Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Net Neutrality and Bandwidth Speed
So I listened to the entire speech that Ted Stevens gave on net neutrality, and let's remember not to show mercy on him, just because he has a speech impediment. He should have done some sort of research before, or should have had somebody else deliver the speech who knew what they were talking about. Also, Steven's done other silly shit, like trying to drill in Alaska, and interestingly enough, alot of people hate him. By the way, I especially disliked the part where he tried to make that analogy with mail and movies, and how they're different ways to deliver them. It had nothing to do with net neutrality.
Recently, my family cancelled the cable service to our house. There are several reasons why. One's that the deal didn't come with a DVR. All it had was a digital cable box. Secondly, cox could not provide a phone service. And lastly, the bandwidth being provided was horrible. With phone service from Sage Communcations and internet and tv with Cox Communications, we were paying around 140 a month. This was a complete rip off, even more when we weren't getting the speed we were said to get.
Cox's argument was that our desktop computer was the problem one time, then they agreed and said they'd fix it, and they never did. They came out and measured the network speed instead of measuring the bandwidth speed that was running over the actual network. All they were doing was measuring my connection to their network, not the net. The reality was, the company did not have enough bandwidth to distribute, or they wished to conserve some for new customers.
We've now switched over to AT&T SBC with Yahoo DSL. The phone is obviously covered. The internet is running fast at 4 to 5 Mbps downstream and upstream at 600KBps. Before with cox, we were getting around 1 Mbps DS and 10KBps US. Nice change, and we supposedly had the best possible cable connection. And with Dish Network TV, we have a DVR (100 hours of video) with two channel inputs. This means, we can have two channels recording or playing at once, and you can do it from one satellite box. In total, this all cost us $100 a month.
I know this has less to do with net neutrality, but I'm just trying further the idea that some ISP's (like Cox) are run by greedy bastards who trick their customers into thinking they have the best deal. The only way we were able to find out about the AT&T SBC deal was over the mail. Cox seems to show up on every commercial break in our state.
Recently, my family cancelled the cable service to our house. There are several reasons why. One's that the deal didn't come with a DVR. All it had was a digital cable box. Secondly, cox could not provide a phone service. And lastly, the bandwidth being provided was horrible. With phone service from Sage Communcations and internet and tv with Cox Communications, we were paying around 140 a month. This was a complete rip off, even more when we weren't getting the speed we were said to get.
Cox's argument was that our desktop computer was the problem one time, then they agreed and said they'd fix it, and they never did. They came out and measured the network speed instead of measuring the bandwidth speed that was running over the actual network. All they were doing was measuring my connection to their network, not the net. The reality was, the company did not have enough bandwidth to distribute, or they wished to conserve some for new customers.
We've now switched over to AT&T SBC with Yahoo DSL. The phone is obviously covered. The internet is running fast at 4 to 5 Mbps downstream and upstream at 600KBps. Before with cox, we were getting around 1 Mbps DS and 10KBps US. Nice change, and we supposedly had the best possible cable connection. And with Dish Network TV, we have a DVR (100 hours of video) with two channel inputs. This means, we can have two channels recording or playing at once, and you can do it from one satellite box. In total, this all cost us $100 a month.
I know this has less to do with net neutrality, but I'm just trying further the idea that some ISP's (like Cox) are run by greedy bastards who trick their customers into thinking they have the best deal. The only way we were able to find out about the AT&T SBC deal was over the mail. Cox seems to show up on every commercial break in our state.
Comments
DSL, on the other hand, doens't speed down with more users because you don't share your line with your neighbors.
At least this is my mostly uninformed understanding. Feel free to school me as necessary.
But the whole thing is bullshit anyway. Even without net neutrality laws, the telco's can't do anything without a major backlash against them. Even then, Google will just light up all the dark fiber they've been buying up and set up it's own, truly neutral net. I, for one, Welcome our new Google overlords. Because, most likely for better, Google has more real power than the government. The Goverment has to bend somewhat to the will of the people, but Google can convince the people to bend.
Here's the site where the discussion takes place.
The loss of net neutrality isn't a worry here in Albion due the large number of ISP's as such a scheme can only work if every service provider enforces the tiered system. The best way to stop such a system would seemingly be to support the small ISP's increasing the market competition and in turn making the implementation of net neutrality impossible.
He's speaking to a hypothetical America where options exist in every location and it's such an incorrect stance, it's laughable.
He cannot understand that Internet access is shaping the works and that many other nations are ahead of us in all regards when it comes to the internet. It was infuriating dealing with such an intelligent man with so little understanding.
I mean in the long run it is not in their interest to even subtly censor what their customers see, since they will end up losing people to competition who don't.
Of course corporations have not historically been great at foreseeing long term disaster in the face of short term profit. Also that sort of free market self regulation only works if they are the only ones doing it, if everyone jumps on the band wagon they people will have no recourse when their ISP decides to screw them.
Though now that I think about it my electric company being classified as a utility does not stop them from screwing me from time to time, since I have no other option their either.( I live in RI where we have only one Electric company)
Corporations just suck, unless you own one, then they are awesome. "Wait, so I can do what ever I want and 'Apple' will take the fall! 'Apple' is not even a person, how Great!"
Ridiculous!
If I host a website is my server part of the utility? What about the connection between my server and the first router? Second? Third? Where would we draw the demarcation lines?
DONE
What about companies like Level3? Would they be nationalized too? What about the CDNs?
Case closed. The only moral thing is to nationalize these companies, but it won't happen.
Not saying whether or nor your assertion is true but I would like to see the hard data to back it up.
http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf
And a more recent incentive program, also measured in billions:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/07/att_verizon_get_most_federal_a.html
As for what proportion of the current network(s) are built with taxpayer money, that's probably unknowable, ultimately. For one thing, it depends on how you define "taxpayer money".
Also, CNN has all the veracity of FOX News. It should be viewed with extreme skepticism (but I'm not going to research it because it's a) moot and b) I'm dying.)