds, whereas in the US, advertised speeds are much closer to actual speeds. There are certainly countries with better, cheaper broadband, but it's not as wide a gap as the hyperbolic descriptions we're used to. I'd also point out that the figure that they tell you you're getting (100mb!) is far more than you're actually getting to the internet, and again, no end service (web site, whatever) out there is serving you at 100mb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Hey everyone who thinks that all of our farmland is why broadband suck so bad in the US, why is it that most major metropolitan areas (high population density) also have lovely and expensive broadband service compared to most other countries? They don't, even though US urban broadband customers are required to explicitly subsidize rural telco and broadband customers in a way that subscribers in other countries don't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Hey everyone who thinks that all of our farmland is why broadband suck so bad in the US, why is it that most major metropolitan areas (high population density) also have lovely and expensive broadband service compared to most other countries? Yeah this isn't true at all, stop spreading lies. Pauline Kael posted:I'd also point out that the figure that they tell you you're getting (100mb!) is far more than you're actually getting to the internet, and again, no end service (web site, whatever) out there is serving you at 100mb. Not true, there are plenty of services that you can peg a 100 megabit connection with (primarily Usenet and certain torrents). It's also functional for households of multiple people who each might use a lot of bandwidth at once.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yeah this isn't true at all, stop spreading lies. I stand corrected, as I am one of those users. I will say though, besides torrents, I've never gotten close to 100mb, and I use usenet every day. My provider is on a 1gb backbone link, and rate limits individual users.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 15:54
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:There are certainly countries with better, cheaper broadband, but it's not as wide a gap as the hyperbolic descriptions we're used to. Whew, thank god! For a minute I thought we could actually have better service in the US but I guess if the gap isn't as wide enough as "the hyperbolic descriptions we're used to" well then by all means, give your boss an extra $10m bonus this year and call it a wrap. Man and this whole time everyone was just obsessed with the hyperbolic descriptions and didn't think that the US could actually be a competitive leader in this field. What silly gooses we all are, thank god we have a ATT employee here to set us straight.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:I stand corrected, as I am one of those users. I will say though, besides torrents, I've never gotten close to 100mb, and I use usenet every day. My provider is on a 1gb backbone link, and rate limits individual users. I could peg that on a VPS as well (though not 24/7).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Whew, thank god! For a minute I thought we could actually have better service in the US but I guess if the gap isn't as wide enough as "the hyperbolic descriptions we're used to" well then by all means, give your boss an extra $10m bonus this year and call it a wrap. Have you actually done a comparison of ISP profits throughout the world? You might be surprised.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:10
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Have you actually done a comparison of ISP profits throughout the world? You might be surprised. Check out this one easy tip the ISPs HATE that will get you 1000x bandwith and a new shetland pony. Tune in at 11 for more. Have you ever removed your head from your rear end and thought "hmm, maybe we can do better"?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Check out this one easy tip the ISPs HATE that will get you 1000x bandwith and a new shetland pony. Tune in at 11 for more. So, "no."
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:25
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:So, "no." Honestly asking you if you've removed your head from your rear end was rhetorical, anyone can tell it's still shoved up there.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
In news that isn't "down with slavery is a complete idiot", Wheeler announced yesterday that the FCC would take a look at any state laws discouraging municipal broadband if a municipality asked them to. (But Wheeler is a bought and paid for ISP hack so clearly he didn't mean it.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:54
|
|
Kalman posted:In news that isn't "down with slavery is a complete idiot", Wheeler announced yesterday that the FCC would take a look at any state laws discouraging municipal broadband if a municipality asked them to. Oh boy look at that, he's "taking a look" wow glad the FCC chairman is now taking some time to investigate these new and compelling issues. Certainly this hasn't been an ongoing issue he should have been aware of as the head of the Federal Communications Commission. Look at you buying the words of politicians, how adorably naive. I'll wait for the action.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Honestly asking you if you've removed your head from your rear end was rhetorical, anyone can tell it's still shoved up there. Of course we can and we are doing better. You're just too busy screaming about reverse American exceptionalism to care. Our ISPs are so terrible, no I won't compare them to other countries because Republicans net neutrality FCC regulatory capture thanks Obama!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 17:20
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Of course we can and we are doing better Do you know what better means? If you want to show some comparisons, feel free. They've already been posted though and I'm well aware of the numbers. Doesn't change the fact that we could make structural changes to the way we organize our communication networks in order to make significant improvements that we wouldn't be able to otherwise. Some good first steps would be removing profit motive from the buildout of communication networks and treating ISPs as common carriers. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Do you know what better means? The posted numbers show us doing great after taking into account population density but you don't care about that because blah blah corporations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
It's really weird to see people acting like treating basic infrastructure as a public good is some kind of communist plot. I'm typing this while I'm whizzing along a nationalized highway system that facilitates hundreds of billions of dollars in commerce annually and no one seems to think it's a real big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 17:29
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:The posted numbers show us doing great after taking into account population density but you don't care about that because blah blah corporations. Ahh yes, "population density", the reason our major cities lag behind Seoul.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Ahh yes, "population density", the reason our major cities lag behind Seoul. They don't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Oh boy look at that, he's "taking a look" wow glad the FCC chairman is now taking some time to investigate these new and compelling issues. Certainly this hasn't been an ongoing issue he should have been aware of as the head of the Federal Communications Commission. Is your position falsifiable? He's actually been talking about how the laws are bad and claiming both the need and the authority for preemption for months now. It was part of their response to Verizon. The recent blog post didn't come out of nowhere. It was a public middle finger in response to a letter the FCC was sent by Cruz, Rubio, and other Republican senators telling him to knock it off. The guy's already promised in testimony to congress that he's going to make a move, there's no reason to doubt the FCC will do something here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:08
|
|
eviltastic posted:The guy's already promised in testimony to congress that he's going to make a move, there's no reason to doubt the FCC will do something here. How about recorded history? Since when have what politicians said lined up with their actions? Do you know what politics is? Nintendo Kid posted:They don't. They do. Wow that's easy.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:They do. Lying's easy? Well of course, that's why you do it so often.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
I feel like the most onerous part of broadband is the monthly caps. Even 250 GB per month is pushing it, really. Is there any data on how other countries are handling caps?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
zachol posted:I feel like the most onerous part of broadband is the monthly caps. Even 250 GB per month is pushing it, really. Bandwidth caps are common worldwide. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are notable for them. And many lower-cost UK providers will impose either all-time bandwidth caps or start throttling people during peak hours that have their own time-limited bandwidth caps. You'll also find that most US ISPs do not enforce their caps most of the time; most of them were advertising "unlimited" before the FCC cracked down and told them they had to stop cutting off very high usage customers just for high usage if they wanted to continue to advertise "unlimited". So most of them essentially pulled 250 GB or similar numbers out of their asses as their official cut-off point and whenever they wanted to cut someone off for too much usage they'd point to the 250 GB or whatever. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
I feel like I've anecdotally heard a lot of complaints about those countries anyway. Though an easy explanation would be "that's where they speak English, dumbass, of course you'd hear more complaints from there." It seems like ridiculous caps like 10 GB per month should be getting more attention than questions about speed or fiber rollout. Then again, I don't watch high definition video usually, so 4 MB/s is enough here. e: The uncertainty is a bummer, though. I've realized I've gone over my cap at least once, but I'm just not sure whether I missed the email or call or whatever or if the ISP doesn't care. If they're going to have a cap, they should at least have, like, some kind of meter or something. I only figured out I'd gone over after carefully examining my usage patterns and making some calculations. zachol fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You'll also find that most US ISPs do not enforce their caps most of the time; most of them were advertising "unlimited" before the FCC cracked down and told them they had to stop cutting off very high usage customers just for high usage if they wanted to continue to advertise "unlimited". So most of them essentially pulled 250 GB or similar numbers out of their asses as their official cut-off point and whenever they wanted to cut someone off for too much usage they'd point to the 250 GB or whatever. That was the original justification, yeah, but over time it's evolved into an anticompetitive tool. 250gb may have been a lot in 2009 but in 2014 it's a pretty tight limit and mostly functions as a way for cable companies to cripple the streaming services their TV services compete with. Cord cutters (or "heavy streaming service users") average 232gb per month nowadays. 4K video is coming, people are increasingly streaming content from their home networks, playing games remotely from their home computers/consoles (eg Nvidia Shield), uploading gameplay to Twitch and doing video Skype, etc. The caps aren't keeping up. e: And yeah, some places and services have really tight limits, you can pretty easily hit 10gb in a month without even trying nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:That was the original justification, yeah, but over time it's evolved into an anticompetitive tool. But the limits aren't being enforced, still, in most areas on most ISPs. For example, my Comcast contract states that I have a 300 GB cap. Every time I happen to click over to the page on the account site that's meant to report the data used and give you a warning when you're near your limit, it never reads more than 9 GB in a month - even though I frequently pull more than that in a single day. Same thing occurs with other people in this area. Something's clearly up there, don't you think? But people still get cut off or "asked" to upgrade to business service (which has no caps and costs a few dozen more a month) when they really use a lot, one of them I know of only starting to get yelled at once he was pushing 8 terabytes per month essentially running a full-load seedbox on his home connection. Another was only at 400 gigabytes a month, but was reportedly causing issues for other people on his node. This is essentially exactly the model of dealing with "offenders" that they were engaging in when the service was advertised "unlimited". Edit: The reason most ISPs only do it regionally is officially because it's still "in testing" after a good 5+ years. So in Comcast's case, Nashville and Tuscon remain with strictly enforced caps and even an overage charge; a set of cities across the South have had an offering made of a new, super-low tier with low monthly cost that only has 5 GB cost and is reportedly called the "Grandma plan" and sporadic enforcement of the nominal 300 GB cap; and Fresno has an offering of the "Grandma plan" for the lowest tier subscribers but minimal enforcement of 300 GB on the regular tiers. Some have argued that reason no providers have done nation-wide enforced limits besides the wireless/satellite providers, is that the companies are unwilling to invest the money to have and maintain reliable bandwidth monitoring equipment installed across their entire networks that would hold up to customers willing to fight a legal battle. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:54
|
|