|
Beeftweeter posted:how much of that was actually invested into real internet infrastructure, not wireless bullshit yeah, it's awfully convenient that they don't separate wireless and wired capex. at&t just spent $18.2 billion and verizon $10.4 billion on wireless spectrum. http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/aws-3-auction-results-att-leads-182b-verizon-104b-dish-10b-and-t-mobile-18b/2015-01-30 now you can blow through your 1GB/month cap in just a few minutes, with each additional gigabyte automatically billed at what i'm sure are incredibly fair prices
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:the wireless poo poo is why the countryside has coverage with cell phones at all so? idgaf if the countryside has cell coverage, their wireline service is subsidized and i would bet that money is factored into their "infrastructure investment" costs even though they didnt pay a goddamn penny of it
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
pagancow posted:Not clear if this ruling disallows private companies from sticking a CDN directly on an ISP's network and pay for it. does not prevent it. hosting closer to the end user is already the status quo, regardless of the fcc ruling. Shaggar posted:yes. that's a fast lane and since it would provide better service to customers its banned under net neut. no. you are wrong. a fast lane is arbitrarily blocking/policing traffic on the transit ingress and then requiring that traffic originator (netflix) or customer to pay for access to a direct peering link.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
any time a business complains about regulation but doesn't immediately drop/pivot those lines of business they're probably just blowing hot air
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:if shaggar, fishmech, stymie, verizon, and att are against something then you know it must be the best loving thing since sliced bread so I am v pleased with today's news
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
SYSV Fanfic posted:can the FCC force ISPs to allow resellers like for pots networks under these rules? the fcc already forces the post-baby-bell-breakup carriers to allow clec access to last mile pots copper. the only reason why att unwedged the log from their rear end to roll out fiber-to-the-curb uverse was because the fcc gave them a special exemption that allowed att to retain a complete monopoly on access to the uverse fiber infrastructure... even though all that fiber was funded with taxpayer money. also the copper infrastructure isnt free to clecs - they still have to rent it from att. it's also absolute poo poo because att refuses to maintain the wire in the street.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:so? idgaf if the countryside has cell coverage, their wireline service is subsidized and i would bet that money is factored into their "infrastructure investment" costs even though they didnt pay a goddamn penny of it if you're in a big city you have fast internet already, the big "scandal" is that isps weren't connecting fiber out to the boonies
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:if you're in a big city you have fast internet already, the big "scandal" is that isps weren't connecting fiber out to the boonies no, the average speed available to most buildings in san francisco is still adsl 6-10mbps down / 768-1500kbps up. that's because the city services lines (gas/power) are so old and not buried to modern code depths that they can't just trench new fiber everywhere without risking major incidents.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:no, the average speed available to most buildings in san francisco is still adsl 6-10mbps down / 768-1500kbps up. that's because the city services lines (gas/power) are so old and not buried to modern code depths that they can't just trench new fiber everywhere without risking major incidents. then i guess it's good they invested in wireless infrastructure so we're not risking major incidents
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
cremnob posted:anyone who actually thinks ISPs haven't been doing anything is really dumb. ISPs spend billions of dollars every year which is why municipal broadband is going to be really hilarious. u think ppl are gonna pay more in property taxes in a few years when they try to keep up with private companies in capex spending? lol crabob's dilemma: google as an ISP
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:so? idgaf if the countryside has cell coverage, their wireline service is subsidized and i would bet that money is factored into their "infrastructure investment" costs even though they didnt pay a goddamn penny of it you should give a gently caress, considering you do need to travel through the countryside to get between cities. also yall need to keep in mind that the 90s funding was based on a definition of broadband where 200 kilobits was broadband and 1.5 megabit was super fast broadband. if it had been built exactly as intended then the countryside woulda had a whole bunch of slowass internet infrastructure and even worse cell coverage CrazyLittle posted:no, the average speed available to most buildings in san francisco is still adsl 6-10mbps down / 768-1500kbps up. that's because the city services lines (gas/power) are so old and not buried to modern code depths that they can't just trench new fiber everywhere without risking major incidents. lol san francisco is trash hell -sent from my 125/15 cable connection in literal appalachia
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:does not prevent it. hosting closer to the end user is already the status quo, regardless of the fcc ruling. oh so they're going to prevent stuff that has never happened from happening? cause it sounds like they're trying to classify legitimate peering arrangements like the Netflix thing as bad which would be hilariously stupid. so its a good thing they're not doing that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:oh so they're going to prevent stuff that has never happened from happening? cause it sounds like they're trying to classify legitimate peering arrangements like the Netflix thing as bad which would be hilariously stupid. so its a good thing they're not doing that. attention shaggar: the fcc rules basically mean enforcing the current status quo
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
until we see the rules all we know is what they've said which is a bunch of really stupid poo poo. so maybe they aren't going to actually do anything and we'll end up worrying about nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:attention shaggar: the fcc rules basically mean enforcing the current status quo also allowing cities to bust thru state law on settin up they own muni broadband
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:until we see the rules all we know is what they've said which is a bunch of really stupid poo poo. so maybe they aren't going to actually do anything and we'll end up worrying about nothing. goalposts: *whooooooooooosh*
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:also allowing cities to bust thru state law on settin up they own muni broadband i'm spurtin here
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:also allowing cities to bust thru state law on settin up they own muni broadband this is so loving dumb and idk why y'all want your town to go into massive debt building a poo poo network when they cant fund schools.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
A Wheezy Steampunk posted:goalposts: *whooooooooooosh* if everything is staying status quo that would mean the fcc is doing nothing and the rules are blank. obviously that's not the case but we wont know how bad it is until the actual rules come out. if its as bad as the fcc has said it is then it will be bad. hopefully it is not that bad
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
does this bring us closer to snowcrash or not
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:this is so loving dumb and idk why y'all want your town to go into massive debt building a poo poo network when they cant fund schools. new orleans managed to have muni wireless and poo poo schools w/o goin into debt until 2009 and they only got rid of it b/c cox bribed the mayor at the time (who is in jail now for corruption)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:-sent from my 125/15 cable connection in literal appalachia also the best thing to do is lay fiber around the whole country and that way you can easily build out wireless towers afterwards with the fiber as backhaul but they know that it cost a ton upfront and they wont get as much money back for the next few quarters if they just stuck to what they have now so we get hilarious things like att pushing the deadend adsl based stuff and trying to compete against coaxial while other competent countries are upping their fiber speed to home
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
DNova posted:does this bring us closer to snowcrash or not idk did pandora count against their bandwidth caps in snowcrash?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:
countries like texas apparently
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:countries like texas apparently where at&t coincidentally only started offering gigabit when google announced they were coming to austin
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:Imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever shaggar
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
lazydog posted:where at&t coincidentally only started offering gigabit when google announced they were coming to austin it's almost like competition motivates companies
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
A Wheezy Steampunk posted:it's almost like record profits motivates companies
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
lazydog posted:where at&t coincidentally only started offering gigabit when google announced they were coming to austin what was it before
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
the business model for a cable company is p hilarious after that initial setup cost it's just smooooth sailin
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
google i am ready for your internet to take over comcast's stranglehold on mountain view
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:so we get hilarious things like att pushing the deadend adsl based stuff and trying to compete against coaxial while other competent countries are upping their fiber speed to home vdsl2 works great with fiber to the curb (upwards of 100/100), but att still only offers poo poo speeds like 25/5 because they know they can get away with it since they have monopoly access. thats why uverse magically gets faster when verizon or google moves in. same with comcast and coaxial net.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:countries like texas apparently
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
remember when we were supposed to get broadband over power lines 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:vdsl2 works great with fiber to the curb (upwards of 100/100), but att still only offers poo poo speeds like 25/5 because they know they can get away with it since they have monopoly access. thats why uverse magically gets faster when verizon or google moves in. same with comcast and coaxial net. the worst part of adsl/vdsl based uverse is probably the lovely router and interleaving which is error correction that rearrange bits and give you 30~50ms latency no matter what
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:remember when we were supposed to get broadband over power lines yeah turns out that doesnt work really well fiber optics work a lot better
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
remember when the internet wasn't poo poo me either
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:if it had been built exactly as intended then the countryside woulda had a whole bunch of slowass internet infrastructure and even worse cell coverage
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Sniep posted:yeah turns out that doesnt work really well apparently it works ok. its probably better than vdsl over ancient pots lines
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:so really not any different than today precisely
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:50
|
|