Do you know what they're going to do with those low-orbit satellites?

Eventually world wide satellite internet. I'll see if I can find the story.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-...524-story.html
I found it.

The oil embargo might have had a little effect there.http://cellar.org/2015/shades.gif

So you know it must be a solution because it never worked previously. And since innovation means maybe nine failures until something finally is successful, then this one solution must work right the first time.

Previous satellite solutions came with similar promises and did not succeed. Irridium was only one of many - that also used low earth orbit satellites.

So the magic solution means we should continue subverting free markets by entrenching and enriching the duopoly? Maybe finally admit that destructive of net neutrality has always been a bad thing.

Why did we finally get broadband after it remains stifled and unavailable for 15 years? Because Federal Laws were created that made it possible for competition to enter the market. Including net neutrality. Suddenly restricting markets to only two providers is now better - according to UT reasoning? Even when the numbers say otherwise.

UT feels we can protect harm to free market competition by launching LEO satellites - even though that did not work previously.

Eventually it may work. But UT knows it is a solution so as to deny harm to free markets by destroying net neutrality.

Its called fixing the problem. Protect and restore net neutrality and other provisions from 1996 that made free market internet successful, innovative, and growing.

Data transporters only transport data. Without any regard for that data content. Then congestion even does not exist. Content providers are a separate industry that innovates when it does not service (is part of) the data transporter industry. Then free markets, innovation, lower prices, and better service all thrive.

Yeeah. Land a rocket right on its launching pad? Impossible.

Tunnel under LA and Las Vegas? Impossible.

Build an electric car that does 0-60 in under 3 seconds and sells for five figures? Impossible.

Test launch 60 satellites at once, without a hitch? Totally impossible. (Even Musk expected it to fail first time.)

It's not needed to prevent net neutrality problems - because obviously, we don't have any of those right now, as you admit when claiming it would take time to implement.

But bet against Elon Musk? That, sir, is a losing proposition.

Now, again, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services? You certainly believe they've had the software to do it for 7 years.

Looking back at the big successes in business there was quite often others on the market with the same service who failed or were struggling along. Then one company offering pretty much the same service suddenly takes off because people believed it would. They believed the face of that company, in this case a man with a track record of making ideas come to life and the money to get it going.

When Musk makes an offhand casual remark there are enough people who will take that as gospel and are willing to put up money, become early adopters, and spread the word to friends. So when Musk makes a firm commitment people listen. That's often the difference between and idea becoming a successful business, or dying on the vine.

After the Musk satellite network captures 90% of the internet market and Comcast et al file for bankruptcy, he can strangle HBO and Netflix providing his own content. Why? Because there is no net neutrality.

Just like the wireless networks did not cause the wired network to disappear, so it will be with the satellites.

The wired network will still be useful. There are advantages to a wired network. The signal doesn't have to travel off into space and back again, so wired is always lower latency. The low-earth orbits will bring that way down from what satellite internet does for us today, but still. They will have bandwidth limitations as well, I expect... and more importantly, they will have competition.

Jesus H Christ, I can make a fortune charging these satellites using my airspace(spacespace?) rent. If they don't pay, shoot 'em down. :sniper:

Come and listen to a story about a man named Musk
A rich entrepreneur, giving man in space some thrust
He says a satellite network is the way it ought to be
Who's going to run a cable to a Martian colony⸮

The Red Planet that is. Stay a spell. Take your spacesuit off.
Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Comcast was skewing packets and got caught. That does not change no matter how many times Fox News says otherwise.

Tunnels under LA or Las Vegas? Been there. Done that thousands of times elsewhere. Two because water sources for NYC over 100 years ago.

60 satellites at once? It has been done repeatedly previously. Only difference - a few more satellites. That is not the technical challenge. That is simply an upgrade of existing technology.

Land a rocket on a launch pad? How many times was it attempted both before SpaceX and by Spacex? Multiple times before they were able to do what was being done on a smaller scale successfully elsewhere.

You are rationalizing to deny a reality. Hatred of net neutrality apparently comes from spending too much time being educated by Fox News and other extremists. Over a generation ago, hatred for destruction of net neutrality would have been the other UT.

Net neutrality made the internet successful (forced the entrenched communication companies to innovate) and created free market competition. Attacks on the free market eventually caused the demise of all but the entrenched two providers - who just happen to be the bigger campaign donors.

Nobody said wireless would make wired disappear. Due to 3G wireless, the business school graduates in Verizon finally conceded to and let fiber optics be installed. AT&T even sold the nations biggest ntwork to Comcast by sell it for half the price they paid for it.

Wireless did result in the demise of obsolete technology wired devices such as 56k modems and the hatred of packet switched technology. And forced the wired networks to start replacing obsolete circuit switched with packet switched.

Before 3G, even the chief scientist in the Bell Labs was ordered to be silent because he kept saying the smart network must be replaced by the dumb network. Wireless even resulted in those neanderthals to be replaced or concede.

We have been over this again and again. You just refuse to hear or remember it.

Satellites do not justify or make acceptable the destruction of free markets and net neutrality; as you keep trying to claim.

Gotta love everything that Musk attempts. We do need more like him. And, of course, he is an immigrant. So he must be evil - according to Fox News, et al

Now, again, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services, right now?

Don't talk about me, don't talk about children, don't talk about history, don't talk about emotion. It's a simple question, and you can either answer it in a single paragraph, pertaining only to the question, or you can say "I don't know" followed by nothing. Go.

The silence is golden.

Thanks for the reminder. You have failed to give us a link to any article showing this actually happened.

If you provide a link to a news article proving that Comcast did actually skew voice packets, I will donate $100 to a charity of your choice.

If you provide a link to a Fox News article saying despite protestations that they did, they actually did not, I will donate $300.

Go.

How many times over how many months must the same thing be repeated over and over. Comcast was not blocking services. Comcast was subverting them ... and got caught doing so.

Why is Comcast not subverting other voice services, right now?

As I recall Comcast was blocking streaming video, not voice.

Why are they no longer using the software they bought to do that? How many times must this be posted. They got caught and exposed.

Stop dodging and weaving and simply, logically, answer the question.

Why is Comcast not subverting other voice services, right now?

The Cellar Court Reporter
 

Special Counsel Undertoad has been examining the witness who has been evading a direct line of questioning. The Special Counsel has questioning options like fill in the blank (i.e. "Comcast is not subverting other voice services, right now; because, _________________________."), True - False questions and Multiple Choice questions. These options; however, risk leading the witness. There is much speculation on how the Special Counsel will proceed and bookmakers in Las Vegas are watching the situation closely.

You are on trial for posting similar lies that also proved Saddam had WMDs. You even denied reality after George Jr admitted it was a lie.

Stop ignoring reality. Comcast was caught subverting internet traffic. Data Transporters must transport all data irregardless of its content. And since you do not get it, data transporters must transport data regardless of content - since that makes the internet successful and productive. Separation of data transporters and content providers make free market competition work. Extremists hate that.

Comcast can increase profits by subverting net neutrality. They even got some (people who can even be brainwashed by Fox News, Donald Trump, and Cheney lies) to believe that is good.

Answer the question. Why do you so hate free markets as to even want to destroy net neutrality? Why do you preach a mantra from Comcast to increase their profits? Why do you deny that net neutrality made the internet successful. Do you hate net neutrality (like an extremist) because Clinton's 1996 successful legislation made a previously stifled internet possible and successful? Clinton did it. So it must be wrong?

That destruction is what extremists advocate with propaganda (lies). Why do you hate free markets? Why do you constantly preach what Fox News, et al order you to believe?

Comcast is quite good at getting others to pay more by subverting net neutrality. Even Netflix conceded to their strongarm tactics. Net neutrality means Comcast must invest profits into their network rather than in Philadelphia's tallest skyscrapers, NBC, mobile phone companies, Universal Studios, sport teams, and who knows what else. Destroying net neutrality explains why Americans now pay so much for diminished service. UT says this is good.

Answer the question. Why do you recite monopolistic propaganda from extremists - and not the concepts that made America great? Did you not learn after "Saddam's WMD" lies that extremist propaganda explains your mistakes then - and now? Even after George Jr admitted it was a lie, you continued to preach right wing extremist rhetoric - refused to admit Saddam did not have those WMDs. Continued to believe Fox News, et al lies.

Answer the question. Why do you so hate free market competition. And rules that make that successful? And BTW, not apologize for mistakenly advocating the massacre of 5000 American servicemen in Iraq for no useful purpose. Extremists even lied about that. Why do you so hate net neutrality and resulting free market competition - as advocated by extremists? Why do you hate free markets made possible when and because laws created net neutrality?

The Cellar Court Reporter
 

The witness in Special Counsel Undertoad's investigation has been cited for contempt after witness impugned the integrity of the Special Counsel, in Trump-like fashion, to distract from witness noncooperation. The Court awaits Special Counsel Undertoad's report and recommendations as to whether or not the matter should be turned over to a Special Prosecutor. Bookmakers in Las Vegas are now giving odds on whether or not Special Counsel Undertoad would assume the Special Prosecutor role himself.

Voice traffic, according to you - and it's an easy $100 if you can provide the link.

All tw's charities groan... no money for us, sob sob. :(

From an old NBC News report sometime at the end of 2007 and I believe originated by the
AP:
Comcast did not block web sites as UT constantly misrepresents. Comcast subtly subverted traffic trying to make not obvious what they were doing. They skewed or subverted traffic - which violated the concepts of net neutrality. Of course, they would not subvert net neutrality if free market competition existed. All but the duopoly was quashed in the George Jr era.

As repeatedly discussed back then and today, net neutrality means Comcast invests profits in their network. Instead, Comcast offers less service to milk a massive expansion buying other businesses and real estate. Net neutrality only gets in the way of corporate takeovers - the expansion of their monopoly.

To harm net neutrality, one never blocks access. Destruction of net neutrality is a slow and subtle process starting with tactics such as intermittent skewing of Skype packets. And then restricting (not blocking - restricting) access of some content providers - especially those that might compete with Comcast's new 'content provider' businesses. Profits must be protected by subverting net neutrality.

We know Comcast was caught doing these two corrupt actions. They are not dumb. Other actions would be or are ongoing without us knowing. But what we do know - S Korea got about five times more data access for about one-fifth the cost. S Korean internet providers were upgrading their network - not buying TV networks, movie studios, mobile phone providers, building massive skyscrapers, etc.

And yes, IEEE Spectrum confirmed that Comcast (and others) had purchased software to do just that. We discussed published facts about ten years ago. UT immediately denied it then - without any facts. He just knew; then and today.

Comcast terminated any exposed practices. How many others have not been exposed? We have no idea how many other shenanigans Comcast has done. But we do know such practices become a normal business practice when free market competition does not exist.

Consumer costs increased much faster than inflation. Netflix finally conceded to Comcast's strongarm tactics. Netflix paid for the network upgrades that were once paid by 'data transporters' - who did not use profits to buy other corporations and skyscrapers.

All this constantly denied by UT back then and today. We know that a free market was created by 1996 laws that created net neutrality and forced the so many 'we fear to innovate' companies to stop stifling packet switching and finally provide that 15 year old broadband. Subverting those 1996 laws and regulations (that once made rapid internet growth possible) has hindered internet growth and has created duopolies - that UT says are good. Why are the duopolies so expensive? There is longer free market competition. And UT says that is good - because Fox News said so.

Plenty of other sources also noted examples of net neutrality. But not extremist propaganda machines such as Fox News.

Correct! Comcast throttled BitTorrent, which congested its networks in 2012, making it harder to provide other services. That is the biggest example of an ACTUAL net neutrality violation in history.

But nowhere, in all that bluster, is a link to say Comcast was subverting VOICE traffic.

The software they may have bought (all this is from a lone press release from the company trying to sell them software) was for VOICE traffic, not BitTorrent. But we have no evidence they actually bought it, and no evidence they ever subverted voice traffic.

Understand this: it is utterly utterly trivial to detect throttling with packet sniffing software.

But evidence is not your strong suit. I ask for simple evidence, easy to provide. You just go off on a pathetic rant, believing that somehow that is evidence.

So: another failure, and no money for your charities.

How many times are you going to misremember this information?

IEEE said Comcast (and others) bought software to subvert VoIP traffic. Comcast bought software but did not use it? Then Skype, et al traffic was suffering quality and connection problems - intermittently but Comcast was not using it. UT knows Comcast does not subvert net neutrality even after caught subverting other traffic.

Voice over IP is not the entire internet. Net Neutrality means all internet functions work properly. Data transporters only transport all data. Content providers remains a separate industry to only provide that data. Then free market competition exists.

Once a company is both data transporter and content provider, then obvious conflicts of interest exist. Free market is compromised. Shenanigans such as packet skewing and data throttling mysteriously happen - and have happened. Net neutrality must be destroyed to make those shenanigans possible and more profitable.

Is net neutrality being subverted? Yes. Does that mean already obscene profits by the data transporters can be even greater. Of course. Is free market competition created by net neutrality. Obviously. Is that free market being subverted by duopolies? Obviously.

UT argues one tiny aspect - VoIP. If only VoIP packets are not being skewed, then net neutrality is not under attack and free markets exist? Nonsense. Right wing extremists (ie Fox News) are openly advocating the destruction of net neutrality and free markets. (Probably because Clinton successfully created it.) UT says that is good because VoIP (temporarily) is probably and currently not being subverted. UT then advocates removal of regulations that stopped VoIP skewing.

Wacko extremist logic is at play. Duopolies are a first step in destruction of net neutrality so that resulting monopolistic policies slowly can be implemented. Already, content providers will be charged for infrastructure that data transporters are suppose to invest in. UT says that is good - because subverting VoIP packets does not always happen.

Step one. Use propaganda to tell extremists what to believe. Net Neutrality was created by Clinton. So it must be evil. Fox News said so. Fox News disciples such as UT know it must be true. Learning facts before having a conclusion is not his strong suit.

I found the 2006 (!) post where you pointed out the IEEE article

The article points out that Comcast was "a customer" of Narus, the network management company that build VoIP-subverting software. But Narus built a lot of network management software.

The article points out that Narus's software can "secure, analyze, monitor, and mediate any traffic in an IP network" and that "Comcast Corp., in Philadelphia, the country's largest cable company, is already a Narus customer; Narus declined to say whether Comcast uses the VoIP-blocking capabilities."

Which is normal. You don't disclose your customer's interests. This tells us nothing; Comcast bought software that did 100 things, and one of the 100 things was the capability to subvert voice traffic. Big deal. We would need to show they were using it.

But again, that is utterly simple. I've personally done that kind of debugging for Fax over IP calls, at my last job.

All the VoIP providers would have an interest in finding and showing this subversion. It was very much in their interests to do so, in the first rounds of net neutrality discussions. They DID find it at another, smaller ISP. They DID NOT find it at Comcast.

It was trivial to show that other traffic was subverted. It would have been easy to show that VoIP traffic was subverted. But you can't find a link for that, even when provided a large motivation.

No money for you. 13 years of not being able to prove this. How long are you going to repeat your lie?

The 2006 thread is quite a treat

How'd that turn out? Today:
Comcast Voice Services is now Xfinity Voice, with 10 Million customers
Skype, estimated 1.5 Billion customers

LOL

LOL LOL LOL

After Comcast got investigated for skewing VoIP packets, then Skype stopped suffering periodic service problems. UT conveniently forgets, when suspected or caught, some internet providers stopped subverting internet traffic. Especially during the Obama years when FCC commissioners refused to subvert net neutrality.

We are now in a period where government works to enrich the rich. And lies daily. Even the mythical tax cut resulted in higher taxes to lower income taxpayers. Even FCC regulations to protect the internet in 2015 are now under challenge - to continue the slow subversion of net neutrality.

Why a sharp increase in robo calls? Protecting the public is contrary to an extremist agenda that wants to 'wreck shit'.

No problem. Comcast profits, due to no competition, are so extreme that it now buys SkyTV. And almost bought Fox. Why all this money? Without competition, Comcast charges 'content providers' while charging customers some of the highest internet rates in the industrial world. Plenty of money to invest elsewhere. Being both a 'content provider' and 'data transporter' further entrenches monopolistic strategies - harms free markets.

They got regulations changed to eliminate competition in 2001. Ten years later, that resulted in all but two companies eliminated. UT says that and contempt for free market competition is good. Duopolies now have a president who knows only what is good for him. So extremists are again threatening net neutrality. Encouraging robo calls. Even giving lip service to massive drug price increases. All part of a strategy that also attacks net neutrality. So UT wants to argue only about VoIP.

Narus software was purchased to subvert VoIP traffic here and in may other regions including Middle East nations. Once regulators started investigating, then suddenly Skype started working reliably. UT ignored that part to argue that internet providers never subverted internet traffic. Fox News did not say so. So it never happened?

Net Neutrality makes the internet work. UT refuses to admit that broadband was stifled for 15 years - until 1996 laws created net neutrality and free markets. Those regulations, that created free markets, resulted in massive internet growth for the past 23 years. But UT loves it when Comcast charges $50 for what is inferior to what is found in other industrial nations for $20. UT says those obscene profit margins are good.

He even disputes those prices by citing internet prices in countries such as Benin.

Thank god for monopolies and duopolies. Same extremist reasoning also created / encouraged drug prices in America that are over 40% higher than the rest of the world. Including sudden and sharp increases in insulin prices. Fox News and UT also give lip service that subverted free market. And tax cuts for the rich. UT also views that as acceptable.

As accurately predicted, destruction of net neutrality is a decade plus long strategy. It was halted in the Obama years. And it has now continued despite UT's glib humor.

Charges content providers? Whom?


He did? Where?


And don't forget my quarterly sewer bill went up almost $2, which has just as much bearing on net neutrality.

You're ranting like a Mississippi politician, poor defence, poor.:eyebrow:

NO news sources said so. If you had one single news source that said it happened, your charity would be at least $100 richer now.

But since you don't have any sources, ALL YOU HAVE IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY.

some folks got a skewed notion about what a free market is
 

mebbe in their lil orwellian worlds a free market isn't actually free

mebbe, in their neighborhood, 'free' means 'managed'

if so: they have my sympathy (I, as an austrian, have sympathy for all keynesians: johnny has them flummoxed)

in the world I live in: a free market is where I want X, X is available, I shop 'round till I find X at a price I can tolerate, I buy X

in the world I live in: a free market is where I have/make X, I offer X to customers at a price I can tolerate, I sell x

supply & demand, not 'fairness', rules

bad players (folks who cheat the customer, always an exercise in failing to live up to the terms of implicit or explicit voluntary contract) largely get punished through loss of profit

in egregious cases such bad players lose their livelihood and/or their freedom

this, of course, requires independent arbitration

mostly though, the market itself (customers, actual & potential) punishes the nogoodniks, or it would if folks were left alone to rebalance their individual scales

of course, a free market only operates when folks are free to transact, and -- sorry to say -- free to get bilked

if, instead of adressing breach of contract after the fact (individually) by way of a court of last resort, folks choose to cocoon themselves in prophylactica (protections against & and in advance of bilking) a free market becomes sumthin' other than 'free'

this is fine, if that's what folks want, but this managed market is not free and the competitive forces therein are managed (by someone other than those transacting)

so: what certain folks here argue for is managed markets, managed competition

their real beef is: the system of management is bein' circumvented

in essence: they're miffed cuz certain players wanna exercise a level of control over their product or service, a level of control that is prohibited not by freely entered into contract but by 'management'

ain't that right, tw?

Happy one year anniversary of the end of FCC regulations on net neutrality, everybody!

What happened?

Companies like Comcast no longer need invest in their network to provide upgraded service. They now charge Netflix, et al to pay for it.

As UT fails to grasp, such changes take many years or decades to be apparent to consumers.

A continued increase in prices will be paid for by the consumers who paying increased prices for Netflix. Comcast now has excessive cash to buy into more industries. (ie Universal Studios, sport teams, satellites, Fox, mobile phone companies, NBC, real estate (skyscrapers), retail industry).

Destruction of net neutrality massively enriches the data transporters. And protects a duopoly; making it impossible for innovative companies to get into the business. Resulting bad economic effects become obvious 10 and 20 years later. UT would have us believe it should happen in one.

Massively higher rates for internet today are a result of regulation changes in 2001 to enrich / entrench the duopoly. With free market competition, we would have 100 Mb internet for $20 per month. Better service for a lower price. Then Comcast would not be buying up sport teams and TV networks. Instead they would invest in their business.

Nothing!

Business school grads, and emotional children, and business-for-profit, oh my!!

That's what I thought.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should.
Just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't.
The reality is we don't know what they are actually doing.
We only know if they are found out, there is no consequences.

No consequences! What a perfect bogeyman.

Networks do not work like anything else we have generally encountered. All the models in our head are wrong.

The truth is, if we didn't find anything out, it means the network operated correctly.

A network is judged by whether it can deliver correct timely traffic or not. If there are fast and slow lanes in the network, for the purpose of shaping the network traffic, but the bits get to us on time, and are accurate -- excellent! That is the only measure of the network that matters.

One of the huge ironies of net neutrality that it is never practiced in large internal networks. If it makes sense for traffic to have a fast lane, we make sure it has a fast lane. Otherwise shit breaks!

How curious. That is exactly what Saddam had. So you finally learned that word.

AT&T once had this same problem. They did not install enough 'lanes'. So Mother's Day, especially, was once always a challenge. AT&T even kept using, for example, obsolete technology microwaves.

Once AT&T had competition, then suddenly plenty more lanes were added (ie Sprint's pin drop). Suddenly Mother's Day was never a problem. Then no more fast and slow lanes were required. And suddenly we discovered the price of a phone call from Philadelphia to NYC was same as the actual cost of a call from Philadelphia to Sydney Australia. (AT&T also wanted that reality hidden from us.)

A network is judged by whether it invests in its infrastructure. Fast and slow lanes are how 'bean counter' games are played. Then they need not invest in more lanes - to increase profits - and to add surcharges.

UT is reciting myths that exist today due to reduced competition (harm to net neutrality) almost 20 years ago. Back then, UT was also using the 'nothing' word. But ten years later, that nothing because increased costs. America's internet then dropped from #1 in the world.

Backbone providers are not making UT's mythical fears. Only companies that 'attack net neutrality to increase profits' are making claims so similar to the Saddam had WMD' myths and 'smoking cigarettes increase health' myths. Those myths also promoted only by those who would reap higher profits even at the expense of their customers / supporters.

Similar lies were also promoted to stifle the internet. Then net neutrality was created - free markets. Suddenly communication that was limited to 36k and 56k modems was replaced by technology that had been stifled for 15 years - 2000k modems. But it must be wrong. Net neutrality does not make good things happen. The duopolies say so. It must be true.

Back then, to not provide more lanes, then AT&T even silenced their chief scientist in the Bell Labs. He was also defining the only problem - lack of investment and lack of innovation.

Another example: Same people who stifled the internet also claimed COs were under threat from too many modems. We also had that discussion here. UT, back then, was also brainwashed by that telco myth. That 'easily swallowed myth' was created to justify price increases and surcharges. Deja Vue telephony.

Problems in a network only exist when a 'bean counter' mentality stifles investment in the infrastructure. Exactly what the duopolies need to increase profits - so as to even buy the backbone companies and further subvert net neutrality. Adding more lanes means less money to buy into sport teams and skyscrapers.

Shameful is how easily UT falls again for obvious lies. He said eliminating competition would decrease internet prices. Almost 20 years later and prices have now more than doubled. He forgets that only bean counter types and their brainwashed minions judge things only a year later.

Yes, telcos once demanded price increases due to so many modems. UT also believed that lie created by no free market competition and stifled innovation. Net neutrality also exposed and deleted that obvious lie. UT did not learn from that mistake. The problem was solved by net neutrality and resulting free market competition.

UT
(An unauthorized biography)

UT is reciting myths that exist today. Back then, UT was also using the 'nothing' word. Backbone providers are not making UT's mythical fears. UT, back then, was also brainwashed by that telco myth. Shameful is how easily UT falls again for obvious lies. UT also believed that lie created by no free market competition and stifled innovation. UT did not learn from that mistake.

The End

Amazon looking to launch 3,236 low-orbit satellites

You see,

There is no point in providers limiting the Internet they give to people.

5G. Low-earth orbit satellite. Or wired. Ten years from now, the only selling point each will have is that they are able to give MORE of it to you than the competition.

This is not going to be a fight over how slow or limited they can be in order to eke out cash. All winners will be very fast and completely unlimited. The only fight will be between very fast and extremely goddamn fast.



*except when limited by governments, which in the case of satellite will be interesting

Well, when the government discovers that they can take a slice of the money as well, they'd definitely limit it.

They can't. The communication is to a satellite, instead of the local phone company which they operate or regulate.

gonna be hella interesting

They are going to expect me to check email when I am in the boonies

Well, let's wait and see how far they're willing to go to regulate things further.

By the way, is the do we have the fastest internet connection in the whole world?

"We" being America? Definitely not.

Just think, only a couple years ago we were number 14, and now were all the way up to number 20. Yay team! USA! USA!

We care about Mbps because we were told that was the number to care about, and I suppose in one sense it is the best available metric.

But if you have a 6 lane driveway connected to a 2 lane road, the 6 lanes aren't very interesting...

And if the road has 6 lanes but only goes to Schenectady that isn't very interesting...

If you only have one car, and the speed limit is 15, the number of lanes is entirely irrelevant.

Streaming HD video takes about 5Mbps, Ultra HD takes about 25Mbps, nothing else that is transferred takes that level of bandwidth for an extended period of time.

So, in 2019, if you have 25Mbps and are only using it yourself, there will be zero difference to you if you move to a 1000Mbps connection. The experience will be identical.

You may have to buy 1000 to get 25, though.

Because the ISPs backbone is also not being upgraded as it is elsewhere in the world.

Long before benefits of higher speed can be realized, first those higher speeds must be available.

Using your logic, we should all still be using 2 Mb DSL. Since that also did everything we needed fast enough. Since that even permitted 'movies on demand' in the 1980s. Proof that we never needed any faster internet then or today. Clearly high speed internet has been a scam.

Using your logic, we do not need 5G phones. 3G has always been more than sufficient. It is good that Huawei has wasted all that money to become the world leader in mobile phones. Nobody needs it.

Nobody needs more than 140 characters to make valid statements. Trump proves it. It must be true.

Hey, those countries that have more bandwidth than us, what are they doing with it that we aren't doing with ours?

*crickets*

~

In the past, there were always times where you could say, "If only everybody had 10 times the bandwidth, we'd be able to give them X". In 1995 we said that about images on web pages. In 1998 we said that about large images on web pages. In 2003 we said that about streaming audio. In 2010 we said that about streaming video. But in 2019, we don't say that about anything in particular.

Funny thing, innovation. Doesn't always go in a straight line.

~

Think about it, porn always leads the way in communication technologies. But there is nobody (AFAIK) offering any porn that's more bandwidth-consuming than your average Netflix.

My friend has gigabit internet from FIOS, he actually HAS 10 times the bandwidth than we do. Where is his porn app that uses all that bandwidth? There isn't one! What does he do with his gigabit service? Same thing we all do, and he uses the same amount of bandwidth doing it.

I have 100 up and down from Verizon because I subscribed to 75 up and down, but they decided to move everyone with 75 up to 100 at the same price.
Sam Knows tells be it hasn't dropped below 98 in the last six months.

Evidently this throttling has not become a noticeable problem so far, all hail the wise toad. However, it bothers me that they have this in their arsenal, why would they spend millions fighting this restriction if they weren't going to use it? Just to have it as an option? Just because they fight any and all regulation?

I had to laugh at the commercials for online gambling in NJ. They have various supposedly real players telling you it's safe and honest yada yada yada. Then one woman comes up with,"It's regulated by the state". :facepalm:

I hear ya. I just wish my streaming videos wouldn't auto-drop in quality every couple of minutes while the buffering catches back up. It goes blurry for 10 seconds at a time and it's annoying. First world problems, I know.

They want to stream games now, but the main problem there is latency, not bandwidth.