Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Scientist)   The era of unlimited data on home broadband connections is likely drawing to a close   (newscientist.com) divider line 192
    More: Sad, Akamai Technologies, fiber-optics, radio spectrum, WhistleOut, renewable resources, optical fiber cable, broadband, connectedness  
•       •       •

10835 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Jul 2012 at 11:39 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



192 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-25 08:52:22 PM  
I wish DSL could be competitive with cable internet. At least that could put pressure on competition, making us, the consumer, benefit. Time Warner is the only game in town where I live for Internet. Our phone company, FairPoint, is so incompetent that they cant do anything to improve our fiber networks
 
2012-07-25 09:02:25 PM  

cman: I wish DSL could be competitive with cable internet.


Actually it can, second generation DSL can provide speeds as good as cable.
 
2012-07-25 09:03:39 PM  
Remember kids, it's not trucks, it's tubes.
 
2012-07-25 09:39:30 PM  
Only in the U.S..

Other countries have actual competition for their client base.
 
2012-07-25 10:22:17 PM  
Or...

if demand is too high, and supply is too low, charge more for the unlimited data at higher download speeds. Have tiered plans.

Wonder why nobody's thought of that before...
 
2012-07-25 10:58:25 PM  
is this the thread where i gloat that i'm already on 25mbit symmetric (that is - 25mbit both directions) fiber? and this is the second lowest tier the company offers
 
2012-07-25 11:45:43 PM  
When I moved to Australia, I was amazed at how many people cared enough to secure their home WiFi.

Then it struck me.

No unlimited broadband.

If you don't secure your system, you're paying for it.

I'm all for getting rid of unlimited broadband if it means better security all-around.
 
2012-07-25 11:46:27 PM  
I wonder how much of this shiat would go away if we just killed most non-essential broadcast signals and replaced it with the internet...
 
2012-07-25 11:52:47 PM  

Marine1: I wonder how much of this shiat would go away if we just killed most non-essential broadcast signals and replaced it with the internet...


That probably where most of this comes from. If you aren't going to pay them for cable, you are going to pay them for the bandwidth to download your show. There is no money in it for them if they just let you get everything online for free.
 
2012-07-25 11:52:53 PM  

Marine1: I wonder how much of this shiat would go away if we just killed most non-essential broadcast signals and replaced it with the internet...


You can have my Hallmark American Classics From the 1950s Heartland channel when you pry it from my cold dead hands!
 
2012-07-25 11:57:03 PM  

RogermcAllen: Marine1: I wonder how much of this shiat would go away if we just killed most non-essential broadcast signals and replaced it with the internet...

That probably where most of this comes from. If you aren't going to pay them for cable, you are going to pay them for the bandwidth to download your show. There is no money in it for them if they just let you get everything online for free.


I'm talking about everything in general. Radio especially. AM/FM stations are a rather poor use of frequency, IMO. You're taking a pretty reliable slice of the spectrum and dedicating it to audio broadcast only. Sounds kind of stupid to me. Then again, I'm not a radio engineer, so maybe having the spectrum used for broadcast radio in the US dedicated to more versatile data transmissions isn't a good idea.
 
2012-07-25 11:59:51 PM  
I have often wanted to start a service provider called "Big Stupid Pipe". You get as much bandwidth as you want to pay for. No bundled services.
 
2012-07-26 12:05:38 AM  
I got FiOS last week and it is glorious, 35Mbps up and down. Best part is the advertised speed is what I am actually getting, worth every penny.
 
2012-07-26 12:06:14 AM  

b2theory: I have often wanted to start a service provider called "Big Stupid Pipe". You get as much bandwidth as you want to pay for. No bundled services.


I serviced your mom with my big stupid pipe.
 
2012-07-26 12:06:55 AM  

2wolves: Only in the U.S..

Other countries have actual competition for their client base.


Don't come to Toronto. Over here, you either choose RED or BLUE, but it's all a vote for the evil telecommunications overlord in the end.
 
2012-07-26 12:06:57 AM  

Marine1: RogermcAllen: Marine1: I wonder how much of this shiat would go away if we just killed most non-essential broadcast signals and replaced it with the internet...

That probably where most of this comes from. If you aren't going to pay them for cable, you are going to pay them for the bandwidth to download your show. There is no money in it for them if they just let you get everything online for free.

I'm talking about everything in general. Radio especially. AM/FM stations are a rather poor use of frequency, IMO. You're taking a pretty reliable slice of the spectrum and dedicating it to audio broadcast only. Sounds kind of stupid to me. Then again, I'm not a radio engineer, so maybe having the spectrum used for broadcast radio in the US dedicated to more versatile data transmissions isn't a good idea.


I think you run into the same problem people have with satellite internet.

Down speeds are ok because there as a huge transmitter sending data to you, but up speeds are shiat because you only have a small transmitter sending information back.
 
2012-07-26 12:09:31 AM  
https://fiber.google.com/savethedate/

Google Fiber
is coming on July 26
Look out for an announcement at google.com/fiber on July 26.

DRTFA -- but here.
 
2012-07-26 12:09:43 AM  

Marine1: I'm talking about everything in general. Radio especially. AM/FM stations are a rather poor use of frequency, IMO.


Just as a note, the entire commercial radio broadcast space in Canada/USA is slightly wider than 1MHz. To give you an idea of how useful that is, WiFi channels are either 20MHz or 40 MHz depending on setup. That is to say you'd need about 19 times the space used for AM broadcast just to fit a WiFi signal. LTE is a little more conservative on some setups, needing only 1.4MHz (at lowest) per IO direction, meaning you'd still need more than two AM broadcast ranges to be able to use it
 
2012-07-26 12:10:23 AM  

RogermcAllen: Marine1: RogermcAllen: Marine1: I wonder how much of this shiat would go away if we just killed most non-essential broadcast signals and replaced it with the internet...

That probably where most of this comes from. If you aren't going to pay them for cable, you are going to pay them for the bandwidth to download your show. There is no money in it for them if they just let you get everything online for free.

I'm talking about everything in general. Radio especially. AM/FM stations are a rather poor use of frequency, IMO. You're taking a pretty reliable slice of the spectrum and dedicating it to audio broadcast only. Sounds kind of stupid to me. Then again, I'm not a radio engineer, so maybe having the spectrum used for broadcast radio in the US dedicated to more versatile data transmissions isn't a good idea.

I think you run into the same problem people have with satellite internet.

Down speeds are ok because there as a huge transmitter sending data to you, but up speeds are shiat because you only have a small transmitter sending information back.


How do CDMA/GSM/LTE/OMGBBQSAUCE avoid that?

/honestly curious
 
2012-07-26 12:11:12 AM  
Entire commercial AM broadcast space*

/Previews, who needs previews?
 
2012-07-26 12:12:26 AM  
FTA: "DO UNLIMITED data plans for your smartphone seem like a distant memory? "

No.

www.wired.com
 
2012-07-26 12:14:55 AM  

Marine1: How do CDMA/GSM/LTE/OMGBBQSAUCE avoid that?


It has to do with distance and how much power you need to have a signal carry data for a given distance. A quick analogy is college radio stations. They're usually just a few watts, so once you get more than a mile or so from campus, the signal goes to heck. Now if you're a hundred yards from the transmitter, it sounds awesome.
 
2012-07-26 12:15:13 AM  

the_sidewinder: Entire commercial AM broadcast space*

/Previews, who needs previews?


What about FM? AM would probably be useless for wireless data anyways... poor penetration through certain structures.

/penetration
 
2012-07-26 12:18:06 AM  
bah, at any given moment there are enough people who are not using bandwidth to balance things out.

Besides, the majority of bandwidth being used must be from simple web pages, still to this day, with plain text and modest graphics.
 
2012-07-26 12:22:18 AM  

Marine1: What about FM? AM would probably be useless for wireless data anyways... poor penetration through certain structures.


True, though AM does have some nice distance to it. But before we get the FM bands, we would need to kick radio stations off the air, and I bet Clear Channel et al. wouldn't be too much for that unless they could make sure that every wireless device that now uses that bandwidth would have an app preinstalled that gives the user access to "local" radio stations

/I say local because it would start out that way, but I doubt it would stay that way, at least not in the smaller markets
//They don't want to lose their market penetration
///So bend over
 
2012-07-26 12:22:39 AM  

Ghryswald: When I moved to Australia, I was amazed at how many people cared enough to secure their home WiFi.

Then it struck me.

No unlimited broadband.

If you don't secure your system, you're paying for it.

I'm all for getting rid of unlimited broadband if it means better security all-around.


Difficulty: This is America we're talking about here. Chances are that once unlimited broadband becomes a thing of the past, it will be much more difficult for people to be able to secure their wireless networks. And if unlimited broadband is killed by legislation, there's an almost 100% chance that that same legislation will also kill wireless network security -- not only will you have a very limited amount of bandwidth with which to download stuff, but you will not be allowed to prevent people from stealing your bandwidth, because terrorism or freedom or DMCA or something.


/cynic
 
2012-07-26 12:23:46 AM  

zvoidx: bah, at any given moment there are enough people who are not using bandwidth to balance things out.

Besides, the majority of bandwidth being used must be from simple web pages, still to this day, with plain text and modest graphics.


You call that website modest? Do you see what it's wearing? Barely anything at all! Not even some nice CSS3
 
2012-07-26 12:24:08 AM  
Maybe if Congress hadn't been a bunch of drooling retards, the $200 billion they gave the telcos would have gone to an outstanding, built-out infrastructure.

Link
 
2012-07-26 12:26:58 AM  

wholedamnshow: FTA: "DO UNLIMITED data plans for your smartphone seem like a distant memory? "

No.

[www.wired.com image 600x325]


This.

/hahaguy.jpg
 
2012-07-26 12:28:44 AM  
Clearly, with too many cars on the road, we should stop building highways.

Clearly with too much internet traffic, we should stop building infrastructure.

/what happened to you America?
//you used to be cool.
 
2012-07-26 12:29:31 AM  

the_sidewinder: Marine1: I'm talking about everything in general. Radio especially. AM/FM stations are a rather poor use of frequency, IMO.

Just as a note, the entire commercial radio broadcast space in Canada/USA is slightly wider than 1MHz. To give you an idea of how useful that is, WiFi channels are either 20MHz or 40 MHz depending on setup. That is to say you'd need about 19 times the space used for AM broadcast just to fit a WiFi signal. LTE is a little more conservative on some setups, needing only 1.4MHz (at lowest) per IO direction, meaning you'd still need more than two AM broadcast ranges to be able to use it


Wow. You mean Rush Limbaugh and all those other crazy radio talk show morons fit into that little space?
 
2012-07-26 12:31:21 AM  
FTFA
AT&T recently announced it would cap some customers' usage at 150 GB per month.
They killed that plan awhile back when they could not come up with a effective way to meter it.
 
2012-07-26 12:31:32 AM  

WhyteRaven74: cman: I wish DSL could be competitive with cable internet.

Actually it can, second generation DSL can provide speeds as good as cable.


At what distances from the CO?
 
2012-07-26 12:34:17 AM  

Hagbardr: b2theory: I have often wanted to start a service provider called "Big Stupid Pipe". You get as much bandwidth as you want to pay for. No bundled services.

I serviced your mom with my big stupid pipe.


Congrats. A grown man and father is trying to suppress his snickering so as to not wake his wife and kid. I hope you're proud of your immature joke. I would be.
 
2012-07-26 12:36:31 AM  
1: Take government grants to upgrade network
2: Fail to upgrade network
3: Network fails to keep up with demand
4: Screw customers
5: ...
6: Profit!
 
2012-07-26 12:37:09 AM  

redmid17: Maybe if Congress hadn't been a bunch of drooling retards corrupt thieves, the $200 billion they gave the telcos would have gone to an outstanding, built-out infrastructure.

Link


FTFM.
 
2012-07-26 12:37:37 AM  

Ghryswald: When I moved to Australia, I was amazed at how many people cared enough to secure their home WiFi.

Then it struck me.

No unlimited broadband.

If you don't secure your system, you're paying for it.

I'm all for getting rid of unlimited broadband if it means better security all-around.


Actually, what was cool was when everyone had unlimited broadband a lot of people left their networks unsecured for the express purpose of allowing passers by to have free internet access.

Suddenly, wi-fi was generally accessible just about anywhere with a dense enough urban population. A major infrastructure boon to the city and it's people all without using taxpayer money (and the assorted extra costs for administration and such added in).

/then it all went to crap after questionable legal rulings regarding what is downloaded on "your" connection.
//this is why we can't have nice things.
 
2012-07-26 12:37:59 AM  

2wolves: Only in the U.S..

Other countries have actual competition for their client base.


You know what else other countries have? Population density. Germany has about 82 million people shoved into land that's around the size of New Mexico. France is about the same size as Texas, with twice as many people. South Korea is 50 million people living in Kentucky.

Put folks that tight, and laying fiber becomes a whole lot more economically viable.
 
2012-07-26 12:41:35 AM  

cuzsis: Clearly, with too many cars on the road, we should stop building highways.

Clearly with too much internet traffic, we should stop building infrastructure.

/what happened to you America?
//you used to be cool.


upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org

That's just a start.
 
2012-07-26 12:42:17 AM  

the_sidewinder: Marine1: What about FM? AM would probably be useless for wireless data anyways... poor penetration through certain structures.

True, though AM does have some nice distance to it. But before we get the FM bands, we would need to kick radio stations off the air, and I bet Clear Channel et al. wouldn't be too much for that unless they could make sure that every wireless device that now uses that bandwidth would have an app preinstalled that gives the user access to "local" radio stations

/I say local because it would start out that way, but I doubt it would stay that way, at least not in the smaller markets
//They don't want to lose their market penetration
///So bend over


If I were ClearChannel or Entercom or Cumulus, I'd rather have the internet radio broadcasts, tbh. If you want to talk market penetration, that's the ultimate... anyone anywhere on earth can listen if they have internet. I can't imagine that internet broadcasts are more expensive than terrestrial, either.
 
2012-07-26 12:47:43 AM  

Marine1: the_sidewinder: Marine1: What about FM? AM would probably be useless for wireless data anyways... poor penetration through certain structures.

True, though AM does have some nice distance to it. But before we get the FM bands, we would need to kick radio stations off the air, and I bet Clear Channel et al. wouldn't be too much for that unless they could make sure that every wireless device that now uses that bandwidth would have an app preinstalled that gives the user access to "local" radio stations

/I say local because it would start out that way, but I doubt it would stay that way, at least not in the smaller markets
//They don't want to lose their market penetration
///So bend over

If I were ClearChannel or Entercom or Cumulus, I'd rather have the internet radio broadcasts, tbh. If you want to talk market penetration, that's the ultimate... anyone anywhere on earth can listen if they have internet. I can't imagine that internet broadcasts are more expensive than terrestrial, either.


They are, but only because ClearChannel and Entercom and Cumulus have gamed the system to where internet radio stations have to pay something like 3 times the royalties terrestrial radio stations do.
 
2012-07-26 12:48:23 AM  

Benni K Rok: cuzsis: Clearly, with too many cars on the road, we should stop building highways.

Clearly with too much internet traffic, we should stop building infrastructure.

/what happened to you America?
//you used to be cool.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x200]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 320x240]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x195]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x225]

That's just a start.


I'd trade them all for decent broadband infrastructure.
 
2012-07-26 12:48:47 AM  

Marine1: the_sidewinder: Marine1: What about FM? AM would probably be useless for wireless data anyways... poor penetration through certain structures.

True, though AM does have some nice distance to it. But before we get the FM bands, we would need to kick radio stations off the air, and I bet Clear Channel et al. wouldn't be too much for that unless they could make sure that every wireless device that now uses that bandwidth would have an app preinstalled that gives the user access to "local" radio stations

/I say local because it would start out that way, but I doubt it would stay that way, at least not in the smaller markets
//They don't want to lose their market penetration
///So bend over

If I were ClearChannel or Entercom or Cumulus, I'd rather have the internet radio broadcasts, tbh. If you want to talk market penetration, that's the ultimate... anyone anywhere on earth can listen if they have internet. I can't imagine that internet broadcasts are more expensive than terrestrial, either.


They're actually cheaper. You don't have to pay for broadcast licenses for airwaves, or external broadcast equipment. You can take a radio broadcast and convert it into an internet radio broadcast for about a grand total of a computer that will take your already given feed and send it out somewhere. Most radio companies already have a computer, so it would cost them as much as a single app, if they wanted to get that fancy.

Otherwise they could join an existing internet radio app, or just have a listen live link on their already existing web site. Rock 104.5 Jacksonville area radio. They have a listen live button at the top, so you can listen to their already existing internet radio feed. NSFW pictures sometimes in the hottie section.
 
2012-07-26 12:49:10 AM  

Benni K Rok: cuzsis: Clearly, with too many cars on the road, we should stop building highways.

Clearly with too much internet traffic, we should stop building infrastructure.

/what happened to you America?
//you used to be cool.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x200]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 320x240]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x195]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x225]

That's just a start.


And none of those help me in the least, they're just things that people use to hurt others.
 
2012-07-26 12:51:00 AM  
Does anyone have the chart showing how we already pay 3x the average of industrial countries and get less then 1/3 the average speed I'm too lazy to google it
 
2012-07-26 12:51:45 AM  

cardex: Does anyone have the chart showing how we already pay 3x the average of industrial countries and get less then 1/3 the average speed I'm too lazy to google it


Paying more and getting less for it is the American way. Just look at healthcare.
 
2012-07-26 12:54:05 AM  

beer4breakfast: At what distances from the CO?


I can't remember offhand.

Girion47: And none of those help me in the least, they're just things that people use to hurt others.


I believe the point is, the time and effort that used to go for cool stuff, now goes to that stuff.
 
2012-07-26 12:59:45 AM  
Sure, put the US even further behind the rest of the industrialized world...
 
2012-07-26 01:01:54 AM  

keithgabryelski: https://fiber.google.com/savethedate/

Google Fiber
is coming on July 26
Look out for an announcement at google.com/fiber on July 26.

DRTFA -- but here.


As someone that just caught Chrome sending my desktop contacts to Google without my authorization, I'd be reluctant. No matter how 'Cheap.'
 
2012-07-26 01:08:17 AM  

Gonz: 2wolves: Only in the U.S..

Other countries have actual competition for their client base.

You know what else other countries have? Population density. Germany has about 82 million people shoved into land that's around the size of New Mexico. France is about the same size as Texas, with twice as many people. South Korea is 50 million people living in Kentucky.

Put folks that tight, and laying fiber becomes a whole lot more economically viable.


Beyond BS. Have you seen what we spend on a single ship for the Navy? Or one bomber we never use on any targets worth a damn?

Christ. I'm perfectly fine with cannibalizing DoD funding to build out infrastructure. We could already have ubiquitous fiber channel to every single residence in the US for what was wasted on the Raptor program (or the scuttled Comanche).

The US only knows how to waste money, not invest it.
 
Displayed 50 of 192 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report