Forums | MacLife

frankly wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

Those people need to make sure they aren't violating the comcast ToS by running a P2P server 24/7.
If they really are your only option, then giving away bits to look cool to people who don't even know who the hell you are isn't the smartest thing in the world to do.

And you can get satellite service just about anywhere. The upload isn't so great, but download ain't too shabby.

http://www.satellitefamily.com/satellite-internet.asp

and there are plenty others.

So the question needs to be asked: since you (resedit) are BitTorrenting, why aren't you availing yourself of these alternates?

And the bigger questions is, why does he think that these others won't limit their users in a similar fashion. We've already seen that two of the biggest cable providers are going in this direction so does anyone really think that other broadband providers won't follow the big boys down this rabbit hole?

Not bloody likely. To make matters worse, if any of the little guys do, they'll likely run into the case like the Canadian DSL providers did with Bell.

The Canadian DSL providers that leased lines from Bell Canada offered unlimited bandwidth with promises of no traffic shaping/throttling. Around 4 months ago Bell rolled out a new traffic shaping system that not only throttled any Bell Customer that activated P2P software, but also customers who used a provider that leased a line from Bell.

Expect to see the Big Telecos quietly rolling out policies that heavily penalize any other ISP that leases a line from them if they offer unlimited packages/non-throttling packages.

It's this exact behaviour I was trying to point out to Res earlier, but was met with a rediculous "la la la the cap is fine, nevermind the other issues" response.

Last edited by unshavenyak (2008-09-18 7:48 pm)

unshavenyak wrote:

frankly wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

So the question needs to be asked: since you (resedit) are BitTorrenting, why aren't you availing yourself of these alternates?

And the bigger questions is, why does he think that these others won't limit their users in a similar fashion. We've already seen that two of the biggest cable providers are going in this direction so does anyone really think that other broadband providers won't follow the big boys down this rabbit hole?

Not bloody likely. To make matters worse, if any of the little guys do, they'll likely run into the case like the Canadian DSL providers did with Bell.

The Canadian DSL providers that leased lines from Bell Canada offered unlimited bandwidth with promises of no traffic shaping/throttling. Around 4 months ago Bell rolled out a new traffic shaping system that not only throttled any Bell Customer that activated P2P software, but also customers who used a provider that leased a line from Bell.

Expect to see the Big Telecos quietly rolling out policies that heavily penalize any other ISP that leases a line from them if they offer unlimited packages/non-throttling packages.

It's this exact behaviour I was trying to point out to Res earlier, but was met with a rediculous "la la la the cap is fine, nevermind the other issues" response.

That is an issue for government regulation and fair competition, and has nothing to do with a bandwidth cap. If they are going to throttle your bandwidth they will throttle your bandwidth whether or not there is a bandwidth cap. If they are going to throttle the lines they lease to other companies, that's a contractual issue between them and the companies they lease lines to that may have federal, state, and local regulations on how the contract may be drawn - and also has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they have a fixed bandwidth cap or not.

One thing I am seeing here locally is an INCREASE in both upload and download speed - not only has my speed gone up for the low end service, but I can pay an extra $30 a month and essentially tripple my throughput.

Increased speeds means that the amount of bandwidth a user can potentially use in a month goes up, and the ISP pays for bandwidth, so putting a cap in place may in fact be the only way they are willing to increase the speed.

I'll take increased speed with a ridiculously high cap over a slower speed with no cap any day.

Bat wrote:

resedit wrote:

That is an issue for government regulation and fair competition

I've a hunch you have far too much faith in both. It's a matter for big-money interests and lawyers.

TDS Telecom, a telco with 3,500 employees and a presence in 30 states, is suing the town of Monticello, Minnesota, for trying to put in a fiber optic network of its own. Why would a company try to prevent a town from building itself a faster network? TDS tells us that it's really just looking out for the taxpayer (and its own infrastructure investment).

Not satisfied with the current DSL and cable offerings, Monticello hatched an ambitious plan to wire up its entire town with fiber, build an interconnect station, and allow ISPs to link up to the site and offer Internet access over the city-maintained fiber links. After a vote on the measure passed overwhelmingly last year, Monticello moved to break ground and was promptly sued by the local telephone provider, Bridgewater, a unit of TDS.

We've already covered the legal filings in that case (which is ongoing), but were also interested in hearing from TDS. Fiber backers see the lawsuit and a recent announcement to install a TDS-built fiber network in town as strategy designed largely to prevent the Monticello experiment from being repeated across Minnesota ("See, you'll get sued, and neither of us wants that! Also, we're already building fiber networks, so no need to do it yourselves! Please stop thinking about it!"). But TDS insists it's in the right.

Telco to fiber-deploying town: we sue because we care

Wow, just wow.

If we had real government regulation and/or free market competition maybe it would actually work. What we have instead is an unregulated trust which never works. Japan as a real monopoly in NTT but it's obviously well regulated demonstrated by the fact that there's actual results. Real competition would allow more than ultimately one of any type of provider in any given area (surrogates do not count can the one in charge of the tap can set bandwidth caps on them) and economic pressures would influence service. With what we have now, there are no economic pressures or regulation to make things improve so things just sit and stagnate.

Do you actually believe the BS you spew?

Seriously, it may be when an individual tries to to implement a solution found in the private sector it can be inferior due to skill set and/or resources but this is a community. They tend to hire the the people with the proper skill set when posssible and can sometimes have the resources needed to match or even exceed a private sector solution.

That suit is nothing but a Telco's attempt to protect it's monopoly status, pure and simple.

Which is why I think in this case the government should be focussing on minimum quality standards instead of bailouts if it wants private sector to handle things. More so I think as part of that it should watch actual financial & technological trends in determining and updating those minimal standards. However if someone can and wants to do better than the minimum more power to them, sky's the limit, .gov should butt out.

Yeah - I've seen them, and the bailouts are not always the right thing to do. Unfortunately we really do need airlines and we really do need stable banking.

We don't need > 250GB of bandwidth per month for consumer internet service.

The times when it is OK for government to get involved are the times when the tax payer stands to substantially benefit.
For example, a city building a sports park can greatly increase revenue in the city - though the city has to be really careful, because sometimes (often in fact) that turns south.

resedit wrote:

Yeah - I've seen them, and the bailouts are not always the right thing to do. Unfortunately we really do need airlines and we really do need stable banking.

We don't need > 250GB of bandwidth per month for consumer internet service.

The times when it is OK for government to get involved are the times when the tax payer stands to substantially benefit.
For example, a city building a sports park can greatly increase revenue in the city - though the city has to be really careful, because sometimes (often in fact) that turns south.

You just set your argument up for failure by listing things where you think it is okay to invest and others where you think it is not. We do need airline traffic but if a specific airline goes under do you not think others will step up to fill those routes? That is what the free market does. We do need stable banking, that is why the government shouldn't have loosened regulations that led to all of these banks folding or needing loans.

And finally, why do you think that if a city (or a private company) built a fiber-optic infrastructure that it would ONLY be used for consumer Internet traffic??? I would argue that a really good communications infrastructure can lure more businesses to your city than a baseball stadium could. And those businesses would need employees and would increase the tax base and overall revenue of the city.

Modern communications and power grids are MUCH more important to the future of this country than a particular airline or bank. If private industry is not stepping up then it is only prudent for a city government to do so themselves.

Last edited by frankly (2008-09-20 3:42 pm)

And why would a Telco or Cable Provider want to prevent competition? It's simple. They want to charge as much as possible and spend as little as possible. Competition makes it so they can't raise the price quite as high as they would work but they have to spend more on maintaining infrastructure & providing services. If they don't someone else will and will take customers and thus profits away as a result.

ScifiterX wrote:

And why would a Telco or Cable Provider want to prevent competition? It's simple. They want to charge as much as possible and spend as little as possible. Competition makes it so they can't raise the price quite as high as they would work but they have to spend more on maintaining infrastructure & providing services. If they don't someone else will and will take customers and thus profits away as a result.

Right - and when that competition is the government, that competition has an unfair advantage.

resedit wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

And why would a Telco or Cable Provider want to prevent competition? It's simple. They want to charge as much as possible and spend as little as possible. Competition makes it so they can't raise the price quite as high as they would work but they have to spend more on maintaining infrastructure & providing services. If they don't someone else will and will take customers and thus profits away as a result.

Right - and when that competition is the government, that competition has an unfair advantage.

Last I checked UPS, FedEx, and DHL were all doing really well. And what about Blackwater? They are raking in the money

Pariah wrote:

What the town wants to do fosters a free, competitive market while what the teleco wants to do would create a monopoly on the fiber channel.

Actually that only partially true.

What the town wants to do fosters a free, competitive market on the fiber channel while what the teleco wants to do would maintain a monopoly on their existing outdated proprietary infrastructure which that may or may not upgrade if and when they get around to it.