The Infamous Ipod

[Munin]

Why do you think all of the US has good internet speeds? It is clear that it varies greatly from state to state (and between cities and villages). I think you re just lucky because you probably living near or in a big city, I don't think that is the case for all states like you seem to say.

Internet Speed Test & Bandwidth Check - Speed Matters

this report shows you that your statement is simply not true, there are many places where people have less than 768 kbps. Wich is far from the speeds that you re talking about.

The median download speed for the nation was 2.3 megabits per second (mbps). In Japan, the median download speed is 63 mbps, or 30 times faster than the U.S.371 to 435 kbps).

At this rate, it will take the United States more than 100 years to catch up with current Internet speeds in Japan.

the US has not the highest internet speed in the world: that is simply false, you re talking about local internet speed which is not the issue I m talking about.

People in Japan can download an entire movie in just two minutes, but it can take two hours or more in the United States. Yet, people inJapan pay the same as we do for their Internet connection.

 

[KittenKoder]

Already addressed that your "report" was wrong.

Look up Comcast and Qwest, the two largest ISPs in the US, averaging them and you get our average, all the little ISPs can't hold a candle because their CEOs are taking bonuses instead of upgrading their own equipment, what you are asking for is another bailout, a waste of money, to help failing companies. To calculate the average speeds you cannot include all the minor ISPs because they don't cover most of the US, the minor ones generally cover maybe a region, but rarely beyond a single city, while Qwest and Comcast cover the country. Here we have a few minor companies, all with an average of 50 Mbps.

Clearly your understanding of technology is very limited Munin, so leave it to the big kids from now on.

 

[Munin]

I think it is you who have little knowledge of technology, because if you did know so much about it then you should know that the companies you mention have a policy of terminating broadband customers who use "excessive bandwidth," a term the companies refused to define in their terms of service, which once said only that a customer's use should not "represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast for example) an overly large burden on the network."

It is not a bailout, it is an upgrade of the internet network that enables the private companies you just mentioned to raise each customers usage intensity of the internet. Making sure that you can use the internet a lot more intensively before you become an "excessive bandwith user" .


For example with Comcast you have the following policy:

On August 28, 2008, Comcast confirmed the rumors of a controversial 250GB per month cap on downloads, set to go into effect on October 1, 2008. As such, Comcast has changed their Network Management page to reflect the new policy. On September 4, 2008 Comcast sued the FCC over the findings.

The cap combines both upload and download for the total limit. If a user exceeds the cap, on a first offense, a warning email and/or phone call will be issued with information on how to track bandwidth usage by suggesting software monitoring programs. On the second offense, the user will have their services terminated for one year. The monitoring window is from the first day of the month to the last day of the month.

 

[KittenKoder]

Munin, if that was the case i would have been "terminated" a long time ago. Since I have gotten my high speed connection I rack up an average of at least 10 gig a day, half just uploading my own website and for work (which I didn't tell them I use it for, don't want to bother with the tax credit paperwork). What is the "excessive bandwidth" limit? It would be interesting to know. I have heard of them terminating connections for illegal activity, but they kind of have no choice in that matter.

The point was though, averaging the speeds of all the users would come up with about 50 meg nation wide, averaging the speeds of all the companies would of course come up lower since there are a LOT of smaller companies who just refuse to spend the money to upgrade, which is why they don't grow and eventually fail. The big two ISPs are strong because they keep upgrading, and thus the average speeds for customers are much higher than your report. This is another case of ignoring 90% of the world to make your point more valid.

 

[Munin]

What is the "excessive bandwidth" limit?

As I already mentioned that the companies refuse to specify it, so I assume they can put any "reasonable" number on it that they want.

You seem to be ignoring 100% of the report by sayin it is false without justifying why, what proof do you have that the report is false?

this news article also backs up the report: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com

appearantly the numbers seem to differ from one source to another: this one (http://digg.com/d1nL6w) says that the average speed is 3.9 mbs, but that is still very low

 

[KittenKoder]

What is the "excessive bandwidth" limit?

As I already mentioned that the companies refuse to specify it, so I assume they can put any "reasonable" number on it that they want.

You seem to be ignoring 100% of the report by sayin it is false without justifying why, what proof do you have that the report is false?

this news article also backs up the report: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com

Ignoring an argument based on 10% of the population isn't nearly as bad as ignoring 90% of the population.

Alright, f you cannot come up with a number, show at least a few people who were not committing any illegal act that were banned for "excessive bandwidth" usage, oh, and be sure they weren't on a cheaper bandwidth limited account, though not advertised they do have those still for low end users.

 

[Munin]

What is the "excessive bandwidth" limit?

As I already mentioned that the companies refuse to specify it, so I assume they can put any "reasonable" number on it that they want.

You seem to be ignoring 100% of the report by sayin it is false without justifying why, what proof do you have that the report is false?

this news article also backs up the report: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com

Ignoring an argument based on 10% of the population isn't nearly as bad as ignoring 90% of the population.

Alright, f you cannot come up with a number, show at least a few people who were not committing any illegal act that were banned for "excessive bandwidth" usage, oh, and be sure they weren't on a cheaper bandwidth limited account, though not advertised they do have those still for low end users.

I think you didn't read my previous adjusted post and the articles I ve put in and reffered to (but I don't know what the limit is for all companies, I m not going to put that much effort into it. I ve got other things to do, you know):

Report: U.S. 17th In Broadband Speed

Web users in the U.S. surf the Internet at an average broadband speed of 3.9 Mbps, according to an upcoming Akamai report obtained by GigaOm's Om Malik.
That's higher than the worldwide figure of 1.5 Mpbs, but lower than average speeds in 16 other countries. Malik (and others) expect connections in the U.S. to continue to get faster, thanks to fiber-optic lines and DOCSIS 3.0 (Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification) -- which allows for speeds up to 50 Mbps downstream.

Comcast alone recently said DOCSIS 3.0 is now available to 30% of its network and, by the end of the year, will be available to 65%.

Yet simply making next-gen lines available doesn't guarantee that people's connections will become speedier. Pricing likely will remain a hurdle -- especially given the current economic crunch. Comcast currently charges up to $140 a month for its fastest service -- significantly more than the $40-$50 monthly fees for most cable broadband. Of course, some people will be willing to pay more for super-fast service. But it's not clear whether enough consumers will agree to pay more than $1,500 a year for high-speed lines.

At the same time, broadband companies continue to roll out monthly caps or other limits on use. Comcast users, for instance, max out at 250GB. Currently, the vast majority of subscribers use far less than 250 GB -- but some industry observers say it's inevitable that usage will increase as more bandwidth becomes available.

Still, Comcast's maximum is relatively generous compared to Time Warner, which is experimenting with caps as low as 5GB a month. Cox, meanwhile, has said it will prioritize certain traffic it deems "time-sensitive" -- which doesn't include peer-to-peer traffic.

Telcos and cable companies like to brag about their speed boosts, but they have more work to do. They also must ensure enough capacity -- at a reasonable price -- for people to download videos, make VoIP calls and engage in other bandwidth-intensive activity without straining the system.

U.S. 17th In Broadband Speed

clearly the companies are abusing the existing network to make more profits (on your back), when more users come they just raise the price for higher speeds and lower the cap for the people who pay less. Welcome to monopoly behavior, I hope you will enjoy paying too much for a lousy internet connection. Oh yeah, you can complain about paying money to upgrade the network. But you ll be glad to be ripped of by the private companies, by paying too much for too little speed (certainly when you compare to other nations). I guess that s america: glad to be ripped off by private companies, but angry when the government would offer them to do it at a lower price. "No, to taxes" right? And then you wonder why foreigners think that americans are stupid.

 

[KittenKoder]

Um ... companies have to make a profit in order to keep up, otherwise they fail like the ones you are wanting the government to bail out, like the banks they already bailed out. So yeah, making a profit is bad how? I am satisfied with what I have, most people are (would dare to say 99% of those on a guess) otherwise they would be failing to. Some people abuse their ISPs, they get dropped, so they whine about it. I don't, most of us don't, so we pay our bills and enjoy or utilize our services, no complaints. Hell, since I pay for unlimited access I would complain if they said I was using excessive bandwidth *eye roll* but even using an average of 1 to 10 gig a day doesn't seem to qualify so I have yet to see any evidence to support this claim, and everyone in my building uses the same company, none of them have complained yet. As a matter of fact they recommended Qwest. I could have even settled for 2 mbps and still enjoyed what I do enjoy, since the movie sites I go to can't even keep up with 7 mbps I would still have to buffer the whole thing anyway. So, life experience shows you and your report are wrong, you still haven't given any hard evidence to support your argument, just some report based on the companies and not the users which of course makes it look worse than it is.

Here's the math:

100 companies, 2 at speeds faster than the world average, the rest well below even dial-up: results in a number much lower than the world average.

100 users, 75 of them using the 2 faster companies, 25 of them using the lesser and unstable companies are slower speed: results in a number much higher than the world average and is far more accurate.

How would the government be able to improve connection speeds without more bail outs? It can't, it's not the lines nor the relays that are out of date, it's the companies that are incapable of using their profits wisely. To make money one must spend money, yes, but to make a profit one must spend money wisely.

 

[Munin]

the government will provide an internet network much cheaper and much faster than the private sector. Why you ask? Because the government can do it directly for the whole population, which is cheaper than a private company which will let a small group of people pay for their small number of investments. The private companies don't have the money to do the whole country because they must do it gradually (each time they make more profits they re able to invest it again).

Do the math:



a small number of people paying for the complete investment of an upgraded internet network to private companies. Also a lot of people still not able to be connected because the private companies haven't been able to upgrade it everywhere.

or the whole population of the US paying for the complete network, which solution will cost less per person do you think?


The whole network (in the case it is directly provided by the government) will then create more competition between the different companies because they don't have their own monopolized (self build) network but a network provided by the government that allows companies to make prices that will be much cheaper.

 

[KittenKoder]

Wow ... um ... just wow.

Now I am wondering, do you even understand what the internet is? Do you think it's just one big mainframe on some uncharted island somewhere or perhaps that it's all owned by one small group of people? This is just ... wow ...

Networks are NOT the internet, nor is the internet networks, though networks can often be connected to the internet. You seem to think they are all the same, I am guessing you probably think Al Gore "invented the intermets" to?

 

[Munin]

Seriously, I m beginning to doubt that you know what it is. I never thought that you would ask it to me, since I asumed that you know at least something about it.

The movement of information in the Internet is achieved via a system of interconnected computer networks that share data by packet switching using the standardized Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP). It is a "network of networks" that consists of millions of private and public, academic, business, and government networks of local to global scope that are linked by copper wires, fiber-optic cables, wireless connections, and other technologies.

in short: the internet is one giant network and its speed is determined by the hardware (like the servers) and infrastructure (cables).


One of the best ways to increase speed (for a large population) is to upgrade the cable-network (fiber-optic cables are very good for example).

 

[KittenKoder]

Seriously, I m beginning to doubt that you know what it is. I never thought that you would ask it to me, since I asumed that you know at least something about it.

The movement of information in the Internet is achieved via a system of interconnected computer networks that share data by packet switching using the standardized Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP). It is a "network of networks" that consists of millions of private and public, academic, business, and government networks of local to global scope that are linked by copper wires, fiber-optic cables, wireless connections, and other technologies.

in short: the internet is one giant network and its speed is determined by the hardware (like the servers) and infrastructure (cables).


One of the best ways to increase speed (for a large population) is to upgrade the cable-network (fiber-optic cables are very good for example).

Um .. yeah ... most places already have fiber-optic cables first of all, so how is spending more money on that going to help? Bear in mind, they are owned by private companies and are not public property, nor is internet access a right, it's a privilege, and as such costs money to use and is regulated by private companies, just like cable TV.

Secondly ... no, it's not like "one huge network" ... reading technical jargun only helps if you understand what it is already describing. There's a reason us techies like to use fancy acronyms and words, it keeps people like you from understanding enough of it to make us obsolete. Here though, I will give you a bit of a heads up, look into the W3C, that explains it a bit more "low brow" for you. Then, look at what BBSs of the 80s and 90s were, to better understand what the internet is today.

However, all that aside, you still only show that it's a waste of more money, like the DTV "upgrade" or our local monorail fiasco, it's pointless, not needed, and won't improve anything but will likely just hurt businesses which are already established and doing their job just fine.

 

[Munin]

Ah yes I forgot to mention the software. Upgrading software can also increase internet speed, but ultimately the (max)speed is determined by the hardware (cables and the computers in the network) (at least that is what I think)

I don't think it will hurt the businesses if the government outsources the job to place the new cables and hardware that is needed to upgrade the internet speed for most americans to the private companies that are now also doing it. So you find it normal that an american has to pay multiple times more for his internetconnection then japanese person that has a connection speed that is multiple times higher (at least 10 times)?

While it wouldn't be waiste either because americans will have to pay for the upgrade one way or another, in the near future most americans will need the improved speed anyway (because the new applications will need the improved speed).

 

[KittenKoder]

Ah yes I forgot to mention the software, but I assumed that since I talked about computers you already include the software. Upgrading software can also increase internet speed, but ultimately the speed is determined by the hardware (cables and the computers in the network) (at least that is what I think)

Can't ... breathe ... between ... laughs ....

Do you realize how many servers there are? How much it would cost to upgrade all those? Also what would you upgrade them to? Windoze crappy ass servers? LOL ... LOL ... or, I know, upgrading all those poor saps still stuck on Windoze desktops ... oh yeah, that's cost effective. LOL ... seriously? .... LOL

 

[DiveCon]

Ah yes I forgot to mention the software, but I assumed that since I talked about computers you already include the software. Upgrading software can also increase internet speed, but ultimately the speed is determined by the hardware (cables and the computers in the network) (at least that is what I think)

Can't ... breathe ... between ... laughs ....

Do you realize how many servers there are? How much it would cost to upgrade all those? Also what would you upgrade them to? Windoze crappy ass servers? LOL ... LOL ... or, I know, upgrading all those poor saps still stuck on Windoze desktops ... oh yeah, that's cost effective. LOL ... seriously? .... LOL

LOL
do you REALLY think the average internet user today could run anything OTHER than windows?


hell, half the morons barely know how to turn their computers on, let alone compliling programs

 

[Munin]

Ah yes I forgot to mention the software, but I assumed that since I talked about computers you already include the software. Upgrading software can also increase internet speed, but ultimately the speed is determined by the hardware (cables and the computers in the network) (at least that is what I think)

Can't ... breathe ... between ... laughs ....

Do you realize how many servers there are? How much it would cost to upgrade all those? Also what would you upgrade them to? Windoze crappy ass servers? LOL ... LOL ... or, I know, upgrading all those poor saps still stuck on Windoze desktops ... oh yeah, that's cost effective. LOL ... seriously? .... LOL

clearly you misunderstood me, I m glad you had a good laugh tough. I wasn't specific enough ("computers"), I only ment the most important servers (the so called supercomputers).

 

[Annie]

Ah yes I forgot to mention the software, but I assumed that since I talked about computers you already include the software. Upgrading software can also increase internet speed, but ultimately the speed is determined by the hardware (cables and the computers in the network) (at least that is what I think)

Can't ... breathe ... between ... laughs ....

Do you realize how many servers there are? How much it would cost to upgrade all those? Also what would you upgrade them to? Windoze crappy ass servers? LOL ... LOL ... or, I know, upgrading all those poor saps still stuck on Windoze desktops ... oh yeah, that's cost effective. LOL ... seriously? .... LOL

clearly you misunderstood me, I m glad you had a good laugh tough. I wasn't specific enough ("computers"), I only ment the most important servers (the so called supercomputers).

and that would be the 'government provided servers'?

 

[KittenKoder]

Ah yes I forgot to mention the software, but I assumed that since I talked about computers you already include the software. Upgrading software can also increase internet speed, but ultimately the speed is determined by the hardware (cables and the computers in the network) (at least that is what I think)

Can't ... breathe ... between ... laughs ....

Do you realize how many servers there are? How much it would cost to upgrade all those? Also what would you upgrade them to? Windoze crappy ass servers? LOL ... LOL ... or, I know, upgrading all those poor saps still stuck on Windoze desktops ... oh yeah, that's cost effective. LOL ... seriously? .... LOL

clearly you misunderstood me, I m glad you had a good laugh tough. I wasn't specific enough ("computers"), I only ment the most important servers (the so called supercomputers).

Damn

Can't

Breathe


Clearly you have absolutely NO idea how the internet works ... I doubt you even understand what your computer is doing right this minute ... how the hell did you find the "on button"? ... damn I could go on and on with this one.

 

[KittenKoder]

Can't ... breathe ... between ... laughs ....

Do you realize how many servers there are? How much it would cost to upgrade all those? Also what would you upgrade them to? Windoze crappy ass servers? LOL ... LOL ... or, I know, upgrading all those poor saps still stuck on Windoze desktops ... oh yeah, that's cost effective. LOL ... seriously? .... LOL

clearly you misunderstood me, I m glad you had a good laugh tough. I wasn't specific enough ("computers"), I only ment the most important servers (the so called supercomputers).

and that would be the 'government provided servers'?

I am guessin he wants ALL servers to be government owned ... I dare them to buy out the 50 I know of in Brittian (one of which houses my site), how about the hundreds in Japan ... hmm, not enough ... I know of 100 in the US ... but even then ... he actually believes that upgrading all of these, paid for by our taxes, would actually boost the number of internet users to some level which would increase profits. He is turning out to be funny today.

 

[DiveCon]

clearly you misunderstood me, I m glad you had a good laugh tough. I wasn't specific enough ("computers"), I only ment the most important servers (the so called supercomputers).

and that would be the 'government provided servers'?

I am guessin he wants ALL servers to be government owned ... I dare them to buy out the 50 I know of in Brittian (one of which houses my site), how about the hundreds in Japan ... hmm, not enough ... I know of 100 in the US ... but even then ... he actually believes that upgrading all of these, paid for by our taxes, would actually boost the number of internet users to some level which would increase profits. He is turning out to be funny today.

i dont think he understand the difference between a server, a router, and a switch