131–140 of 181 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That certainly depends. But just because a cost is fixed doesn't mean it's free or low.
I made no promises of either free or low.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As an ISP how would you _guarantee_ the bandwidth for each endpoint? When I still lived in Slovenia, I had 20/20 FTTH. Fiber went directly into a router in my bedroom. My bandwidth was always exactly 20/20. No matter what. Now I have Comcast. Speedtest says I get 80/6. On Friday and Saturday evenings Netflix and Facebook and many other things often experience issues. Now I can't confirm any of this. If you run spee…
> My bandwidth was always exactly 20/20. No matter what. This can't possibly be true. The ISP providing the service can only guarantee a particular speed to the boarder of their network. Once you connect to a service not hosted by your ISP they can't guarantee anything.
And when I was on ADSL, I did notice those dips. A lot of them. With FTTH, they went away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made no promises of either free or low.
That was literally the premise of the thread. So your entire errand was pointing out the blatantly obviously fact that fixed costs are fixed?
No it wasn't. The thread starter discussed how broadband connections should be marketed, and the suggestion was to use guaranteed bandwidth as a measure.
This then digressed into the cost of bandwidth, where one poster took it totally off the rails by assuming transit costs $25 per Mbps, when the true cost is two decades lower.
The fixed cost of providing guaranteed bandwidth in the last mile pales compared to costs like $25 per Mbps, which was my point. The last mile is a fixed cost and even high amounts of guaranteed bandwidth in the last mile are fixed costs which are easily covered by the monthly subscription fee.
That does not mean that the fixed costs are free or low by absolute dollar terms.
So there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO, IANAL > -> meaning that a court order can change Net Neutrality, hmmm ok. It would be weird for a court to order anyone to break net neutrality. > -> meaning that in order to guarantee the security of the network Net Neutrality may be avoided. I'm so-so on this one. The intention here seems to be to allow (D)DOS attack mitigation etc. > -> Meaning that ISPs can throttle specific categories of traffic at their ow…
> Note that the law is very clear that this only is allowed "provided that equivalent categories of traffic are treated equally." They can, for instance, slow down P2P traffic. What do you think about that?
I think there should be some regulation that guarantees provider competition so that consumers could take their stand on issues like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> larger bureaucracy is harder to regulatorily capture The example of US federal government does not exactly support this point.
It does when you compare it to state and municipal governments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the report: "In this context we must highlight the danger of restrictive Net Neutrality rules, in the context of 5G technologies, business applications and beyond. 5G introduces the concept of “Network Slicing” to accommodate a wide-variety of industry verticals’ business models on a common platform, at scale and with services guarantees. Automated driving, smart grid control, virtual reality and public safety s…
That kind of thinly veiled extortion is exactly why harsher regulation is required.
On a sane planet, one not following clown world logic, it would be obvious that the telcos are telling the government to stop extorting them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone is playing by the same rules so they would all end up advertising 2.5 mbps @ 50$ / month with speed boost if that's what they can provide. The important point is it does not actually take much bandwidth to do streaming video etc, but if you can't provide reasonable bandwidth when people want to use it then it's false advertising. PS: Don't forget back haul is actually a relatively minor cost for most ISP's.…
That information is even less useful than what ISPs provide now. Home users really have no reason to value the worst case scenario speed since it never happens. If my ISP was going to tell me either the limit they cap me at and the speed the can guarantee me at 100% use, I'd pick the former.
As it stands an ISP can advertise 100 mbps service and fail to show Netflix streams when a 10 mbps connection on another ISP can easily handle 2 of them in HD. Thus, consumers need something meaningful.
PS: Picture trying to compare gas MPG if car companies could report MPG while costing down the side of a mountain. That's a perfect recipe for Honda to optimize the wrong things just like ISP's do now.
As always, devil is in the details. If you look at the fine print in the published "Guidelines for implementing Net Neutratily" [1] linked in the article you will see that there are 3 exceptions to the rule (a,b,c). Being "c" the one that should fear us most: EXCEPTIONS a) "comply with Union legislative acts (...) -> meaning that a court order can change Net Neutrality, hmmm ok. b) preserve the integrity and security…
It encourages me to see that the European court at least has some people on it that seem to understand that net neutrality is in fact a human rights issue. And this is why Brexit is so heart-breaking. I'm surrounded by people in my personal life who think it's a fantastic idea, but they're not the most... informed? Likewise for local politicians. (Side note to my rant: I have this theory that the rise of the iPhone,…
> Yes, I would rather have decisions made by people in Brussels that understand what they're doing. That requires having people in Brussels who understand what they're doing - at least better than local politicians. But I'm not sure how exactly you ensure that. If we assume you are right that the people around you (excepting you, of course) are woefully misinformed and so are local politicians, where would the enligh…
I utterly agree with all of the points made above, I simply feel that if it's a case of "better the devil you know than the devil you don't", then I would choose "don't" any day of the week based on a lifetime of experiencing local politics.
Honestly, the thought of any increase in power to local politicians terrifies me, based on their track record alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unification is counter-productive if you think that the goals of the group are bad.
Which goals would those be? An efficient tariff free zone? A larger area for individual opportunity? A reasonable social safety net? Greater power on the global stage? Protection for human rights? Or is the objection merely to some wholly imaginary threat to the purity of the anglo-saxon race and culture and an unthinking and instantaneous embracing of anything nationalist and right leaning?
Yes. Yes it is. Everyone who disagrees with you is emotionally driven and intellectually dishonest.
The goal we object to was the attempt to build a giant country. The EEC should have stuck with the tariff free zone and free movement (of workers, not all citizens, as it was originally). Instead they grew into a 28-nation wannabe superpower with a currency, flag, central bank, law-making powers, etc. Now Juncker is pushing for an EU army. The whole project has departed from reality and is going to collapse in a few decades, sadly taking down the free trade zone with it.