Fuck them. If they want to stay in the internet stone age fine. Let some Japanese company come in and supply my internet. As long as it's fast and works (and doesn't cost too much), and I can talk to someone in english, I couldn't care less WHO the company is.
It's times like this when I'm pretty glad I'm a Canadian.
...and then I remember that most of my internets come from You Guise.
And then I weep for us all.
Canada is in even worse shape. The few people who even know what the fuck Net Neutrality is are a very small and unprofitable minority, compared to the 5 million nubs who happily pay $40 a month for 1.5 megabit "broadband" to check their emails. Our government, and the four gigantic corporations that own most of the broadband service, couldn't give a shit.
Depends where, I guess. My ISP has unlimited BDwidht for me and I got a 10 megabit line.
It's times like this when I'm pretty glad I'm a Canadian.
...and then I remember that most of my internets come from You Guise.
And then I weep for us all.
Canada is in even worse shape. The few people who even know what the fuck Net Neutrality is are a very small and unprofitable minority, compared to the 5 million nubs who happily pay $40 a month for 1.5 megabit "broadband" to check their emails. Our government, and the four gigantic corporations that own most of the broadband service, couldn't give a shit.
Depends where, I guess. My ISP has unlimited BDwidht for me and I got a 10 megabit line.
You saw the part in the article that the average US downstream is 1.9Mb versus 61Mb in Japan right? I am about to get FTTP at my home and its going to be a 3Mb connection with an option to jump up to 6Mb. I know Fios has massive downstream, but that is just not that common these days. It gets worse when you think about IPTV products eating up most of the bandwidth to the home.
God damn it. The FCC, FTC, and Supreme Court are really on a roll when it comes to screwing over Americans.
The real irony here is that they are really only hurting themselves. Its like lowering wages, sure it looks good on paper but how will your employee pay for stuff if he has no extra money to spend.
The FCC is consistently full of shit, the FTC is a bunch of greedy fucks. And the supreme court is so biased it isn't even funny.
This shouldn't affect any MMO's... Right? I just don't want to find out that ISP's will call up an MMO and say something like "Oh hey, MMO Devs, your servers use up too much traffic, pay us $10million and we will help you out! Till then, yeah sorry, your sort of restricted." and some move like that will fuck the players because then you go linkdead and have a weaker connection due to this...
I could be wrong, but I don't think MMOs use nearly as much bandwidth as a game like Halo 3 might.
I am certain the next day after halo 3 launches-- there will be severe internet lag.
This shouldn't affect any MMO's... Right? I just don't want to find out that ISP's will call up an MMO and say something like "Oh hey, MMO Devs, your servers use up too much traffic, pay us $10million and we will help you out! Till then, yeah sorry, your sort of restricted." and some move like that will fuck the players because then you go linkdead and have a weaker connection due to this...
I could be wrong, but I don't think MMOs use nearly as much bandwidth as a game like Halo 3 might.
I am certain the next day after halo 3 launches-- there will be severe internet lag.
The FTC can reverse this decision when we start to lag behind other countries more than we do.
When it comes to the internet the US is already a third-world country.
Are we even that high on the list? We are basically scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to internet speed. I like how the service providers blame geography for the slow speeds and say we shouldn't be compared to dense populations like Japan. Why not exactly? Is NYC not densely populated enough? What are speeds like up there?
At least we don't live in the middle east, you would have to pay six times what you do here for a similar speed. Plus there is all that business about the government in most countries censoring the web.
A communications union report has revealed that the apparently ‘high-speed internet broadband connection speeds in U.S. are in reality ‘pathetic’ in comparison with other industrialized nations.
The study was issued by the Communications Workers of America in Washington in an effort to get the Federal Communications Commission to redefine what form true high speed, USA Today reported on Tuesday.
The median U.S. speed was 1.97 mps, while the Iowans enjoyed (or perhaps were sadly stuck with) a median download speed of 1.2 megabits. The only states slower than Iowa are Alaska, West Virginia and Wyoming.
On the other hand residents of Rhode Island had reasons to smile as they were the fastest state, with 5.01 megabits. The same file that takes 15 seconds to download in Rhode Island takes more than 2 minutes to download in Iowa. So now you know how significant the difference is.
But beating any of these is Japan where users receive speeds of 661 megabits per second, South Korea averages 45 mps, France has 17 mps, and Canada has an average 7 mps.
My dad has broadband for $40+ a month I think for 750kps. He and my stepmother regularly check their e-mail and occasionaly look up directions. I suspect that their are legions of people out there like him. Until people realize or maybe understand that they're paying so much for so little, nothing's gonna change.
My dad has broadband for $40+ a month I think for 750kps. He and my stepmother regularly check their e-mail and occasionaly look up directions. I suspect that their are legions of people out there like him. Until people realize or maybe understand that they're paying so much for so little, nothing's gonna change.
When the baby boomers stop paying for a lot of the Internet and Gen X and Gen Y are paying almost all the bills, that'll change. They're still excited about email. We've moved on to something else, and eventually it'll but them in the ass (not that we haven't been bitten ourselves).
It seems to me like most of the things that net neutrality proponents want protected are already protected. It's still not legal to price gouge, or monopolize or anything like that. I've just never been sure what the mystical guarantee of net neutrality means for Joe Consumer.
It seems to me like most of the things that net neutrality proponents want protected are already protected. It's still not legal to price gouge, or monopolize or anything like that. I've just never been sure what the mystical guarantee of net neutrality means for Joe Consumer.
You mean like cutting out certain sites or bitshaping?
It seems to me like most of the things that net neutrality proponents want protected are already protected. It's still not legal to price gouge, or monopolize or anything like that. I've just never been sure what the mystical guarantee of net neutrality means for Joe Consumer.
You mean like cutting out certain sites or bitshaping?
It seems to me like most of the things that net neutrality proponents want protected are already protected. It's still not legal to price gouge, or monopolize or anything like that. I've just never been sure what the mystical guarantee of net neutrality means for Joe Consumer.
You mean like cutting out certain sites or bitshaping?
Or charging more to people who play MMO's?
Or Xbox Live?
Yeah. Those things aren't legal under the current system, except bitshaping(the anti-torrent stuff, right?). The failure of net neutrality means the status quo is maintained.
It seems to me like most of the things that net neutrality proponents want protected are already protected. It's still not legal to price gouge, or monopolize or anything like that. I've just never been sure what the mystical guarantee of net neutrality means for Joe Consumer.
You mean like cutting out certain sites or bitshaping?
Or charging more to people who play MMO's?
Or Xbox Live?
Yeah. Those things aren't legal under the current system, except bitshaping(the anti-torrent stuff, right?). The failure of net neutrality means the status quo is maintained.
Yeah, seriously.
I cannot be the only fucking person on the internet who is opposed to net neutrality.
Oh, and reading around, that article is fucking biased as hell. Doom and gloom.
The FTC didn't KILL net neutrality. They just decided not to endorse it. They didn't urge for the death of net neutrality legislation, nor support it. They're simply staying out of the debate.
It seems to me like most of the things that net neutrality proponents want protected are already protected. It's still not legal to price gouge, or monopolize or anything like that. I've just never been sure what the mystical guarantee of net neutrality means for Joe Consumer.
You mean like cutting out certain sites or bitshaping?
Or charging more to people who play MMO's?
Or Xbox Live?
Yeah. Those things aren't legal under the current system, except bitshaping(the anti-torrent stuff, right?). The failure of net neutrality means the status quo is maintained.
I'm pretty sure it's perfectly legal for them to randomly decide that online games, video, bittorrent, voip, and other shit are "premium services" and charge us extra for them. They might not block those types of traffic entirely, but they'll throttle the hell out of them until you pay up. The pipes do ultimately belong to the ISPs and they can refuse service to anyone, and for whatever reason, they choose.
Besides, 95% of the money they make comes from people who don't know what bittorrent is.
It seems to me like most of the things that net neutrality proponents want protected are already protected. It's still not legal to price gouge, or monopolize or anything like that. I've just never been sure what the mystical guarantee of net neutrality means for Joe Consumer.
You mean like cutting out certain sites or bitshaping?
Or charging more to people who play MMO's?
Or Xbox Live?
Yeah. Those things aren't legal under the current system, except bitshaping(the anti-torrent stuff, right?). The failure of net neutrality means the status quo is maintained.
Yeah, seriously.
I cannot be the only fucking person on the internet who is opposed to net neutrality.
I think a majority of the problem with the whole Net Neutrality debate is that everyone just assumes that every company ever will block every website on the planet and make you pay for absolutely everything extra on top of your normal fees. When in reality there are still laws against doing things like that.
No even if net neutrality goes away companies still cannot block random shit and make you pay extra for it. They aren't going to block youtube or mmorpgs or online gaming or anything. If they did that you wouldn't buy their service and then they wouldn't make money. These companies are in the business of supplying internet access they aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot by doing all this insane stuff people keep thinking. It would be corporate suicide if they did.
It seems to me like most of the things that net neutrality proponents want protected are already protected. It's still not legal to price gouge, or monopolize or anything like that. I've just never been sure what the mystical guarantee of net neutrality means for Joe Consumer.
You mean like cutting out certain sites or bitshaping?
Or charging more to people who play MMO's?
Or Xbox Live?
Yeah. Those things aren't legal under the current system, except bitshaping(the anti-torrent stuff, right?). The failure of net neutrality means the status quo is maintained.
Yeah, seriously.
I cannot be the only fucking person on the internet who is opposed to net neutrality.
I think a majority of the problem with the whole Net Neutrality debate is that everyone just assumes that every company ever will block every website on the planet and make you pay for absolutely everything extra on top of your normal fees. When in reality there are still laws against doing things like that.
No even if net neutrality goes away companies still cannot block random shit and make you pay extra for it. They aren't going to block youtube or mmorpgs or online gaming or anything. If they did that you wouldn't buy their service and then they wouldn't make money. These companies are in the business of supplying internet access they aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot by doing all this insane stuff people keep thinking. It would be corporate suicide if they did.
This seriously is not that big of a deal.
I firmly believe that the competition between different ISPs is enough to keep the internet working the way it does. Like you said, it'd be corporate suicide.
I firmly believe that the competition between different ISPs is enough to keep the internet working the way it does
What, all four of them?
you honestly believe there are 4 ISPs in the nation?
A bit of an exaggeration, but the majority of users are on one of the big four. Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and Cox in the States; Telus, Rogers, Shaw and Bell in Canada. And in any given region you have a choice between two, maybe three broadband providers.
Also, do you really think the average Internet user actually pays attention to things like this?
Yes, I do.
And your reason for thinking this is? Seriously, nobody except nerds like us is going to notice if Comcast decides to throttle the shit out of BitTorrent/YouTube/etc traffic.
I firmly believe that the competition between different ISPs is enough to keep the internet working the way it does
What, all four of them?
you honestly believe there are 4 ISPs in the nation?
It doesn't matter a damn bit how many ISPs there are in the nation. What matters is how many ISPs are available in any given area, which if you want broadband is sometimes as low as two. Or if you live far enough out in the boonies, one.
Also the only competition currently is who can price gouge the worst and get away with it.
I firmly believe that the competition between different ISPs is enough to keep the internet working the way it does
What, all four of them?
you honestly believe there are 4 ISPs in the nation?
A bit of an exaggeration, but the majority of users are on one of the big four. Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and Cox in the States; Telus, Rogers, Shaw and Bell in Canada. And in any given region you have a choice between two, maybe three broadband providers.
Also, do you really think the average Internet user actually pays attention to things like this?
Yes, I do.
And your reason for thinking this is? Seriously, nobody except nerds like us is going to notice if Comcast decides to throttle the shit out of BitTorrent/YouTube/etc traffic.
You better believe average people are gonna notice if they suddenly cant watch youtube or get to myspace or google.
I firmly believe that the competition between different ISPs is enough to keep the internet working the way it does
What, all four of them?
you honestly believe there are 4 ISPs in the nation?
A bit of an exaggeration, but the majority of users are on one of the big four. Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and Cox in the States; Telus, Rogers, Shaw and Bell in Canada. And in any given region you have a choice between two, maybe three broadband providers.
Broadband providers in Houston, Tx:
iNTERLYNC.com Internet Services, Inc.
NightOwl Internet Gateway
DSLi
InstantNetworks.net
Sunset Net
Sunset Net
Verizon DSL
Wi-Five
Talk America
SmartBurst
SmartBurst
SBC Yahoo DSL
Heath Internet
Broadband.com
SCR Online
i.web
SureWire Internet
Cyberonic Internet Communications Inc
Cyberonic Internet Communications Inc
MegaPath Networks, Inc.
those are the ones OTHER than the 3 you listed.
Also, do you really think the average Internet user actually pays attention to things like this?
Yes, I do.
And your reason for thinking this is? Seriously, nobody except nerds like us is going to notice if Comcast decides to throttle the shit out of BitTorrent/YouTube/etc traffic.
When it's reported in net guides, then yes, people will notice. Because people generally care about what they're spending money on. Especially if it's a monthly fee.
I firmly believe that the competition between different ISPs is enough to keep the internet working the way it does
What, all four of them?
you honestly believe there are 4 ISPs in the nation?
A bit of an exaggeration, but the majority of users are on one of the big four. Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and Cox in the States; Telus, Rogers, Shaw and Bell in Canada. And in any given region you have a choice between two, maybe three broadband providers.
Also, do you really think the average Internet user actually pays attention to things like this?
Yes, I do.
And your reason for thinking this is? Seriously, nobody except nerds like us is going to notice if Comcast decides to throttle the shit out of BitTorrent/YouTube/etc traffic.
Because youtube is only frequented by giant nerds.
Broadband users are pretty much a captive audience. We won't go back to dialup and the ISPs know it. The capitalist approach may work in the long term, but it's going to be an extremely slow process when practically every ISP in the country currently sees no need to provide higher speed service.
broadband should be treated like a utility, like electricity, gas, and the like. the U.S. needs a nationalized broadband program, or we will continue to fall behind as a competitive economy.
instead the government will insist on lining their own pockets from the millions of dollars from telcos.
iNTERLYNC.com Internet Services, Inc.
NightOwl Internet Gateway
DSLi
InstantNetworks.net
Sunset Net
Sunset Net
Verizon DSL
Wi-Five
Talk America
SmartBurst
SmartBurst
SBC Yahoo DSL
Heath Internet
Broadband.com
SCR Online
i.web
SureWire Internet
Cyberonic Internet Communications Inc
Cyberonic Internet Communications Inc
MegaPath Networks, Inc.
those are the ones OTHER than the 3 you listed.
Okay, let's fix this post.
Aside from the fact that five of the entries on that list are duplicates or part of the ones he mentioned, can you actually vouch for the service and/or support of any of these companies? The competition to be the shittest ISP is not the kind of competition end users are interested in.
In addition, all small ISPs (anything that is not a telco) buys the bandwidth from the owners of the pipes. What this means is that if the telcos decide to prioritize traffic, it affects everyone, not only the customers who are paying them directly.
I firmly believe that the competition between different ISPs is enough to keep the internet working the way it does
What, all four of them?
you honestly believe there are 4 ISPs in the nation?
A bit of an exaggeration, but the majority of users are on one of the big four. Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and Cox in the States; Telus, Rogers, Shaw and Bell in Canada. And in any given region you have a choice between two, maybe three broadband providers.
Also, do you really think the average Internet user actually pays attention to things like this?
Yes, I do.
And your reason for thinking this is? Seriously, nobody except nerds like us is going to notice if Comcast decides to throttle the shit out of BitTorrent/YouTube/etc traffic.
I don't know how bandwidth is purchased in the US, but I know VERY damn well how it works in Australia.
Telstra Wholesale owns all ADSL DSLAMS. They own all the exchanges. This used to be a good thing, as they were owned by the government. Now they are private.
If you want to purchase directly from TW, you need to buy a lot. We are talking 100 megabit+ pipes here, and several at least.
Thus, only a few companies buy this, and sell excess to smaller ISPs.
That means if TW decided to shape bittorrent or games, EVERY SINGLE ADSL USER WOULD BE EFFECTED.
Now ADSL2, a few of the big companies are putting in their own DSLAMS, but only in metro areas. They wouldn't be effected by TW, but its entirely possible (and likely) that they will go down the premium route, as price gouging on net services is a tradition in Australia.
It really isn't that bad everywhere in the world. And eventually, fat pipes like they have in various Asian countries will come to us. We'll need them.
It really isn't that bad everywhere in the world. And eventually, fat pipes like they have in various Asian countries will come to us. We'll need them.
It took us 8 years to go from an average of 1.5Mb/sec to...1.5Mb/sec. Yeah, we're clearly trailblazers here. Whoooo.
By the time we hit 60Mb/sec, Japan will have nationwide OC256.
Posts
Depends where, I guess. My ISP has unlimited BDwidht for me and I got a 10 megabit line.
You saw the part in the article that the average US downstream is 1.9Mb versus 61Mb in Japan right? I am about to get FTTP at my home and its going to be a 3Mb connection with an option to jump up to 6Mb. I know Fios has massive downstream, but that is just not that common these days. It gets worse when you think about IPTV products eating up most of the bandwidth to the home.
Podcast 0207: Sinking to new depths
Preview: Is Uncharted: Golden Abyss the Vita’s killer launch title?
Dynasty Warriors: Gundam 3: Macro-wreckonomics
The real irony here is that they are really only hurting themselves. Its like lowering wages, sure it looks good on paper but how will your employee pay for stuff if he has no extra money to spend.
The FCC is consistently full of shit, the FTC is a bunch of greedy fucks. And the supreme court is so biased it isn't even funny.
I am certain the next day after halo 3 launches-- there will be severe internet lag.
When it comes to the internet the US is already a third-world country.
People still use dialup
Are we even that high on the list? We are basically scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to internet speed. I like how the service providers blame geography for the slow speeds and say we shouldn't be compared to dense populations like Japan. Why not exactly? Is NYC not densely populated enough? What are speeds like up there?
Podcast 0207: Sinking to new depths
Preview: Is Uncharted: Golden Abyss the Vita’s killer launch title?
Dynasty Warriors: Gundam 3: Macro-wreckonomics
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
http://www.techshout.com/internet/2007/27/us-internet-connection-speeds-lags-behind-other-countries/
My dad has broadband for $40+ a month I think for 750kps. He and my stepmother regularly check their e-mail and occasionaly look up directions. I suspect that their are legions of people out there like him. Until people realize or maybe understand that they're paying so much for so little, nothing's gonna change.
Because I'll sign whatever petitions I have to, to get them to fight this.
The FTC has shown it doesn't care so I suspect no amount of petitioning will help. That said, we should do it anyway just to voice our concern.
Podcast 0207: Sinking to new depths
Preview: Is Uncharted: Golden Abyss the Vita’s killer launch title?
Dynasty Warriors: Gundam 3: Macro-wreckonomics
When the baby boomers stop paying for a lot of the Internet and Gen X and Gen Y are paying almost all the bills, that'll change. They're still excited about email. We've moved on to something else, and eventually it'll but them in the ass (not that we haven't been bitten ourselves).
You mean like cutting out certain sites or bitshaping?
Or charging more to people who play MMO's?
Or Xbox Live?
*bangs forehead on desk repeatedly*
Yeah. Those things aren't legal under the current system, except bitshaping(the anti-torrent stuff, right?). The failure of net neutrality means the status quo is maintained.
We don't have anything like Net Neutrality up here in Canada. See, for instance, Rogers throttling encrypted traffic into the ground
Yeah, seriously.
I cannot be the only fucking person on the internet who is opposed to net neutrality.
The FTC didn't KILL net neutrality. They just decided not to endorse it. They didn't urge for the death of net neutrality legislation, nor support it. They're simply staying out of the debate.
Besides, 95% of the money they make comes from people who don't know what bittorrent is.
I think a majority of the problem with the whole Net Neutrality debate is that everyone just assumes that every company ever will block every website on the planet and make you pay for absolutely everything extra on top of your normal fees. When in reality there are still laws against doing things like that.
No even if net neutrality goes away companies still cannot block random shit and make you pay extra for it. They aren't going to block youtube or mmorpgs or online gaming or anything. If they did that you wouldn't buy their service and then they wouldn't make money. These companies are in the business of supplying internet access they aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot by doing all this insane stuff people keep thinking. It would be corporate suicide if they did.
This seriously is not that big of a deal.
I never asked for this!
I firmly believe that the competition between different ISPs is enough to keep the internet working the way it does. Like you said, it'd be corporate suicide.
you honestly believe there are 4 ISPs in the nation?
Yes, I do.
And your reason for thinking this is? Seriously, nobody except nerds like us is going to notice if Comcast decides to throttle the shit out of BitTorrent/YouTube/etc traffic.
Also the only competition currently is who can price gouge the worst and get away with it.
You better believe average people are gonna notice if they suddenly cant watch youtube or get to myspace or google.
It just isn't going to happen.
I never asked for this!
When it's reported in net guides, then yes, people will notice. Because people generally care about what they're spending money on. Especially if it's a monthly fee.
broadband should be treated like a utility, like electricity, gas, and the like. the U.S. needs a nationalized broadband program, or we will continue to fall behind as a competitive economy.
instead the government will insist on lining their own pockets from the millions of dollars from telcos.
ridiculous.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Aside from the fact that five of the entries on that list are duplicates or part of the ones he mentioned, can you actually vouch for the service and/or support of any of these companies? The competition to be the shittest ISP is not the kind of competition end users are interested in.
In addition, all small ISPs (anything that is not a telco) buys the bandwidth from the owners of the pipes. What this means is that if the telcos decide to prioritize traffic, it affects everyone, not only the customers who are paying them directly.
Cox is AT&T, and so is most everything else.
The government doesn't work.
Telstra Wholesale owns all ADSL DSLAMS. They own all the exchanges. This used to be a good thing, as they were owned by the government. Now they are private.
If you want to purchase directly from TW, you need to buy a lot. We are talking 100 megabit+ pipes here, and several at least.
Thus, only a few companies buy this, and sell excess to smaller ISPs.
That means if TW decided to shape bittorrent or games, EVERY SINGLE ADSL USER WOULD BE EFFECTED.
Now ADSL2, a few of the big companies are putting in their own DSLAMS, but only in metro areas. They wouldn't be effected by TW, but its entirely possible (and likely) that they will go down the premium route, as price gouging on net services is a tradition in Australia.
As much as people bemoan the state of internet service in the US, I for one am fucking thankful I don't have to live in Australia.
These are canadian prices (though it doesn't mean much these days).
It really isn't that bad everywhere in the world. And eventually, fat pipes like they have in various Asian countries will come to us. We'll need them.
It took us 8 years to go from an average of 1.5Mb/sec to...1.5Mb/sec. Yeah, we're clearly trailblazers here. Whoooo.
By the time we hit 60Mb/sec, Japan will have nationwide OC256.
That's kinda slow.
So...how hard is it to immigrate to Sweden?