There is no "unlimited 5mbps plan," that's a red herring. There is no "fixed bandwidth," the bandwidth you get depends on how many people are using a cell site, how much traffic they're doing, your distance from the site, weather conditions, whether you're line of sight or in your mom's basement, etc. You may notice that wireless carriers don't guarantee speeds, it's all in terms of "up to x" or "faster than the competition."
there is obviously more bandwidth available at the beginning of the month and much less available towards the end of the month when those limits are imposed and connections throttled
When is the last time you looked at your cellular bill? There are multiple "billing cycles," each beginning on a different day of the month. It's not like everyone resets at once, as you imply.</ignoredfact>
If the coffee shop runs out of bandwidth, they simply order up a bigger pipe (or a second pipe). Problem solved. If a wireless carrier runs out of bandwidth, then all users are affected, until a few years pass and the next generation of technology becomes available. So, it's fair to throttle the heaviest users (who are pushing bandwidth over the edge), so average users aren't significantly impacted.
Wired and wireless cannot be compared with regard to bandwidth. There is a technology limit for wireless which is not effectively present for wired.
But, I'm sure you can't understand that, since you've made it obvious that this is all about you.
"Unlimited," as they use the term, means "flat rate," as opposed to the limit on a tiered plan, where you are charged more when you exceed that limit.
Anyone who thinks "unlimited" means "infinite," for timed (monthly) service on a network with bandwidth obviously subject to technology limits, is either being disingenuous or ignorant.
They are if their traffic impacts other paying users. They're paying for volume, not bandwidth. And, unlike hardwired connections, the carrier can't simply put in bigger pipes when the available bandwidth is exceeded.
I'm sure the carriers have very good data on the average number of users per cell site/sector. They know how much traffic each of them uses, on average. They know the capacity of their cell sites. They have metrics on usage patterns (TOD, DOW, etc.).
Seems pretty straight forward to take that data, crunch it, and come up with a number which ensures the available bandwidth is shared between all users, on a reasonably equitable basis.
A cell site has a fixed available bandwidth (for a given technology), once the investment has been made, it costs the carrier the same whether it's running at 5% or 95% of capacity. To avoid pissing off the majority of their customers, they need a method to make that bandwidth available equitably. For those with "unlimited" contracts, this cap/throttle method seems reasonable. Tiered pricing is another method of constraining heavy users, and may actually be more fair, but has the appearance of "profiteering," since their Cost Of Service is basically fixed. It's a balancing act for them.
No. It means your bandwidth is reduced when you hit those thresholds, you continue to be able to exchange data beyond the 3GB/5GB, just more slowly. They're not cutting anyone off, they're throttling to prevent average users from being negatively impacted by the highest percentile users. Wireless bandwidth is limited and shared, and this is just a way of ensuring the heaviest users don't hog it all.
Think of it as the successful result of an "Occupy AT&T," where the little people won out over the "5%ers."
I've never heard anyone imply that advertising "unlimited data" on, say, a 1 Mbps line was fraud because there was actually a limit of 1 Mbps x 2629743 seconds per month / 8 bits per byte ~= 329 GB/month.
A lot of Fidonet traffic was passed using PC Pursuit. This was a service which made use of Telenet's excess off-hours capacity on their X.25 network. You would connect to a local dialup number, transit their X.25 network, and then dial out from a remote location, avoiding toll fees. The phone connections on both ends were local. I operated as an NEC (Net Echomail Coordinator) for a few years using that service to exchange mail with other nets.
You would obviously be happier using a network developed by an international organization. Feel free to move to using a X.233 (CLNP) based network if you don't like how IP has developed.
The latter demonstrates the problem with letting international bodies handle technical matters - you get "design by committee" where the results try to be all things to all people, and are never very good for anyone.
There's a reason IP, which was developed by a relatively small group of individuals, ended up being universally successful, while the whole ISO X.* hierarchy has ended up being used only for specialized applications.
Your quote is a red herring. RFC 1591 is not a normative reference, as it freely admits: "This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
It's clear that there have been international organizations under those TLDs for a long time, and that makes sense, since they existed prior to the CC ones. As I already said, registration under those TLDs has never been restricted to only US organizations. 1591 is just informing of that practical reality. That in no way implies that those TLDs somehow "belong" to the international community.
The OP was arguing that the US should give up control of those TLDs, and that's where he's wrong. The same reference you cite makes it clear that those TLDs are under control of a US entity:
Second level domains in COM, EDU, ORG, NET, and GOV are registered by the Internet Registry at the InterNIC.
BTW, InterNIC is a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
So, anyone who has registered under one of those TLDs knew exactly what they were getting into with regard to them being under US control, and subject to US law.
No, your completely wrong..com,.net,.org are, and always have been, US domains, although registration of domains under them has never been restricted. When you create something, you get to make certain choices, and the US government funded DARPA Internet development came up with those domains.
You want your own national domain, then co.countrycode, and similar seem to be popular choices. If you want the UN to control DNS - let them administer a *.un hierarchy.
Having said that, I have two points to make - first, no web site was shut down, this was just a removal of DNS entries. Second, I believe that this, although ordered by a US court, is in violation of the US Constitution's free speech protections. A DNS request is analogous to looking up someone's number in a phonebook. Publishing a phone number (or DNS entry), even for a criminal, should be protected free speech.
"So there should be no laws against fraud at all?"
Where do you get the impression that I believe that? I don't. There should be very strong laws about fraud (deceit, misrepresentation). But that's the difference between the symptom and the cause. As long as the truth about the risks and benefits of a treatment are provided, it should be the patient's choice. If a "terminal" patient is offered a treatment which is 99% likely to kill them, and 1% likely to make them better or cure them, it should be their choice to weigh those risks/benefits.
If you're calling homeopathic medicine a fraud, I disagree. I don't believe a word of the explanation of how it works, but I believe it does work for some people, just as the placebo effect does.
The individual stands a far better chance of making a correct decision regarding their own case than some third party following rules written with absolutely no knowledge of that specific case.
It's just not possible to give the same level of support to an individual patient in making the right decisions - there aren't enough experts to go around - which is why we need to delegate the decision-making to the FDA.
I'm certain you don't see the self-contradictory nature of that statement.
"Normal adults should be deprived of these decisions because normal adults will get ripped off and end up hurting themselves and their loved ones. "
So you would agree with the following statements:
Because people cannot make informed, rational decisions about their own health care, the government must do it. That includes denying unapproved treatments, requiring treatments with known benefits, and forcing lifestyle changes with known health benefits.
The fat lady down the street shouldn't be allowed to sit on the couch, watching TV and eating potato chips, because she is making an unhealthy, uninformed choice. That should be illegal, and she should be forced to exercise until she achieves a healthy weight. When grandmother gets cancer, she should not be allowed to enter hospice, but should be forced to undergo costly and painful chemotherapy.
It should be illegal for children under the age of 15 to possess or ride a bicycle, since that activity results in over 300,000 emergency room visits per year in the US alone.
"The point is, people with all the tools in the world to find information on what works and what doesn't aren't going to use it correctly."
If that's the case, then the FDA can't make a correct decision, either. You've solved the healthcare "issue." If you get sick, do nothing and die, because no one can use information to make a correct decision.
So, you claim that diet, drugs, and exercise have nothing to do with health. You're obviously one of those who can't make healthy decisions for themselves.
"you have to have somebody come in and tell one group of people to stop victimizing another at a huge cost to society"
Your implied assumption is that society must take care of those who make poor decisions (which you incorrectly call "victims"). Let 'em rot or depend on private charity (in which case the cost is voluntary). If someone is underwater on their mortgage, bailing them out is only making those who made good choices pay for those who made bad ones. You apparently don't have kids, because rewarding bad behavior only results in even more bad behavior.
" I have family members that buy bottles of new age memory water "
I have family members who buy 3D TVs and iPhones, which are probably more expensive than that water. Are you saying they're stupid and ignorant, and shouldn't be allowed that choice?
"As long as you get your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren to sign off as well"
Are you willing to do the same every time you eat a greasy hamburger, drink a beer, or sit on the couch watching TV instead of jogging around the block?
Slashdot Mirror
"They were sold bandwidth, not volume."
Documentation, please? (you won't find any, none of the wireless carriers guarantee bandwidth)
There is no "unlimited 5mbps plan," that's a red herring. There is no "fixed bandwidth," the bandwidth you get depends on how many people are using a cell site, how much traffic they're doing, your distance from the site, weather conditions, whether you're line of sight or in your mom's basement, etc. You may notice that wireless carriers don't guarantee speeds, it's all in terms of "up to x" or "faster than the competition."
When is the last time you looked at your cellular bill? There are multiple "billing cycles," each beginning on a different day of the month. It's not like everyone resets at once, as you imply.</ignoredfact>
If the coffee shop runs out of bandwidth, they simply order up a bigger pipe (or a second pipe). Problem solved. If a wireless carrier runs out of bandwidth, then all users are affected, until a few years pass and the next generation of technology becomes available. So, it's fair to throttle the heaviest users (who are pushing bandwidth over the edge), so average users aren't significantly impacted.
Wired and wireless cannot be compared with regard to bandwidth. There is a technology limit for wireless which is not effectively present for wired.
But, I'm sure you can't understand that, since you've made it obvious that this is all about you.
"Unlimited," as they use the term, means "flat rate," as opposed to the limit on a tiered plan, where you are charged more when you exceed that limit.
Anyone who thinks "unlimited" means "infinite," for timed (monthly) service on a network with bandwidth obviously subject to technology limits, is either being disingenuous or ignorant.
They are if their traffic impacts other paying users. They're paying for volume, not bandwidth. And, unlike hardwired connections, the carrier can't simply put in bigger pipes when the available bandwidth is exceeded.
I'm sure the carriers have very good data on the average number of users per cell site/sector. They know how much traffic each of them uses, on average. They know the capacity of their cell sites. They have metrics on usage patterns (TOD, DOW, etc.).
Seems pretty straight forward to take that data, crunch it, and come up with a number which ensures the available bandwidth is shared between all users, on a reasonably equitable basis.
A cell site has a fixed available bandwidth (for a given technology), once the investment has been made, it costs the carrier the same whether it's running at 5% or 95% of capacity. To avoid pissing off the majority of their customers, they need a method to make that bandwidth available equitably. For those with "unlimited" contracts, this cap/throttle method seems reasonable. Tiered pricing is another method of constraining heavy users, and may actually be more fair, but has the appearance of "profiteering," since their Cost Of Service is basically fixed. It's a balancing act for them.
No. It means your bandwidth is reduced when you hit those thresholds, you continue to be able to exchange data beyond the 3GB/5GB, just more slowly. They're not cutting anyone off, they're throttling to prevent average users from being negatively impacted by the highest percentile users. Wireless bandwidth is limited and shared, and this is just a way of ensuring the heaviest users don't hog it all.
Think of it as the successful result of an "Occupy AT&T," where the little people won out over the "5%ers."
I've never heard anyone imply that advertising "unlimited data" on, say, a 1 Mbps line was fraud because there was actually a limit of 1 Mbps x 2629743 seconds per month / 8 bits per byte ~= 329 GB/month.
A lot of Fidonet traffic was passed using PC Pursuit. This was a service which made use of Telenet's excess off-hours capacity on their X.25 network. You would connect to a local dialup number, transit their X.25 network, and then dial out from a remote location, avoiding toll fees. The phone connections on both ends were local. I operated as an NEC (Net Echomail Coordinator) for a few years using that service to exchange mail with other nets.
You would obviously be happier using a network developed by an international organization. Feel free to move to using a X.233 (CLNP) based network if you don't like how IP has developed.
The latter demonstrates the problem with letting international bodies handle technical matters - you get "design by committee" where the results try to be all things to all people, and are never very good for anyone.
There's a reason IP, which was developed by a relatively small group of individuals, ended up being universally successful, while the whole ISO X.* hierarchy has ended up being used only for specialized applications.
It's clear that there have been international organizations under those TLDs for a long time, and that makes sense, since they existed prior to the CC ones. As I already said, registration under those TLDs has never been restricted to only US organizations. 1591 is just informing of that practical reality. That in no way implies that those TLDs somehow "belong" to the international community.
The OP was arguing that the US should give up control of those TLDs, and that's where he's wrong. The same reference you cite makes it clear that those TLDs are under control of a US entity:
BTW, InterNIC is a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
So, anyone who has registered under one of those TLDs knew exactly what they were getting into with regard to them being under US control, and subject to US law.
No, your completely wrong. .com, .net, .org are, and always have been, US domains, although registration of domains under them has never been restricted. When you create something, you get to make certain choices, and the US government funded DARPA Internet development came up with those domains.
You want your own national domain, then co.countrycode, and similar seem to be popular choices. If you want the UN to control DNS - let them administer a *.un hierarchy.
Having said that, I have two points to make - first, no web site was shut down, this was just a removal of DNS entries. Second, I believe that this, although ordered by a US court, is in violation of the US Constitution's free speech protections. A DNS request is analogous to looking up someone's number in a phonebook. Publishing a phone number (or DNS entry), even for a criminal, should be protected free speech.
"So there should be no laws against fraud at all?"
Where do you get the impression that I believe that? I don't. There should be very strong laws about fraud (deceit, misrepresentation). But that's the difference between the symptom and the cause. As long as the truth about the risks and benefits of a treatment are provided, it should be the patient's choice. If a "terminal" patient is offered a treatment which is 99% likely to kill them, and 1% likely to make them better or cure them, it should be their choice to weigh those risks/benefits.
If you're calling homeopathic medicine a fraud, I disagree. I don't believe a word of the explanation of how it works, but I believe it does work for some people, just as the placebo effect does.
I'm certain you don't see the self-contradictory nature of that statement.
"Normal adults should be deprived of these decisions because normal adults will get ripped off and end up hurting themselves and their loved ones. "
So you would agree with the following statements:
Because people cannot make informed, rational decisions about their own health care, the government must do it. That includes denying unapproved treatments, requiring treatments with known benefits, and forcing lifestyle changes with known health benefits.
The fat lady down the street shouldn't be allowed to sit on the couch, watching TV and eating potato chips, because she is making an unhealthy, uninformed choice. That should be illegal, and she should be forced to exercise until she achieves a healthy weight. When grandmother gets cancer, she should not be allowed to enter hospice, but should be forced to undergo costly and painful chemotherapy.
It should be illegal for children under the age of 15 to possess or ride a bicycle, since that activity results in over 300,000 emergency room visits per year in the US alone.
"Drug testing generally works. It's slow, it's bureaucratic, it occasionally screws up... but it works."
Fen-Phen
Cerivastatin
Vioxx
Rezulin
No, it doesn't work. It protects neither the patient nor the manufacturer.
"My comment was a legal one. Not a health one."
You're lost. This is a discussion on health, not torts.
"The point is, people with all the tools in the world to find information on what works and what doesn't aren't going to use it correctly."
If that's the case, then the FDA can't make a correct decision, either. You've solved the healthcare "issue." If you get sick, do nothing and die, because no one can use information to make a correct decision.
"People tend to trust their doctor, and in general don't have the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions."
If people follow the advice of their doctor, and they're not making informed decisions, then they need a new doctor.
Thank your for repudiating your earlier statement.
But isn't that exactly what the FDA does - test it to see what happens? If not, then there's no argument, because no progress can ever be made.
Exactly, provided there is no fraud (deceit) involved. That is a proper role for goverment.
So, you claim that diet, drugs, and exercise have nothing to do with health. You're obviously one of those who can't make healthy decisions for themselves.
"you have to have somebody come in and tell one group of people to stop victimizing another at a huge cost to society"
Your implied assumption is that society must take care of those who make poor decisions (which you incorrectly call "victims"). Let 'em rot or depend on private charity (in which case the cost is voluntary). If someone is underwater on their mortgage, bailing them out is only making those who made good choices pay for those who made bad ones. You apparently don't have kids, because rewarding bad behavior only results in even more bad behavior.
" I have family members that buy bottles of new age memory water "
I have family members who buy 3D TVs and iPhones, which are probably more expensive than that water. Are you saying they're stupid and ignorant, and shouldn't be allowed that choice?
"As long as you get your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren to sign off as well"
Are you willing to do the same every time you eat a greasy hamburger, drink a beer, or sit on the couch watching TV instead of jogging around the block?