18 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
18.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 4, 2009, 03:24
18.
Re: Metaverse Oct 4, 2009, 03:24
Oct 4, 2009, 03:24
 
I have something like 6MB pipe. I live in Minneapolis, so all of the technology is close to me and I never have problems.
That being said, I have had the alternatives in places outside of Mpls - but, I never really had problems there either.

I guess I don't see that the pipe I currently have is a problem, nor were any speeds anywhere I have been an issue. Hell I was backwoods Wisconsin and even there DSL was pretty damn good....

Maybe I just understand how far we have come since I was boppin' around Message Boards with a 9600baud modem and have zero reason to complain.
17.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 3, 2009, 02:26
17.
Re: Metaverse Oct 3, 2009, 02:26
Oct 3, 2009, 02:26
 
I didn't build my house either, a contractor did that. It's still MY house, since I'm the one who paid for it.

Strawman. I never questioned the fact that the feds own their highways. I said that the idea that only the government can build roads is false because they don't even build them in the first place.

They also don't generate the resources to build the roads. It's all done in the private sector except some tax collector and his police backup enforce a tax with threat of imprisonment (where you are raped in the ass) or death if you don't pay up.

The roads argument is ultimately based on ideology. It is one which says that only the government can solve problems and it is a absurd ideology because people solve problems all the time, unless there is a monopoly which is exactly what is our public roads system.

The fact that you point to a monopoly and say that because the government is the only one doing it and therefore it supports the idea that justifies "Universal Broadband" is very silly assertion.

That's because it's not just a matter of 1, 2, 3 and put a road down.

You missed my point entirely. I'm saying that government-built roads cost a lot more than if the private sector were to build the road on its own. This is because the government doesn't have much incentive to be efficient with costs, because the money is easy come easy go. They often have more incentive to waste money than to be efficient with it because accountants can make it look like the government is creating jobs, which is actually false because government jobs are parasitic on actual job and wealth creation.

You want to know why your roads suck so badly in the US? Because the US doesn't tax people enough to maintain better ones.

You might be right but where is your data to support that? Just because you note high taxes doesn't mean we here aren't paying through the nose for our highways. Show me the data. Much of the US government is funded by deficit spending so we here don't pay much directly in taxes. I believe our government gets funding in three major ways:

Income Taxes
Deficit spending
Monetized spending (an currency inflation, a hidden tax)

This is how our federal government paid for the multi trillion dollar Iraq war. It was all borrowed. They continue to bail out the banks here and right now the banks are buying government bonds as a 'you scratch my back I'll scratch yours' arrangement. It's an extremely complicated money nightmare over here right now.

This comment was edited on Oct 3, 2009, 04:08.
Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
16.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 3, 2009, 02:06
16.
Re: Metaverse Oct 3, 2009, 02:06
Oct 3, 2009, 02:06
 
Government provided highways are a good example of what will happen to the Internet if the feds start providing Internet service. You'll get congestion and instead of the current system which is more likely to put money towards infrastructure where it is needed, in a federally managed and politically funded Internet infrastructure, you'll get money towards infrastructure where politics will reward it. So if your internet is congested, you'll likely have to write your congressmen and beg and complain instead of call your ISP's customer service.

Now I'm not saying that the current ISP system is all that great either, because there are widespread government-granted monopolies all across the country. I've called Comcast to complain about certain routers or ping times and they aren't responsive. But what I'm saying is it can get even worse than it is now.

And 100mbps seems like a lot, but I promise you that a low-end computer can easily flood 100mbps when it is 'free' or 'universal.' So what happens when everyone floods the Internet with traffic because it is 'universal'? You'll get quotas and then suddenly it won't be so universal. Or alternatively the Internet will just be slow again because everyone is flooding it with torrents or whatever a computer can do with universal broadband.

This comment was edited on Oct 3, 2009, 02:08.
Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
15.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 3, 2009, 01:59
15.
Re: Metaverse Oct 3, 2009, 01:59
Oct 3, 2009, 01:59
 
Your words are shallow and meaningless. You have no argument except intolerance and hostility.
Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
14.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 2, 2009, 20:37
PHJF
 
14.
Re: Metaverse Oct 2, 2009, 20:37
Oct 2, 2009, 20:37
 PHJF
 
Are you retarded or do you just not see the big yellow EDIT button?
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Avatar 17251
13.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 2, 2009, 19:39
13.
Re: Metaverse Oct 2, 2009, 19:39
Oct 2, 2009, 19:39
 
I can, however, readily attest that 768 is a worthless speed. Everything already streams at higher speeds nowadays, Youtube, Hulu, MLB.TV, so if you've got 768, you can only ever watch anything with stutters, which makes it shitty.


768kbps is good if we are talking about 'universal' coverage. 768 will do standard video quality on Youtube just fine but not instantaneous HD. However 768 will work for HD if you let it buffer up before playing. The Youtube flash player could easily accommodate that. 1.5mb could be justified but no more.

Guranteed HD Youtube to everyone's home is a ridiculous commitment. 100mbit is indeed a fiber optic speed. New cable DOCSIS 3.0 peaks at around 50mbit.

$350bln is an outright insane figure but I also know the FCC is, like any other federal agency, drooling with greedy slobber at the prospect of this unconstitutional handout. Call me a fucking nutcase but you guys who want your free broadband from the feds aren't considering the unintended consequences of federal control of the Internet. That's what this universal broadband coverage would be.

It's the age old scam. They promise you something free and in return they own you. Those who sacrifice a little freedom for security will get neither. This is basic common sense people. You are being scammed and promised something they will never deliver. In the end you *will* pay for it, and you won't have a choice in the matter.
Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
12.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 2, 2009, 19:35
12.
Re: Metaverse Oct 2, 2009, 19:35
Oct 2, 2009, 19:35
 
I can, however, readily attest that 768 is a worthless speed. Everything already streams at higher speeds nowadays, Youtube, Hulu, MLB.TV, so if you've got 768, you can only ever watch anything with stutters, which makes it shitty.


768kbps is good if we are talking about 'universal' coverage. 1.5mb could be justified but no more.

Guranteed HD Youtube to everyone's home is a ridiculous commitment. 100mbit is indeed a fiber optic speed. New cable DOCSIS 3.0 peaks at around 50mbit.

$350bln is an ouright insane figure but I also know the FCC is, like any other federal agency, drooling with greedy slobber at the prospect of this unconstitutional handout. Call me a fucking nutcase but you guys who want your free broadband from the feds aren't considering the unintended consequences of federal control of the Internet. That's what it would be.
Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
11.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 2, 2009, 19:32
11.
Re: Metaverse Oct 2, 2009, 19:32
Oct 2, 2009, 19:32
 
I can, however, readily attest that 768 is a worthless speed. Everything already streams at higher speeds nowadays, Youtube, Hulu, MLB.TV, so if you've got 768, you can only ever watch anything with stutters, which makes it shitty.


768kbps is good if we are talking about 'universal' coverage. 1.5mb could be justified but no more.

Guranteed HD Youtube to everyone's home is a ridiculous commitment. $350bln is an ouright insane figure but I also know the FCC is, like any other federal agency, drooling with greedy slobber at the prospect of this unconstitutional handout.
Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
10.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 2, 2009, 19:19
10.
Re: Metaverse Oct 2, 2009, 19:19
Oct 2, 2009, 19:19
 
100Mbps can only be achieved over pure fiber, by which I mean fiber to the house. While fiber itself isn't THAT expensive to manufacture, putting it in the ground to every single burgh in the US is.
Yeah, that's what I was wondering, whether they were talking about laying new cable for the 768k service or not. From what you're saying, I guess it's not.

I'm generally in favor of not giving telecoms another fucking cent until they deliver on their previous promises. It's like that entire industry is composed of pathological liars. I guess those types just have a tendency to rise to the top in the business world...
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Avatar 9540
9.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 2, 2009, 18:47
9.
Re: Metaverse Oct 2, 2009, 18:47
Oct 2, 2009, 18:47
 
You can already get satellite internet most places, which sucks for upstream bandwidth I know, but it's connectivity

Satellite internet should be fucking banned. It's absolutely ridiculous how poor that connection is. My neighbor had it for awhile until I finally convinced him to switch to my (also shitty, but far less shitty) provider, who gives me 768k down over an AP radio tower.

I was over at his house multiple times a week trying to get his fucking internet working again.

I'd love to hear what the difference is between building 768Kbps infrastructure and building 100Mbps infrastructure

768kbps can be achieved over pretty much anything. Copper, radio signals, wi-fi, etc. In fact, one of the ideas of selling the current analog frequencies is that whoever buys it has to keep 25% of it available for a country wide, free wi-fi network. (Obama's idea, apparently.)

100Mbps can only be achieved over pure fiber, by which I mean fiber to the house. While fiber itself isn't THAT expensive to manufacture, putting it in the ground to every single burgh in the US is.

Also, in order to give every household 100Mbps, they'd need to drastically upgrade the router infrastructure in the US, since there is no way the current networks could handle that.

I have no idea if it's really 20bn to 350bn, but the 100Mbps plan would be a magnitude larger than the 768k plan.

I can, however, readily attest that 768 is a worthless speed. Everything already streams at higher speeds nowadays, Youtube, Hulu, MLB.TV, so if you've got 768, you can only ever watch anything with stutters, which makes it shitty.

Even so, we could easily give fucking telcoms 350 bn, and they'd STILL refuse to put fiber out to rural areas, because they're just assholes anyways.

Creston
Avatar 15604
8.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 2, 2009, 18:41
8.
Re: Metaverse Oct 2, 2009, 18:41
Oct 2, 2009, 18:41
 
Oh yeah the old roads argument. Only the government can build roads. LOL. Do you know they don't actually build the roads? They contract it out to a company.

I didn't build my house either, a contractor did that. It's still MY house, since I'm the one who paid for it.

If you look into it, you'll find that publicly built roads are very expensive for what we get and they take many years to catch up to demand.

That's because it's not just a matter of 1, 2, 3 and put a road down. Are there cables next to the road? Is there a sewer next to the road? Who owns the land next to the road? Is there enough room for the road? Will widening the road actually make a difference to the flow of traffic on it, or will it just create a bottleneck two miles down, where it goes back to 2 lanes?

These are things that need to be considered before building a road. Since they have to be considered by government officials, whose fasted speed could rightfully be considered "ultra glacial", that takes awhile.

The public roads system here in the DC Metro area is a joke and a prime example of government incompetence.

You want to know why your roads suck so badly in the US? Because the US doesn't tax people enough to maintain better ones.

Let's take two countries that have a fantastic road system : Holland and Germany.

Every highway in Holland is fucking smooth as a glass plate, covered with ZOAB-3 asphalt, which is porous and lets the rain through, and is an absolute pleasure to drive on. (We'll ignore the fact that Holland has traffic jams on every highway from 5 in the morning till 9 in the evening).

Every car owner in Holland pays a "road tax" (Wegenbelasting) of ~4% of the value of his car, EVERY YEAR.

I had a Ford Focus in Holland in 2001, and paid ~ 940 or so dollars in road tax that year. My wife has a Ford Focus here in the US, and we pay a yearly tag fee of... I think hers is 71 bucks, but I'm not sure.

Germany has the Autobahn, which actually has a far better reputation than it really deserves, because quite a few parts of the autobahn are actually in a pretty bad state. However, it's a good design and when maintained well, is a joy to drive.

The Autobahn is also 3 feet thick, where the US highways are only 1 foot thick. The Germans pay approximately the same in car taxes as the Dutch do, at least they did when I last checked, which was somewhere in the 90s. If anyone is from Germany, please correct me if I'm wrong.

In any case, the reason those countries have great roads, is because its citizens PAY for those great roads.

You want great roads here in the US? Start paying a thousand bucks ever year for your new tag.

Until that point, you get these cheap concrete roads that are giant pieces of shit.

Creston
Avatar 15604
7.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 2, 2009, 18:08
7.
Re: Metaverse Oct 2, 2009, 18:08
Oct 2, 2009, 18:08
 
While it would only take about $20 billion to blanket the country with broadband service with speeds between 768Kbps to 3Mbps service, the FCC has questioned whether those speeds will be enough. Instead, it is recommending more aggressive network build-outs that would increase the speed of these networks to about 100Mbps or faster. This will likely push the price tag of the entire network expansion to more than $350 billion
That's pretty insane. I'd love to hear what the difference is between building 768Kbps infrastructure and building 100Mbps infrastructure. Most of the costs in these things are usually from the work to actually get wiring and equipment installed out in the areas that need it, not from the equipment itself. So jumping from $20b to $350b is probably complete bullshit.

I'd have to see what the benefits would be to doing this before I'd be willing to support it, and I sure wouldn't support a $350b handout to the cable/telecom industry, which is what this sounds like. You can already get satellite internet most places, which sucks for upstream bandwidth I know, but it's connectivity. You make some sacrifices to live in the middle of nowhere.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Avatar 9540
6.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 2, 2009, 17:17
6.
Re: Metaverse Oct 2, 2009, 17:17
Oct 2, 2009, 17:17
 
You sound like a paranoid nutcase.
5.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 2, 2009, 16:56
5.
Re: Metaverse Oct 2, 2009, 16:56
Oct 2, 2009, 16:56
 
Yeah I get so pissed off when I see those road projects with "YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK" signs. How do I know they aren't just going to demolish the project a year later out of spite? I want to build my OWN roads damn it.

Oh yeah the old roads argument. Only the government can build roads. LOL. Do you know they don't actually build the roads? They contract it out to a company.

If you look into it, you'll find that publicly built roads are very expensive for what we get and they take many years to catch up to demand. The public roads system here in the DC Metro area is a joke and a prime example of government incompetence.

Publicly built roads are largely a disguise to subsidize the auto industry.
Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
4.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 2, 2009, 16:53
4.
Re: Metaverse Oct 2, 2009, 16:53
Oct 2, 2009, 16:53
 
If you look out the windows in your underground bunker, you'll faintly see black helicopters circling in the distance.

Right because I'm skeptical of 'universal broadband' it means I'm paranoid to the point of thinking black helicopters circle in the sky.

Here's evidence from the article that the FCC is just playing the money game:

While it would only take about $20 billion to blanket the country with broadband service with speeds between 768Kbps to 3Mbps service, the FCC has questioned whether those speeds will be enough. Instead, it is recommending more aggressive network build-outs that would increase the speed of these networks to about 100Mbps or faster. This will likely push the price tag of the entire network expansion to more than $350 billion

So it would take $20b but who in their right mind would pick $20b over $350b! They are gaming the system for money. It's politics as usual.

Where in the Constitution does it justify Universal Broadband?
Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
3.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 2, 2009, 16:22
3.
Re: Metaverse Oct 2, 2009, 16:22
Oct 2, 2009, 16:22
 
Yeah I get so pissed off when I see those road projects with "YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK" signs. How do I know they aren't just going to demolish the project a year later out of spite? I want to build my OWN roads damn it.

This comment was edited on Oct 2, 2009, 16:22.
2.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 2, 2009, 14:49
2.
Re: Metaverse Oct 2, 2009, 14:49
Oct 2, 2009, 14:49
 
If you look out the windows in your underground bunker, you'll faintly see black helicopters circling in the distance.
Avatar 51617
1.
 
The price of universal broadband.
Oct 2, 2009, 14:41
1.
The price of universal broadband. Oct 2, 2009, 14:41
Oct 2, 2009, 14:41
 
I think everything should be 'universal'. Shoelaces, TV's, cars, houses, everything should be free and provided for by the federal government. We should all have everything provided for us whenever we want it and not have to work. Oh what a life! I mean, the government 'produces' things all the time right? They don't steal it from someone else and give it to us, no!

The government with the power to give you everything you want can take everything away from you. That includes broadband and the freedoms it offers.
Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
18 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older