- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:34 am to StraightCashHomey21
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:34 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
StraightCashHomey21
So. To summarize.
1. You refuse to admit that networks today are NOT the same as they were in 2002(which means they HAVE improved)
2. You have asserted they have not "kept up" with modern demands(which is an admission of OUR point). IE, you EXPECT them to keep up with modern demands but believe they shouldn't be allowed to charge those that are causing them to need to modernize).
Dude. You've literally acquiesced to our entire fricking argument in this thread.
You recognize(which is why you duck it) that the internet would be bad assed with TODAY's infrastructure if it was supporting 2007 internet.
THAT is an admission that the reason 2017 infrastructure is not sufficient is NOT a function of the providers, but of what they are being asked to provide.
This thread is soooooo fricking done.
Throw in the damned towel man. Throw in the towel!!
1
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:35 am to DarthRebel
quote:
Then you are lying or have a weird definition of realistic
He means internet faster than 3mbps, with no data caps. There are rarely more than 2 companies who offer such a package in a service area.
He isn't wrong. You can't stream high quality media or play online games at that speed.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:36 am to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
If the network can't support the max amount of bandwidth then they should improve their service
Again, there is not a network on this planet that is built to support all endpoints running at max bandwidth at all times.
That's why it's always sold as "up to" whatever the bandwidth is.
Fiber, copper, even wirelss CDMA/TDMA systems all operate on this principle.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:36 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
ISPs didn't or don't upgrade bc they had no incentive to.
ISP's have continually upgraded their capacity and speeds. They are still doing so. You just lost all credibility. 
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:36 am to Centinel
quote:
Do you think a network is built out assuming all users are using their max bandwidth at all times?
I doubt if a really robust network can handle more than 50% of the subscribers using moderate data requirements without network slowdown. Services such as voice and video will have packet priority but data will as a whole will slow.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:37 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
We are paying for the packages to be delivered. But again, there is no reason for ISPs to treat packages differently, because all the packages are the same.
In the Fed example. Imagine all packages weight exactly the same and take up the same space.
Fed ex can't change prices.
I deliver 1 such package a week.
SlowFlo shows up every Monday with 20,000.
But better yet.
FedEx is not only expected to have the ability to deal with SlowFlo, but, to prepare for the next guy who will show up with 100,000.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:38 am to ShortyRob
quote:
1. You refuse to admit that networks today are NOT the same as they were in 2002(which means they HAVE improved)
You said 2010, but still depends on where you live
quote:
2. You have asserted they have not "kept up" with modern demands(which is an admission of OUR point). IE, you EXPECT them to keep up with modern demands but believe they shouldn't be allowed to charge those that are causing them to need to modernize).
once again depends on where you live
quote:
You recognize(which is why you duck it) that the internet would be bad assed with TODAY's infrastructure if it was supporting 2007 internet. THAT is an admission that the reason 2017 infrastructure is not sufficient is NOT a function of the providers, but of what they are being asked to provide. This thread is soooooo fricking done.
Depends on where and who the ISP is.
A majority of ISPs oversell the bandwidth and allow their nodes to be oversaturated.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:39 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
I doubt if a really robust network can handle more than 50% of the subscribers using moderate data requirements without network slowdown. Services such as voice and video will have packet priority but data will as a whole will slow.
Exactly. So if you have a handful of subscribers going balls to the wall, it's going to affect the ability of the rest of the subscribers to access content. Especially if we're talking TCP connections.
Hence data hogs exist, which is way data caps exist...even in "unlimited" access plans.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 10:40 am
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:39 am to LSURussian
quote:
ISP's have continually upgraded their capacity and speeds. They are still doing so. You just lost all credibility.
They do so if they have direct competition
perfect example is some ISPs using data caps where they have no competition.
Or laying fiber in some areas but won't in others bc they have no one to compete with.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:40 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
I doubt if a really robust network can handle more than 50% of the subscribers using moderate data requirements without network slowdown. Services such as voice and video will have packet priority but data will as a whole will slow.
I just can't even figure out what these people think will happen?
Even if tomorrow, I waved a wand and every area had 10 providers of equal capability.
That would simply drive ever faster advancement which, absent some mechanism(market pricing), would in short order outpace even those 10 providers.
How the frick do they not understand this?
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:41 am to OMLandshark
quote:
You’re openly advocating making a current utility more restricted so less people can partake in it.
It is not a freaking utility, you do not need the Internet for survival.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:41 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:Let's assume you're correct about the "crap" part.
and a whole bunch of those a satellite which is crap.
Doesn't that contradict your opinion that the current system is working well?
Again, your continual belief that high speed internet access is only available via a wire running into the house (from a cable line on the street or a satellite dish in the yard) is laughable.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:42 am to Centinel
quote:
Your corporate LAN "oversells" it's bandwidth, because building out the infrastructure to support all ports running at full GigE at all times would be ludicrous.
hence why they shouldn't oversell bandwidth they can't actually provide.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:42 am to ShortyRob
quote:I'm going to attribute it to having a double digit IQ.
How the frick do they not understand this?
Drama Queens are gonna drama......
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:43 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:For frick's sake, OK. Since 2010. Have they improved?
You said 2010, but still depends on where you live
I mean yeah it depends on where you live fricktard. It's a big country.
quote:Now you're just being pathetic.
A majority of ISPs oversell the bandwidth and allow their nodes to be oversaturated.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:44 am to Centinel
quote:
Exactly. So if you have a handful of subscribers going balls to the wall, it's going to affect the ability of the rest of the subscribers to access content. Especially if we're talking TCP connections. Hence data hogs exist, which is way data caps exist...even in "unlimited" access plans.
Please please tell me how data caps improve the network. Esp when ISPs pay next to nothing for the data they then charge way more for.
Other countries with better internet don't use caps
Hell some ISPs in American don't have caps in one town bc their competition doesn't yet implements them in towns they have no competition.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:44 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Getting warmer
Por favor, just make your point.
There is an uncompetitive market for broadband internet. Lots of areas only have 1 or 2 choices because there is so much required capital and so much regulation. It's not realistic to expect that to change. In a perfect world, the FCC would go frick itself but it's not happening right now. So we have to use net neutrality to control the situation. I know what you're gonna say - government solution to a government caused problem. But there are no realistic alternatives today.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:44 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:Classic.
You have no idea what you are talking about
quote:Has literally nothing to do with my quip.
to stream in 4K you need around 15-20 megs down.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:44 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
hence why they shouldn't oversell bandwidth they can't actually provide.
But they can provide it.
Unless a small number of users are running at full capacity continuously.
We should come up with a term for those type of people...
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:45 am to ShortyRob
quote:
How the frick do they not understand this?
They don’t work in the industry and have never studied or designed network infrastructure.
Page 13 of 34
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News