I doubt overbooking capacity is illegal in most countries - heck, overbooking flights isn't illegal either. And the overbooking ratios in e.g. DSL connections are HUGE. Of course in retrospect they shouldn't be and that's what's now causing problems, but thanks to overbooking we've had affordable broadband.
Let's take an example. You're a local medium-sized ISP with 1 million customers, each with a relatively new 24Mbps ADSL2+ line. In order to not oversell any capacity, you would need an outgoing connection of a cool 22Tbps to the outside world.
Nobody - I repeat NOBODY, not even the biggest ISPs in the world - have that fat pipes. Overbooking is, to some extent, inevitable.
Umm, no. Risking sounding like I'm defending the telcos (which I'm not), if your revenues are not enough to upgrade the network at the pace required by the increasing usage, you DO have a real problem. An economical, business viability kind of a problem, not just a mindset problem.
Sure the prices could be raised, but only in theory - imagine the outrage from consumers like you (and me) if suddenly our access costs were hiked because "on average" people use more bandwidth.
Your suggestions (like not overselling the bandwidth) sound great on paper, but good luck with implementing a viable business around those premises. And also good luck with trying to get the government to help out anytime soon.
I'm sure some people already have as it's quite old a paper, but those who simply attribute all these problems to greed should understand it's just not so simple. Read The Broadband Incentive Problem white paper from MIT.
After that, read a bit more on the current situation.
Yes, camera phones with standard, already existing 3G video calls have sufficient quality that they can be used for sign language as it is. I understand this is quite popular in Sweden.
What I have a problem with is why should we develop a single-use solution requiring new phones and what-not when we have an underused existing technology (video calls) that already work well for this purpose? 3G networks are becoming so common that it can't be a bandwidth issue either.
First, I agree this reads more like an ad. Second, this really cannot be called "news" under any circumstances, let alone on/. -- this was in PC World in *March*: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114592,t k,wb030804x,00.asp
That was more of an ideological comment on the lines of wishing-it-was-a-perfect-world..
In the current not-so-perfect world, however, I grant that most armies have a sort of an evil kind of balancing effect on the state of the world. Of course, some go fight rampantly around the planet in a vain attempt to accomplish some obscure goals, but that's different story:)
In the interests of sticking to the topic, let's drop this subject here.
That's certainly true. I didn't mean to be "pro-army" in any way -- the army, IMO, it's one of the most useless money-sucking institutions ever invented.
Modern medicine is so advanced that there are no healthy people anymore
This is ridiculous. Unfortunately, the story is true.
What's ridiculous is that the service doesn't mean 6 months of no net -- it just means you can't get on the net _as much as you might want to_. First, the Finnish army gives you three out of four weekends off, which means you get to go home (=on the net if you just have to get your fix) for the weekend and report back on Sunday evening.
Second, most if not all garrisons have computers with Internet-connections that the conscripts can freely use during the evenings.
And if you still can't handle it? Growing up is exactly what you need.
Except it won't be the geeks who have control over this. A single sign-on system is something 99% of the population would welcome. Surprisingly (not?) most people aren't really happy about having to remember dozens of obscure passwords.
But a war? Nah. Fight, maybe.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt overbooking capacity is illegal in most countries - heck, overbooking flights isn't illegal either. And the overbooking ratios in e.g. DSL connections are HUGE. Of course in retrospect they shouldn't be and that's what's now causing problems, but thanks to overbooking we've had affordable broadband.
Let's take an example. You're a local medium-sized ISP with 1 million customers, each with a relatively new 24Mbps ADSL2+ line. In order to not oversell any capacity, you would need an outgoing connection of a cool 22Tbps to the outside world.
Nobody - I repeat NOBODY, not even the biggest ISPs in the world - have that fat pipes. Overbooking is, to some extent, inevitable.
Umm, no. Risking sounding like I'm defending the telcos (which I'm not), if your revenues are not enough to upgrade the network at the pace required by the increasing usage, you DO have a real problem. An economical, business viability kind of a problem, not just a mindset problem. Sure the prices could be raised, but only in theory - imagine the outrage from consumers like you (and me) if suddenly our access costs were hiked because "on average" people use more bandwidth. Your suggestions (like not overselling the bandwidth) sound great on paper, but good luck with implementing a viable business around those premises. And also good luck with trying to get the government to help out anytime soon.
I'm sure some people already have as it's quite old a paper, but those who simply attribute all these problems to greed should understand it's just not so simple. Read The Broadband Incentive Problem white paper from MIT. After that, read a bit more on the current situation.
Yes, camera phones with standard, already existing 3G video calls have sufficient quality that they can be used for sign language as it is. I understand this is quite popular in Sweden.
What I have a problem with is why should we develop a single-use solution requiring new phones and what-not when we have an underused existing technology (video calls) that already work well for this purpose? 3G networks are becoming so common that it can't be a bandwidth issue either.
First, I agree this reads more like an ad. Second, this really cannot be called "news" under any circumstances, let alone on /. -- this was in PC World in *March*: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114592,t k,wb030804x,00.asp
In the current not-so-perfect world, however, I grant that most armies have a sort of an evil kind of balancing effect on the state of the world. Of course, some go fight rampantly around the planet in a vain attempt to accomplish some obscure goals, but that's different story :)
In the interests of sticking to the topic, let's drop this subject here.
Modern medicine is so advanced that there are no healthy people anymore
This is ridiculous. Unfortunately, the story is true. What's ridiculous is that the service doesn't mean 6 months of no net -- it just means you can't get on the net _as much as you might want to_. First, the Finnish army gives you three out of four weekends off, which means you get to go home (=on the net if you just have to get your fix) for the weekend and report back on Sunday evening. Second, most if not all garrisons have computers with Internet-connections that the conscripts can freely use during the evenings. And if you still can't handle it? Growing up is exactly what you need.
Except it won't be the geeks who have control over this. A single sign-on system is something 99% of the population would welcome. Surprisingly (not?) most people aren't really happy about having to remember dozens of obscure passwords. But a war? Nah. Fight, maybe.