4: The companies are at fault for not preparing. If a company advertises that a given product has a certain capability, then it should be able to do exactly what it says on the tin. Phones, computers, cars share a common 'deno'. Most of them annoy me because they're not as good as they should be. You know they know how to do it, and then they do it wrong....
cont'd: 3: Your cell phone burns through its battery probably due to the building you are in. In my wooden house, the phone lasts all day, I work in a metal building, and I have to have my charger with me, or it dies in 20 minutes, and both locations are in the boondocks, so it has little to do with bandwidth.
I see it like this- 1: The "Net Neutrality" bill is in name only. If it passes, we are screwed. It's no different than the Healthcare law, or the Stimulus Packages, they aren't what they are advertised as being. 2: Beck isn't right all the time, nor is he wrong all the time, I watch him because he's interesting. He even says it, quote, "Don't trust me, do your own research!" Sound familiar?
I absolutely hate att wireless. Hate it. It works fine in metro areas.......rural areas....horrible. I have an iPhone and wish Apple would add Verizon as a carrier. Juno, I think you would at least agree Verizon's 3G coverage is much, much larger that att.
Peer to peer apps will hog bandwidth. They will open up as many connections as they can to download as fast as possible. This will also effect other users trying to use the network.
@nedbeaty72 And as p2p usage becomes more common, I would say it is the responsibility of the providers to upgrade their networks, so those kinds of apps cause less disruption.
@pjnlsn Like mecher3k said, if someone pays for internet service, advertised as unlimited, without caps, then why shouldn't they use that bandwidth 24/7 ?
I say that if you've bought an uncapped internet connection, it should really be without a cap. If you want to run a bittorrent client all day, every day, then so be it. If you want to run said client at your maximum connection speed, max uplink, max downlink, and then 24 hours a day, every day, then fine.
@pjnlsn If uncapped connections need to be made more expensive, and if certain telecoms need to provide more capped connections, then that's what needs to be done.
Going behind the consumer's back, and enforcing whatever extra restrictions are wanted, to the point of cutting off certain types of service, like Comcast has done, well it's dishonest, and deceitful.
@pjnlsn That won't happen. Basically if you put more bandwidth there they will suck it all up, it's like trying to count to infinity. The only logical solution is to limit the amount of bandwith those services can take. If you reckon your approach is fesable by all means start your own ISP company and see how you go, you will have a different opinion very shortly after that I can assure you.
@nedbeaty72 There are other perfectly good solutions.
Like, for example, cutting the available bandwidth on a standard DSL connection, and then selling higher bandwidth connections at a higher price. Cut the bandwidth per customer until they can coexist, with them all being ravenous p2p dlers, or casual web surfers. Mix in some uncapped too.
Assume from the start that ppl will regularly max out their links, and sell your connections based on that.
Dude I am an engineer for a Telco and I work on excatly these Wireles data networks (3G and LTE). The problem is complecated and could be caused by both the things you mention.
Basically the Telco won't provide the same ammount of backhaul for every cell site. If the demand is lower they will put in a lower capability link, and another factor is the time of day, at peak times you will have more people sharing the same link and this will slow you down.
This is what it boils down to: Do you want corporations competing for your business, where they have to provide the services you want, otherwise you go to their competition?
OR...
Do you want the government to control the internet, where they have no competition, and no reason to listen to you what-so-ever? The same people who brought you such stunning examples of efficiency, such as the DMV, the post office, or traffic court? Were it up to the government, we'd all still be on dial-up.
@ravenslaves Net neutrality isn't about eliminating competition and replacing internet providers with government programs. It is simply the concept that providers must treat all customers in a similar manner. For instance, it can't refuse to allow connections to a competitors website, or provide faster access to particular sites than that provided to others. In general this is the current situation, net neutrality simply seeks to maintain that.
@scotths When the government gets involved, it's always about control.
Think of it like barrowing money from Tony Soprano. It's never a simple deal, there are always strings attached. The Government doesn't like what it can't control, and it hates the internet for this reason. Net Neutrality is their way in.
@ravenslaves So, what you are saying is that you don't care what the actual details of the net neutrality proposals are, and why they may or may not be a good idea. Instead, you simply assume that any sort of government action what so ever must have some sort of negative intent?
@ravenslaves The federal government has to get involved in this if the FCC loses the case in the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court ruling, Congress can step in and change the law to make it clear the FCC can enforce regulations on this issue.
If you want to know what the internet will be like if Comcast et al get control, have a look at YouTube... how many times have people had their accounts suspended and/or closed because someone didn't like what was said or took offence. Corporations will do what is in THEIR interests and not the consumers.
When you pay for your internet, you are paying for a certain amount of speed and bandwidth. As long as the P2P users are within their quota (which they are, since it's enforced by the ISP) why should they have their connection tampered with?
Essentially, P2P users are being targeted because they are actually using what they are paying for. It's no different than insurance companies targeting people who actually need to use the insurance they paid for and cutting off their coverage.
from what i am seeing the FCC is going "fuck you" and pushing their thing anyway. also they may push to have ISP reclassified as telecoms so they can regulate them
In the last year I have noticed that they have been throttling whether it was legal or not, they were already doing it and if you're even a little tech savvy you can tell.
How does the signal strength compare at home and at work? I'm guessing it's weaker at work. Phone has to broadcast a stronger signal and kick up the gain for the incoming signal with a weaker signal.
Some P2P protocols, some streaming video protocols, and most VoIP protocols use UDP rather than TCP. TCP has congestion control, UDP does not. So UDP can (and will) grab all the bandwidth it can whereas TCP will play nicely (which makes TCP video jerkier and UDP video a network killer).
"Corporatism" is more in line with Mussolini style fascism (economically, anyway). Basically, that's when the government passes laws thought benefit the producer (corporation) over the consumer.
In capitalism, the government passes laws that protect/benefit both.
I thin Glenn Beck is that stupid. Anyway, I brought this topic up to a bunch of locals, they keep telling me things such as I'm a conspiracy theorist or I spend too much time on the internet. Seems like the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada doesn't give a shit about the internet.
Yeah, it defies logic that corporations are trying to control the internet. I done my degree in Marketing, and there was a big focus on consumer psychology. But Beefing up networks and Research costs money, so it's cheaper to try to influence content on the internet - which will ultimately prove futile.
From what i read all they have to do is pass the law that is floating about in congress, and then the FCC will have the power to tell broadband suppliers what to do. So the FCC will win out :-)
Oh yeah, I'd like to add, When I had the 2/mbps connection it wasn't very tweaked out.
My current(10/mbps up, 500kbps down) network is tweaked out to the max, It gets very good scores for smaller websites that are off my ISP's Radar, But video sharing sites and other sites that use more bandwidth, Forget It...
My ISP Selectively Throttles Any Site That Uses Allot of Bandwidth.
Thank you Virgin Media("UK's Fastest Broadband") For The LIMITED "Unlimited Broadband".
The thing about the Net Neutrality Bill according to torrentfreak it does nothing for end users and in fact allows companies to continue to do things business as usual.
Time Warner Cable is standing between consumers and net neutrality . Something has to be done about this . Corporations now have more rights than people . Glen Beck criticised Obama for "not celebrating champions of industry enough " . Which basically translates to "Obama does not bend to the will of ExonMobil when making policy decision , so he must be a socialist .
4: The companies are at fault for not preparing. If a company advertises that a given product has a certain capability, then it should be able to do exactly what it says on the tin. Phones, computers, cars share a common 'deno'. Most of them annoy me because they're not as good as they should be. You know they know how to do it, and then they do it wrong....
ThePatUltra 1 year ago
cont'd: 3: Your cell phone burns through its battery probably due to the building you are in. In my wooden house, the phone lasts all day, I work in a metal building, and I have to have my charger with me, or it dies in 20 minutes, and both locations are in the boondocks, so it has little to do with bandwidth.
ThePatUltra 1 year ago
I see it like this- 1: The "Net Neutrality" bill is in name only. If it passes, we are screwed. It's no different than the Healthcare law, or the Stimulus Packages, they aren't what they are advertised as being. 2: Beck isn't right all the time, nor is he wrong all the time, I watch him because he's interesting. He even says it, quote, "Don't trust me, do your own research!" Sound familiar?
ThePatUltra 1 year ago
watch?v=kz-O0AxwQVg&playnext_from=TL&videos=jw7IQQMYbpw
warlord2080 1 year ago
I absolutely hate att wireless. Hate it. It works fine in metro areas.......rural areas....horrible. I have an iPhone and wish Apple would add Verizon as a carrier. Juno, I think you would at least agree Verizon's 3G coverage is much, much larger that att.
I love my iPhone, but hate att.
joebevins1999 1 year ago
Glenn Beck is a fucking moron. If he said the sky was blue, I'd go outside to check for myself before believing him.
roentgen571 1 year ago
@roentgen571 lol
320iguy 1 year ago
Peer to peer apps will hog bandwidth. They will open up as many connections as they can to download as fast as possible. This will also effect other users trying to use the network.
nedbeaty72 1 year ago
@nedbeaty72 And as p2p usage becomes more common, I would say it is the responsibility of the providers to upgrade their networks, so those kinds of apps cause less disruption.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
@pjnlsn Like mecher3k said, if someone pays for internet service, advertised as unlimited, without caps, then why shouldn't they use that bandwidth 24/7 ?
I say that if you've bought an uncapped internet connection, it should really be without a cap. If you want to run a bittorrent client all day, every day, then so be it. If you want to run said client at your maximum connection speed, max uplink, max downlink, and then 24 hours a day, every day, then fine.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
@pjnlsn If uncapped connections need to be made more expensive, and if certain telecoms need to provide more capped connections, then that's what needs to be done.
Going behind the consumer's back, and enforcing whatever extra restrictions are wanted, to the point of cutting off certain types of service, like Comcast has done, well it's dishonest, and deceitful.
We need more truth in our advertising.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
@pjnlsn That won't happen. Basically if you put more bandwidth there they will suck it all up, it's like trying to count to infinity. The only logical solution is to limit the amount of bandwith those services can take. If you reckon your approach is fesable by all means start your own ISP company and see how you go, you will have a different opinion very shortly after that I can assure you.
nedbeaty72 1 year ago
@nedbeaty72 There are other perfectly good solutions.
Like, for example, cutting the available bandwidth on a standard DSL connection, and then selling higher bandwidth connections at a higher price. Cut the bandwidth per customer until they can coexist, with them all being ravenous p2p dlers, or casual web surfers. Mix in some uncapped too.
Assume from the start that ppl will regularly max out their links, and sell your connections based on that.
There's always a way to achieve balance.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
Dude I am an engineer for a Telco and I work on excatly these Wireles data networks (3G and LTE). The problem is complecated and could be caused by both the things you mention.
Basically the Telco won't provide the same ammount of backhaul for every cell site. If the demand is lower they will put in a lower capability link, and another factor is the time of day, at peak times you will have more people sharing the same link and this will slow you down.
The peer to peer is another issue ...cont
nedbeaty72 1 year ago
This is what it boils down to: Do you want corporations competing for your business, where they have to provide the services you want, otherwise you go to their competition?
OR...
Do you want the government to control the internet, where they have no competition, and no reason to listen to you what-so-ever? The same people who brought you such stunning examples of efficiency, such as the DMV, the post office, or traffic court? Were it up to the government, we'd all still be on dial-up.
ravenslaves 1 year ago
@ravenslaves Net neutrality isn't about eliminating competition and replacing internet providers with government programs. It is simply the concept that providers must treat all customers in a similar manner. For instance, it can't refuse to allow connections to a competitors website, or provide faster access to particular sites than that provided to others. In general this is the current situation, net neutrality simply seeks to maintain that.
scotths 1 year ago
@scotths When the government gets involved, it's always about control.
Think of it like barrowing money from Tony Soprano. It's never a simple deal, there are always strings attached. The Government doesn't like what it can't control, and it hates the internet for this reason. Net Neutrality is their way in.
ravenslaves 1 year ago
@ravenslaves So, what you are saying is that you don't care what the actual details of the net neutrality proposals are, and why they may or may not be a good idea. Instead, you simply assume that any sort of government action what so ever must have some sort of negative intent?
scotths 1 year ago
@ravenslaves The federal government has to get involved in this if the FCC loses the case in the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court ruling, Congress can step in and change the law to make it clear the FCC can enforce regulations on this issue.
joebevins1999 1 year ago
If you want to know what the internet will be like if Comcast et al get control, have a look at YouTube... how many times have people had their accounts suspended and/or closed because someone didn't like what was said or took offence. Corporations will do what is in THEIR interests and not the consumers.
steelhamster 1 year ago
When you pay for your internet, you are paying for a certain amount of speed and bandwidth. As long as the P2P users are within their quota (which they are, since it's enforced by the ISP) why should they have their connection tampered with?
Essentially, P2P users are being targeted because they are actually using what they are paying for. It's no different than insurance companies targeting people who actually need to use the insurance they paid for and cutting off their coverage.
Patman128 1 year ago
The people who support the cable companies don't give a shit about the suppression of knowledge. They get there's from Beck.
Godlesshayes 1 year ago
from what i am seeing the FCC is going "fuck you" and pushing their thing anyway. also they may push to have ISP reclassified as telecoms so they can regulate them
thisis3d 1 year ago
Sure P2P users use up a lot of bandwidth, but why shouldn't they use the damn service they pay for?
It's retarded. And who's really at fault? The Broadband companies and their greedy CEOs refusing to spend the billions to upgrade their networks.
mecher3k 1 year ago
In the last year I have noticed that they have been throttling whether it was legal or not, they were already doing it and if you're even a little tech savvy you can tell.
bamboo4tameshigiri 1 year ago
what's this google 100 MB a second thing? Or is it actually 100mb (mega BITS) a second?
mecher3k 1 year ago
GREAT VID, AGREED
freethinker3161 1 year ago
It's been almost a month I just noticed you've changed the sunglasses.
coladict 1 year ago
How does the signal strength compare at home and at work? I'm guessing it's weaker at work. Phone has to broadcast a stronger signal and kick up the gain for the incoming signal with a weaker signal.
Some P2P protocols, some streaming video protocols, and most VoIP protocols use UDP rather than TCP. TCP has congestion control, UDP does not. So UDP can (and will) grab all the bandwidth it can whereas TCP will play nicely (which makes TCP video jerkier and UDP video a network killer).
bdf2718 1 year ago
"Corporatism" is more in line with Mussolini style fascism (economically, anyway). Basically, that's when the government passes laws thought benefit the producer (corporation) over the consumer.
In capitalism, the government passes laws that protect/benefit both.
CobraJones 1 year ago
I thin Glenn Beck is that stupid. Anyway, I brought this topic up to a bunch of locals, they keep telling me things such as I'm a conspiracy theorist or I spend too much time on the internet. Seems like the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada doesn't give a shit about the internet.
Justinfhtube 1 year ago
Yeah, it defies logic that corporations are trying to control the internet. I done my degree in Marketing, and there was a big focus on consumer psychology. But Beefing up networks and Research costs money, so it's cheaper to try to influence content on the internet - which will ultimately prove futile.
dugges 1 year ago
From what i read all they have to do is pass the law that is floating about in congress, and then the FCC will have the power to tell broadband suppliers what to do. So the FCC will win out :-)
MadNutMcNutty 1 year ago
I've watched the youtube download speeds quarter over the last 4 years...
I used to have a 2/mbps connection that downloaded vids at ~200kbps.
Now I have a 10/mbps conection that downloads vids at ~50kbps.
I KNOW youtube has only gotten Faster, It's my fucking ISP that is throttling the bandwidth that I PAY FOR.
It's Fucked Up.
DackIsBack 1 year ago
@DackIsBack
Oh yeah, I'd like to add, When I had the 2/mbps connection it wasn't very tweaked out.
My current(10/mbps up, 500kbps down) network is tweaked out to the max, It gets very good scores for smaller websites that are off my ISP's Radar, But video sharing sites and other sites that use more bandwidth, Forget It...
My ISP Selectively Throttles Any Site That Uses Allot of Bandwidth.
Thank you Virgin Media("UK's Fastest Broadband") For The LIMITED "Unlimited Broadband".
DackIsBack 1 year ago
@DackIsBack
I'd also like to add that Virgin Media has been Forced to make their Throttling Policy public:
If you come close to using the say 10/mbps you pay for they reduce it to 75%, 2.5/mbps for 12 hours.
Broadband is a scam.
DackIsBack 1 year ago
The thing about the Net Neutrality Bill according to torrentfreak it does nothing for end users and in fact allows companies to continue to do things business as usual.
rokth 1 year ago
They're hoping to reclassify the internet companies under the title of "telecommunications" so that the FCC will then be able to regulate it.
abbynormal0ne 1 year ago
Time Warner Cable is standing between consumers and net neutrality . Something has to be done about this . Corporations now have more rights than people . Glen Beck criticised Obama for "not celebrating champions of industry enough " . Which basically translates to "Obama does not bend to the will of ExonMobil when making policy decision , so he must be a socialist .
MindofaJedi 1 year ago
Glenn Beck is a fuckin' tool. Wouldn't know a fact even if puch him in his stupid Mormon/moron face.
REBMike1 1 year ago
@xCrowMagnuSx I pronounce it ei-ma-juno but I am commonly referred to now for simplicities sake as Juno.
junosden 1 year ago