|
stuxracer posted:Edit: You edited, but yes that is pretty much the same thing. I also slow post No, that's not the same thing. Using an extreme example for illustration purposes: in country A, 100% of the population has access to 100Mbps, but 90% of that population chooses to only get 10Mbps service for whatever reason. In country B, only 10% of the country has access to 100Mbps, and all of them take advantage, whereas the rest of the country only has access to 10Mbps. All else (CDN location, peering, statistical deviations in sampling, etc.) being equal, both countries would show up the same on a list like this, but country A actually has vastly superior broadband penetration and infrastructure.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
GokieKS posted:No, that's not the same thing. Using an extreme example for illustration purposes: in country A, 100% of the population has access to 100Mbps, but 90% of that population chooses to only get 10Mbps service for whatever reason. In country B, only 10% of the country has access to 100Mbps, and all of them take advantage, whereas the rest of the country only has access to 10Mbps. All else (CDN location, peering, statistical deviations in sampling, etc.) being equal, both countries would show up the same on a list like this, but country A actually has vastly superior broadband penetration and infrastructure. So again, at the very least it shows you that people don't care about fast internet as much as you think they do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:At the very least it's telling you that most people don't actually care about faster internet. Most people only user the internet for things like Facebook and email, so there is quite a significant disparity in usage between the types of people who use the internet. Just because there is a lot of people who would not use the higher speeds does not mean they should not put the minimum amount of effort into the infrastructure to offer high quality, high end speeds. They are already overselling what their infrastructure can handle, how can you say they put anything but the bare minimum into their infrastructure as it stands?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Diviance posted:Most people only user the internet for things like Facebook and email, so there is quite a significant disparity in usage between the types of people who use the internet. Where is your proof that they are overselling their infrastructure? Hard data, not anecdotes please. It makes perfect sense to tailor your infrastructure around the needs of the 99% rather than the 1%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Forcing companies to open up their ducts / poles / network to competitors who have absolutely no capital costs is a great way of ensuring nobody invests in infrastructure. Nah, this isn't actually true. They'll invest plenty, but everyone else using it doesn't get any say in when they do it and is completely at their mercy. Diviance posted:They are already overselling what their infrastructure can handle, how can you say they put anything but the bare minimum into their infrastructure as it stands? This is actually super unlikely, considering what the infrastructure is these days. Things have changed a lot since the days of DOCSIS 1.0 and coaxial running all the way back to the cable office instead of terminating on fiber less than a few blocks from the house.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Where is your proof that they are overselling their infrastructure? Hard data, not anecdotes please. I was thinking of something else with the overselling, relating to their peering arrangements. My bad on that. The majority is heading towards online streaming for video and music, which requires faster speeds... though companies are doing their best to compress the streams to fit in our small amount of throughput. 10Mbit is not really sufficient for upcoming technology like 4k. Of course, you also have companies like Google charging only $70 a month for gigabit... while some major ISP's are charging more than that for less than 50Mbps. If they charged accordingly for their speeds, I think less people would care that much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Diviance posted:I was thinking of something else with the overselling, relating to their peering arrangements. My bad on that. It's not like they're not offering faster internet. My cable company offers 15Mbit as the lowest offer, and goes up to at least 50Mbit, and I think even 100 if I wanted it. And again, no one cares that they're "overcharging" because most people don't use faster than 10Mbit internet. Right now the only usage case you need for 50Mbit is if you're streaming 5 1080p Netflix connections simultaneously, which I'm going to tell you right now is not a standard usage case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Well, one standard use case is backing up Grandma's computer to your nerd NAS with Crashplan. And when both sides are 25/5, you get 5. Kind of a pisser.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Well, one standard use case is backing up Grandma's computer to your nerd NAS with Crashplan. And when both sides are 25/5, you get 5. Kind of a pisser.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
Are people in here seriously suggesting that people wouldn't want a faster internet connection for less money? Most people use their internet connection to check email, look at Facebook, and stream music and HD/UHD video. See that last one on there? People are getting tired of paying $100/mo for television. That's the driving force. It's also the reason why Comcast has an incentive to throttle or engage in anticompetitive practices with regards to services like Netflix, which compete directly with them not only in the service arena (offering on-demand streaming television on the cheap instead of scheduled programming), but in the content arena (NBC's programming has completely tanked since Comcast bought it, and many of their writers are jumping ship to companies like Netflix and HBO).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
Cloud services are also getting more and more prominent and will continue to do so, necessitate faster internet for all kinds of services (remote access, storage, etc). Also, basically everyone takes tons of high-res digital photos now, and with the proliferation of dSLRs, GoPros, and other HD content people are sharing, demand for fast upload speeds is going up in a hurry. Even with 5meg upload, putting a 10 minute 1080p video on youtube or uploading a batch of photos from an event takes a long time – especially if you want to do it during the day and continue to use the internet for other tasks. 4K is well on its way too – again, with GoPro and dSLR video both featuring the ability to produce it and now televisions, the 5K iMac, and even cellphones offering displays capable of utilizing it. 1080p is going to become the minimum expected res very, very soon. I seriously don't get the bizarre backlash people here have to suggesting that we should improve web speed and access. You claim there are no examples and then when people offer them, the goalposts may as well be on wheels.
wheez the roux fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
psydude posted:Are people in here seriously suggesting that people wouldn't want a faster internet connection for less money? Most people use their internet connection to check email, look at Facebook, and stream music and HD/UHD video. See that last one on there? People are getting tired of paying $100/mo for television. That's the driving force. It's also the reason why Comcast has an incentive to throttle or engage in anticompetitive practices with regards to services like Netflix, which compete directly with them not only in the service arena (offering on-demand streaming television on the cheap instead of scheduled programming), but in the content arena (NBC's programming has completely tanked since Comcast bought it, and many of their writers are jumping ship to companies like Netflix and HBO). Assuming that Sweden has a higher buildout of faster internet than the US, the data doesn't back you up. More people are using faster internet in the US. It will probably become more of an issue, but again it's a gradual thing that companies are adjusting to as time goes on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
psydude posted:It's also the reason why Comcast has an incentive to throttle or engage in anticompetitive practices with regards to services like Netflix And yet they haven't done either of those, why is that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:And yet they haven't done either of those, why is that? Except the fact they have bandwidth caps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Except the fact they have bandwidth caps. Because of a ruling that said that if a user can't download until literally the heat death of the universe you can't market it as "unlimited" internet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because of a ruling that said that if a user can't download until literally the heat death of the universe you can't market it as "unlimited" internet. Streaming services like netflix and amazon will eat through some data. Especially netflix at the high quality setting or even worse, UHD. Also video games now are 30-50gb downloads. Talk to the people who downloaded 50gb's of halo and had to redownload it cause of a bug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Streaming services like netflix and amazon will eat through some data. Especially netflix at the high quality setting or even worse, UHD. Also video games now are 30-50gb downloads. Talk to the people who downloaded 50gb's of halo and had to redownload it cause of a bug. Yeah, and what I'm saying is that in the "unlimited internet" days they would treat it about the same (i.e., unless you're really obnoxious about it they won't care).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
The point is low caps can be anti competitive. If i get to 90% of my usage they start calling me and popping up messages in my browser session reminding me of it, at 300gb they charge me $10 extra per 50gb. But if i use comcast on demand or subscribe to comcast phone service none of those services count. towards this. If i use vonage or netflix they do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:And yet they haven't done either of those, why is that? Because they are legally obligated not to under the conditions they agreed to in order to purchase NBCUniversal, an obligation that expires in January 2018.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:The point is low caps can be anti competitive. If i get to 90% of my usage they start calling me and popping up messages in my browser session reminding me of it, at 300gb they charge me $10 extra per 50gb. Key word is "can be".
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Key word is "can be". When it comes to anticompetitive actions by a company that is a monopoly in most areas, "can be" is good enough to ban it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Key word is "can be". You don't understand. They are literally doing this, right now, where i live. Im not being hypothetical here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This is actually super unlikely, considering what the infrastructure is these days. Things have changed a lot since the days of DOCSIS 1.0 and coaxial running all the way back to the cable office instead of terminating on fiber less than a few blocks from the house. DOCSIS 3.0 and a medium/high split means the Coax portion of the hybrid fiber/coax system actual has a poo poo-ton of bandwidth. And the fiber back to the datacenter/head office is generally 1/10 Gb. That means that once you're in the datacenter, getting a fiber link to the internet consists of plugging their switch into your switch, and routing out to the internet that way. If this ended up being a thing, you'd see Time Warner/Cox et al hemorrhaging customers to 3rd parties. Park a big Akamai/Netflix/Google CDN in the datacenter, and each of the little 3rd party ISPs suddenly have much better service to these sites than Cox, and when you call to complain, an actual person willing to do more than deny there is an issue then drop your call will answer. I really hope we get a full Title II ruling and the lawsuits opposing them end up losing big.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:You don't understand. They are literally doing this, right now, where i live. That's not related to net neutrality though, especially the Comcast phone stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Because they are legally obligated not to under the conditions they agreed to in order to purchase NBCUniversal, an obligation that expires in January 2018. They weren't doing it before the merger either, friend. And other cable companies that are not under the obligations of that particular deal also aren't doing it, even though all are arguably "in competition" with the services people rant about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:They weren't doing it before the merger either, friend. And other cable companies that are not under the obligations of that particular deal also aren't doing it, even though all are arguably "in competition" with the services people rant about. Except Comcast did and is where a lot of the current poo poo stems from https://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2724
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Except Comcast did and is where a lot of the current poo poo stems from I'm not seeing any of that listed in there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This isn't really true. It's something that could potentially happen but in no way guarenteed. Also I'll remind you that we have that for DSL and landlines and nearly everyone just uses the actual owner of said DSL and landline instead of the "competitors" because they get to dictate maintenance terms and can easily control what'll actually go through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 01:50
|
|
