$100 must be for one of their low end ones. Looking at their current new stuff, the $27,000 model would be required to handle 100mb/s, which I hope to get soon. Nice to know for people with really slow connections.
FCC considers broadband in general as "high speed" and has a speed requirement to be considered "broadband". In this case, "high speed" just means faster than dial-up.
You just said it again.. wtf? You are looking down on bandwidth intensive sites like YouTube, Netflix, and Twitch as if they don't matter because you don't think they matter.
512kb/s is fine because I can do my work on it, media heavy sites just make the rest of the internet look bad, just use lynx. Whatever. Use that same argument to claim that 14.4k is fine.
He may be getting effectively less than 1/3 of his speed or very inconsistent speeds to the point where he'd rather be slightly slower, but more reliable. Getting full speed one moment, then 1/3 the next moment is quite annoying. A lot of ISPs handle this large performance swings with large buffers, which creates buffer bloat and lots of latency.
In order to have consistent latency, you need consistent bandwidth. He's will to trade quantity for quality.
MTUs beyond the MTU of your link will just slow things down. It requires more buffer, CPU overhead, and is more sensitive to jitter and loss. The Internet pretty mush uses a MTU of 1500 for most. Some devices may be slightly less because of encapsulation overhead, so maybe 1480 MTU or something.
The "entitled geeks" are the foot in the door to getting faster fiber internet for everyone. Fiber is crazy expensive to roll out to only a few people. You need to mass deploy to make it worth while. If the entitled geeks can get fiber internet, then everyone gets to benefit from cheaper, faster, more reliable internet.
Our money is based on debt. Remove the debt and we have no money. OK, not that simple, but still funny because it is true to a certain degree. Different types of debt.
You make the faulty assumption that high speed means more expensive for the ISPs. It does not. Fiber is cheaper than copper and can naively supply 1gb speeds for the same price as 1mb speeds. High speed 1gb Internet is more expensive in the same way my CPU is more expensive than a mainframe from 50 years ago because my CPU is faster.
A 7 man crew can do about 3,000 feet per day with modern machinery and I've seen them clear several blocks in a day's time. Even in our more rural areas between the city and farm-land, that would still pass a several houses. When the 2 man crew stopped out at my house to install fiber in the house, I asked them how long it takes on average. They said about 4 hours to run CAT6 through-out most houses for their IPTV. I didn't have TV service, so it only took about 30 minutes.
So a 7 man crew can pass about 8 houses per day in trenching, but a 2 man crew can only do about 2 houses per day. I'd say that's pretty close. In the city, it's much better of course. My dead-end with about 30 duplexes+houses was finished in about 2 days for the trenching crew. All units had fiber ran to the premises, customer or not.
My brother has fiber to his farm, but they just run it on the poles way out there.
You spoke with a tone of authority claiming your use of "work" gave you a position to say that "people don't need high bandwidth because they're just used to media heavy sites". Essentially you were claiming that "media" for non-work reasons is not a "need" and most people could do just fine without a faster internet speed if they just forgo media heavy services.
In my experience, not all of them and not all the time. Mind you, I haven't had to worry about large downloads in a while and their policies may have changed.
The vagina does actually change to some degree and the bacterial flora changes. Turns out this change increases "good" bacteria for the infant and infants tend to ingest some of the bacteria on the way out. Other research has shown that infants actually have strong immune systems, they're just suppressed via a gene expression while they're young. Seems this gives time for bacteria to settle and make a strong biome, while giving the body time to learn to play nice with these bacteria.
And how much are you paying for your $0.70 of bandwidth? Is that even dedicated? The problem is 99% of your Internet bill has nothing to do with bandwidth, but your connection. It's like paying $35 for an 8 port 100mb switch, when you could have gotten an 8port 1gb switch for $40, and your reasoning is 100mb is fine. Why not fork out the extra $5 and get 10x the speed?! Who cares how much of it is a "waste".
Actually, the biggest cost if sending people to the houses to plug in their ONTs. It makes up about 60% of the over all cost. Trenching the fiber and running it to each house is only about 30% of the cost and the last 10% is the fiber and network equipment.
FTTH is more expensive than copper in the same way the pony express is cheaper than UPS. Just because your ISP has invested a lot of money into a lot of horses, doesn't mean it's cheaper to maintain a herd of horses than a fleet of trucks.
Just because you can do all of your work over SSH, doesn't mean the rest of us can. On a side note, how would you propose to live stream you game play in 1080p? Why would we "need" to? Why do we "need" computers? Why do we "need" society as a whole? The only "need" is food and a roof, but we've decided we can more in life than just the survive.
I don't do it as much as when I was younger, but I still like to play games as soon as they're released. I won't be fully satisfied until there is absolutely no perceivable wait. I am content and happy with waiting over night, but my goal is to never wait for anything when it comes to transferring data. With new tech coming down the pipeline, my dream may be realized before I die.
Except in the case of bulk file downloads, the biggest difference past 10mb/s is the quality of the bandwidth, like latency. My work's 10gb fiber connection feels slower than my at home 50mb fiber connection because my residential line has lower latency to Chicago, where all the popular regional CDNs and datacenters are located.
I'm not a fan of waiting, I value my time, and waiting for a 20GB Steam game to install on a 1mb connection would drive me nuts. I only have so much time on Earth and I don't want to spend it waiting for a progress bar.
Everyone has opinions and priorities, and this is just a reflection of how I feel on the subject.
In the eventual situation that all non-creative jobs are fully automated, what does the rest of the population do? Only a subset of the entire population is creative enough to do art, solve issues, or come up with truly novel ideas. The other 90% of the population will have no work available. Unemployment will slowly go up over time. You best start planning for welfare or finding something for them to do.
We can't have 90% of the population being effectively "poor". They need to have money and need to be at least content and preferably happy and healthy, otherwise society will collapse.
An organism that is immune to alcohol, bleach, peroxide, etc would be so specialized that they would not be effective in any other environment. It's like saying an organism that has evolved to survive being in the direct blast of the particle jets of a blackhole. Ok, not that bad, but still. It would be a one-trick pony.
Slashdot Mirror
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Representative_lifetimes_of_stars_as_a_function_of_their_masses.jpg
Really massive stars last only as long as 3mil years. Even a star of 3 solar masses only lasts about 370mil years, 1/3 of a bil.
$100 must be for one of their low end ones. Looking at their current new stuff, the $27,000 model would be required to handle 100mb/s, which I hope to get soon. Nice to know for people with really slow connections.
FCC considers broadband in general as "high speed" and has a speed requirement to be considered "broadband". In this case, "high speed" just means faster than dial-up.
You just said it again.. wtf? You are looking down on bandwidth intensive sites like YouTube, Netflix, and Twitch as if they don't matter because you don't think they matter.
512kb/s is fine because I can do my work on it, media heavy sites just make the rest of the internet look bad, just use lynx. Whatever. Use that same argument to claim that 14.4k is fine.
He may be getting effectively less than 1/3 of his speed or very inconsistent speeds to the point where he'd rather be slightly slower, but more reliable. Getting full speed one moment, then 1/3 the next moment is quite annoying. A lot of ISPs handle this large performance swings with large buffers, which creates buffer bloat and lots of latency.
In order to have consistent latency, you need consistent bandwidth. He's will to trade quantity for quality.
MTUs beyond the MTU of your link will just slow things down. It requires more buffer, CPU overhead, and is more sensitive to jitter and loss. The Internet pretty mush uses a MTU of 1500 for most. Some devices may be slightly less because of encapsulation overhead, so maybe 1480 MTU or something.
The "entitled geeks" are the foot in the door to getting faster fiber internet for everyone. Fiber is crazy expensive to roll out to only a few people. You need to mass deploy to make it worth while. If the entitled geeks can get fiber internet, then everyone gets to benefit from cheaper, faster, more reliable internet.
Our money is based on debt. Remove the debt and we have no money. OK, not that simple, but still funny because it is true to a certain degree. Different types of debt.
You make the faulty assumption that high speed means more expensive for the ISPs. It does not. Fiber is cheaper than copper and can naively supply 1gb speeds for the same price as 1mb speeds. High speed 1gb Internet is more expensive in the same way my CPU is more expensive than a mainframe from 50 years ago because my CPU is faster.
A 7 man crew can do about 3,000 feet per day with modern machinery and I've seen them clear several blocks in a day's time. Even in our more rural areas between the city and farm-land, that would still pass a several houses. When the 2 man crew stopped out at my house to install fiber in the house, I asked them how long it takes on average. They said about 4 hours to run CAT6 through-out most houses for their IPTV. I didn't have TV service, so it only took about 30 minutes.
So a 7 man crew can pass about 8 houses per day in trenching, but a 2 man crew can only do about 2 houses per day. I'd say that's pretty close. In the city, it's much better of course. My dead-end with about 30 duplexes+houses was finished in about 2 days for the trenching crew. All units had fiber ran to the premises, customer or not.
My brother has fiber to his farm, but they just run it on the poles way out there.
You spoke with a tone of authority claiming your use of "work" gave you a position to say that "people don't need high bandwidth because they're just used to media heavy sites". Essentially you were claiming that "media" for non-work reasons is not a "need" and most people could do just fine without a faster internet speed if they just forgo media heavy services.
In my experience, not all of them and not all the time. Mind you, I haven't had to worry about large downloads in a while and their policies may have changed.
The vagina does actually change to some degree and the bacterial flora changes. Turns out this change increases "good" bacteria for the infant and infants tend to ingest some of the bacteria on the way out. Other research has shown that infants actually have strong immune systems, they're just suppressed via a gene expression while they're young. Seems this gives time for bacteria to settle and make a strong biome, while giving the body time to learn to play nice with these bacteria.
50ms is "good"? You should try 8ms, it feels much better.
And how much are you paying for your $0.70 of bandwidth? Is that even dedicated? The problem is 99% of your Internet bill has nothing to do with bandwidth, but your connection. It's like paying $35 for an 8 port 100mb switch, when you could have gotten an 8port 1gb switch for $40, and your reasoning is 100mb is fine. Why not fork out the extra $5 and get 10x the speed?! Who cares how much of it is a "waste".
Actually, the biggest cost if sending people to the houses to plug in their ONTs. It makes up about 60% of the over all cost. Trenching the fiber and running it to each house is only about 30% of the cost and the last 10% is the fiber and network equipment.
FTTH is more expensive than copper in the same way the pony express is cheaper than UPS. Just because your ISP has invested a lot of money into a lot of horses, doesn't mean it's cheaper to maintain a herd of horses than a fleet of trucks.
They have a term for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_previous_investment
Just because you can do all of your work over SSH, doesn't mean the rest of us can. On a side note, how would you propose to live stream you game play in 1080p? Why would we "need" to? Why do we "need" computers? Why do we "need" society as a whole? The only "need" is food and a roof, but we've decided we can more in life than just the survive.
I don't do it as much as when I was younger, but I still like to play games as soon as they're released. I won't be fully satisfied until there is absolutely no perceivable wait. I am content and happy with waiting over night, but my goal is to never wait for anything when it comes to transferring data. With new tech coming down the pipeline, my dream may be realized before I die.
Except in the case of bulk file downloads, the biggest difference past 10mb/s is the quality of the bandwidth, like latency. My work's 10gb fiber connection feels slower than my at home 50mb fiber connection because my residential line has lower latency to Chicago, where all the popular regional CDNs and datacenters are located.
I'm not a fan of waiting, I value my time, and waiting for a 20GB Steam game to install on a 1mb connection would drive me nuts. I only have so much time on Earth and I don't want to spend it waiting for a progress bar.
Everyone has opinions and priorities, and this is just a reflection of how I feel on the subject.
Minimum wage is not enough for a single person to live alone. They would have to choose between food or a roof over their head.
In the eventual situation that all non-creative jobs are fully automated, what does the rest of the population do? Only a subset of the entire population is creative enough to do art, solve issues, or come up with truly novel ideas. The other 90% of the population will have no work available. Unemployment will slowly go up over time. You best start planning for welfare or finding something for them to do.
We can't have 90% of the population being effectively "poor". They need to have money and need to be at least content and preferably happy and healthy, otherwise society will collapse.
Sounds like a great way to upset the bacterial balance of your skin, not to mention completely dry out your skin.
An organism that is immune to alcohol, bleach, peroxide, etc would be so specialized that they would not be effective in any other environment. It's like saying an organism that has evolved to survive being in the direct blast of the particle jets of a blackhole. Ok, not that bad, but still. It would be a one-trick pony.