>>>"actually got into a nice little download VS price competition,I'd be all for it.I'd just be worried that they'd get together "for the good of the country" and set really nice high prices."
That's called a cartel. It's illegal. As the record companies discovered when they got dragged before the Department of Justice for price-fixing CD prices, and forced to refund money to customers.
I understand there are some areas with only cable and dialup, as was the case with me ~6 months ago, however the infrastructure is expanding. Gradually new options like DSL over stand phone lines, FiOS, Satellite, and Wireless are spreading & breaking-up the monopolistic markets. I had just 2 options, but now have 5 different companies vying for my business.
Where there is no competition, there should be some nominal oversight.
But where there IS competition, the market should set the prices, not government. If you don't like Comcast's caps, move to DSL where the 20 megabit/s service costs more (~$80) but caps do not exist; you download as much as you want.
Vote with your dollar, quit companies that treat you like crap, and move to better companies.
>>>"Nice thought,but here is how it is more likely to go--$40=10Gb after that $1=1Gb.Never underestimate the greed of a teleco."
Not realistic. If some company like Comcast tried such outrageous pricing:
- customers would flee to cheaper services like: --- DSL --- Dish satellite internet --- AT&T wireless --- Verizon FiOS --- or even dialup (not highspeed but it is unlimited & cheap & perfect for grandma)
In a competitive environment where multiple choices exist, no one company can get away with raping a consumer with high prices. Such a company would drive themselves into bankruptcy.
Anyway...
I still maintain I should be paying more since I (1) download tons of data and (2) drive the interstate's express lane. I like that option FAR more than the current options (blocking Itunes, et cetera). And it's consistent with how other Utility companies apply billing (use more; pay more).
(a) approximately $40 - this is what most people would pay. If they exceeded 100 gigabytes, they'd be capped to only 56kbit/second.
(b) approximately $80 - this is what heavy downloaders (like myself) would pay. There would be no cap.
I think this is fair. Yes it means I'd pay more, but I should pay more! I am a heavy 24/7 user. I should have to pay my fair share for my greedy downloading habit. I'd rather pay more for unfettered access, than have my Itunes or Bittorrent or Whatever arbitrarily blocked by the common carrier.
Some interstates in high traffic areas have run into similar problems as the ISPs - namely too many cars (packets) and not enough bandwidth. Here is how the interstates are dealing with the problem:
(a) Customers can choose to be "capped" during high-traffic times (6-9am/3-6pm) and thus be slowed down to only 10 miles per hour.
(b) Customers can choose to enter the Express Lane and get 65 mph travel, but at a cost of approximately $5 per day.
How does this apply to ISPs? Simple - amend the contracts (it's allowed; read the print)
(a) Customers can choose to pay ~$40 a month, but have their speed slow to 56k after they have exceeded some cap (say 100 gigabytes).
(b) Customers can choose to "bypass" the 56k cap by paying an extra ~$40 via a pop-up window & credit card. Just like buying an express lane on I-95.
In other words, the more you use, the more you pay. If you want an Express Lane on the interstate, pay up. If you want an "express lane" on the internet, pay up.
>>>"Telling someone what you'd like them to do is different than forcing them to do something against their will."
Except that a lot of liberals HAVE tried to force us to do things against our will. Like trying to outlaw diesel-fueled cars (fortunately Mercedes and Volkswagen fought back), or banning McDonalds hamburgers (because they have transfat), and so on. I could fill an entire radio show (like Rush Limbaugh) with examples of liberals not just telling us how to live, but also trying to force us into their ideal of a perfect human being (i.e. building "super" men).
As for my party:
I hope someday to get them back to supporting small government as they did in the 80s/90s. With people like Ron Paul there's hope, but alas he's only getting 4-8% of the primary vote.
That sounds similar to how Cable Television works - inserting local ads over national channels, thereby tailoring the product to the specific community.
My only concern is if the ISP can provide tracking to advertisers, they can do the same for the future Clinton or Obama-run government.
MOST conservatives are a lot like Thomas Jefferson. (Ironically, he founded the Democratic Party which seems to act opposite of what jefferson stood for.) Also Andrew Jackson. These men supported minimal government and non-interference w/ day-to-day activities.
Well, at least that's what *I* stand for. I don't know about other conservatives, but I believe in freedom. I believe in same-sex marriage if that's your thing, school choice so you don't have to go to the run-down government school that fails to teach, legalized marijuana if you feel you need that crutch. And more importantly: Only turning to the government when you NEED the help (not because you're too lazy to get off the sofa). Welfare, Medicare, Social Security should be *safety nets* for the downtrodden, not automatic entitlements for people with $100,000 bank accounts (let them pay their own bills).
These are the values a true conservative holds... basically what our Founding Fathers believed, and what Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Party *used* to believe before they turned Fa... er, Progressive.
>>>"When the majority of a group behave in a certain way, then the group's definition should be based on the way they actually behave, not the way certain people wished they behaved."
So.
Does this mean I can start calling liberals "national socialists" (or just fascists for short). From what I've observed the liberals TALK about freedom, liberty, et cetera, but they ACT like Mussolini - trying to tell us what to drive (hybrids), how to eat (healthy; no mcdonalds), and what to believe (the great global warming bible).
As you said: "the group's definition should be based on the way they actually behave".
Well that's something else Dialup providers have improved. "Graphic compression". My Netscape service can take a bloated 200 kilobyte image and smash it down to 20 kilobytes. It may not look great, but I have observed many cases where the Dialup service actually loaded faster than my DSL (which does not compress anything).
I do agree with you that it's ridiculous how many webpages have bloated.
The worst offender is IMDb.com with its annoying flash-based ads. Grrr. Why is it necessary for me to download a movie just to view a pop-up ad? Have they not have heard of animated GIFs? Or "If you want to see a preview, click here"??? Users should be given the OPTION to load the flash movies, not forcefeed them down the pipe without our permission.
Speaking in general, someone needs to take these web designers and show them tools like "GIFwizard" or "Photoshop" and how to use them to reduce colors to create smaller files. Displaying uncompressed or barely-compressed images on a website is truly poor design.
I should add there's also FREE internet available in the United States. It's only ten hours a month but if all grandma does is check email or the tvguide every other day, that's all she needs.
So here are your "variety of plans" for different usage patterns: - free - $7 for dialup - $15 for minimal broadband -~$40 for standard broadband -~$90 for maximal broadband
The various companies offer the users different options based upon how much bandwidth we think we're going to need. If a low-usage pays more than what he/she needs, well then maybe they should downgrade & save some money. (IMHO).
You may have heard of the V.92 standard. It allows grandma's modem to intercept a call-waiting signal, temporarily suspend her web-browsing, and answer the phone to talk to her friends. Thus:
- You don't need a second line to use dialup. - $7 dialup is still a cheaper option than $20 or $40 for high-speed internet. - The previous poster was correct when he said, "The casual user is paying too much."
>>>"Doing a download and upload test using a significantly large file (100+ MB) yields results more in line with everyday usage experience, usually about 1.2 Mbps down"
Now I know my 1.0 Mbps DSL line is not really any slower than a Comcast cable line. But it a heck of a lot cheaper ($15 a month versus $45 a month). Glad I saved my money.:-)
>>>>> Broadband, like dialup, is subsidized by the low use casual customers.
>>> In other words the casual user is paying too much.
Well...
People can still get $7.00 a month Netscape dialup accounts (unlimited usage). This is what I have for travel, and it works just fine for web-browsing. The problem is that many customers (like grandma) are convinced by Comcast/Verizon/et cetera that they MUST have high-speed internet, so these customers spend $20 or $40 a month for speeds they don't need.
Conclusion:
Per usual, it comes down to the casual, low-usage customer cheating him or herself. If they were wise, they'd get a cheap $7 dialup connection but because they didn't do their research, they end-up paying far far more than they need to pay.
WOW. YOU GUYS BLEW THIS OUT OF PROPORTION. If I had to design this CD I would consider two choices:
(a) Don't design it. Get fired. I lose my house and my wife & daughter starve 'cause we can't pay the bills. (b) Design it & prevent someone from copying their CD to their Ipod.
Weighing those two options, (a) is the worst choice so naturally I'll pick (b). This *is* an ethics-issue & the issue is that many of you want engineers to choose joblessness/possible homelessness, just so you can copy your song to your Ipod.
That's sick. You value copying songs *above* a person's survival?
Why would anyone choose an inferior standard? BLU-RAY has the capability of holding 100 gigabytes now (200 gigabytes in the future)..... HD-DVD only 1/3rd as much. Why choose a standard that is already so limited in space???
That's why VHS won the war circa 1980... 6 hours per tape vs. only 3 for Beta. More storage space is better for the customer.
Why would anyone choose an inferior standard? BLU-RAY has the capability of holding 100 gigabytes... HD-DVD only 1/3rd as much. Why choose a standard that is already so limited in space???
That's why VHS won the war circa 1980... 6 hours per tape vs. only 3 for Beta. More storage space is better for the customer.
A better analogy is to compare it to Pirate TV:
- a local station buys the bandwidth that equals "channel 8" on the dial. Yes it's publicly broadcast, but that is *their* bandwidth and nobody elses.
- Along comes a Pirate with a huge transmitter. The Pirate is stealing the property that properly belongs to Channel 8.
.
No that's not a perfect analogy, but it's close. Fuddrucker was stealing the Gaming Site's bandwidth, aka property, to promote Fuddrucker. Forcing the Gaming Site to PAY for Fuddrucker's self-promotion is stealing money.
"Its not stealing, if you *give* the bandwidth to them."
.
ERROR. (reaches into Direct's pocket) I'm not stealing your wallet. You left it easily accessible & "gave" it to me. Sounds stupid? So was your original statement.
The gaming website was not giving away bandwidth. He was using it *for himself* for self-promotion. Nobody has a right to take his property & use it for themselves (as fuddrakers did).
troy
Stealing means taking someone else's property. And bandwidth *is* property. You hand over xxx dollars for yyy gigabytes of bandwidth. You trade one type of property (your money) for another type of property (your bandwidth).
So someone using your bandwidth is taking your property.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>"actually got into a nice little download VS price competition,I'd be all for it.I'd just be worried that they'd get together "for the good of the country" and set really nice high prices."
That's called a cartel.
It's illegal.
As the record companies discovered when they got dragged before the Department of Justice for price-fixing CD prices, and forced to refund money to customers.
I understand there are some areas with only cable and dialup, as was the case with me ~6 months ago, however the infrastructure is expanding. Gradually new options like DSL over stand phone lines, FiOS, Satellite, and Wireless are spreading & breaking-up the monopolistic markets. I had just 2 options, but now have 5 different companies vying for my business.
Where there is no competition, there should be some nominal oversight.
But where there IS competition, the market should set the prices, not government. If you don't like Comcast's caps, move to DSL where the 20 megabit/s service costs more (~$80) but caps do not exist; you download as much as you want.
Vote with your dollar, quit companies that treat you like crap, and move to better companies.
>>>"Nice thought,but here is how it is more likely to go--$40=10Gb after that $1=1Gb.Never underestimate the greed of a teleco."
Not realistic. If some company like Comcast tried such outrageous pricing:
- customers would flee to cheaper services like:
--- DSL
--- Dish satellite internet
--- AT&T wireless
--- Verizon FiOS
--- or even dialup (not highspeed but it is unlimited & cheap & perfect for grandma)
In a competitive environment where multiple choices exist, no one company can get away with raping a consumer with high prices. Such a company would drive themselves into bankruptcy.
Anyway...
I still maintain I should be paying more since I (1) download tons of data and (2) drive the interstate's express lane. I like that option FAR more than the current options (blocking Itunes, et cetera). And it's consistent with how other Utility companies apply billing (use more; pay more).
To clarify:
(a) approximately $40 - this is what most people would pay. If they exceeded 100 gigabytes, they'd be capped to only 56kbit/second.
(b) approximately $80 - this is what heavy downloaders (like myself) would pay. There would be no cap.
I think this is fair.
Yes it means I'd pay more,
but I should pay more!
I am a heavy 24/7 user. I should have to pay my fair share for my greedy downloading habit. I'd rather pay more for unfettered access, than have my Itunes or Bittorrent or Whatever arbitrarily blocked by the common carrier.
Some interstates in high traffic areas have run into similar problems as the ISPs - namely too many cars (packets) and not enough bandwidth. Here is how the interstates are dealing with the problem:
(a) Customers can choose to be "capped" during high-traffic times (6-9am/3-6pm) and thus be slowed down to only 10 miles per hour.
(b) Customers can choose to enter the Express Lane and get 65 mph travel, but at a cost of approximately $5 per day.
How does this apply to ISPs?
Simple - amend the contracts
(it's allowed; read the print)
(a) Customers can choose to pay ~$40 a month, but have their speed slow to 56k after they have exceeded some cap (say 100 gigabytes).
(b) Customers can choose to "bypass" the 56k cap by paying an extra ~$40 via a pop-up window & credit card. Just like buying an express lane on I-95.
In other words, the more you use, the more you pay.
If you want an Express Lane on the interstate, pay up.
If you want an "express lane" on the internet, pay up.
That would be fair.
>>>"Telling someone what you'd like them to do is different than forcing them to do something against their will."
Except that a lot of liberals HAVE tried to force us to do things against our will. Like trying to outlaw diesel-fueled cars (fortunately Mercedes and Volkswagen fought back), or banning McDonalds hamburgers (because they have transfat), and so on. I could fill an entire radio show (like Rush Limbaugh) with examples of liberals not just telling us how to live, but also trying to force us into their ideal of a perfect human being (i.e. building "super" men).
As for my party:
I hope someday to get them back to supporting small government as they did in the 80s/90s. With people like Ron Paul there's hope, but alas he's only getting 4-8% of the primary vote.
That sounds similar to how Cable Television works - inserting local ads over national channels, thereby tailoring the product to the specific community.
My only concern is if the ISP can provide tracking to advertisers,
they can do the same for the future Clinton or Obama-run government.
P.S.
MOST conservatives are a lot like Thomas Jefferson. (Ironically, he founded the Democratic Party which seems to act opposite of what jefferson stood for.) Also Andrew Jackson. These men supported minimal government and non-interference w/ day-to-day activities.
Well, at least that's what *I* stand for. I don't know about other conservatives, but I believe in freedom. I believe in same-sex marriage if that's your thing, school choice so you don't have to go to the run-down government school that fails to teach, legalized marijuana if you feel you need that crutch. And more importantly: Only turning to the government when you NEED the help (not because you're too lazy to get off the sofa). Welfare, Medicare, Social Security should be *safety nets* for the downtrodden, not automatic entitlements for people with $100,000 bank accounts (let them pay their own bills).
These are the values a true conservative holds... basically what our Founding Fathers believed, and what Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Party *used* to believe before they turned Fa... er, Progressive.
(stepping off soap box)
>>>"When the majority of a group behave in a certain way, then the group's definition should be based on the way they actually behave, not the way certain people wished they behaved."
So.
Does this mean I can start calling liberals "national socialists" (or just fascists for short). From what I've observed the liberals TALK about freedom, liberty, et cetera, but they ACT like Mussolini - trying to tell us what to drive (hybrids), how to eat (healthy; no mcdonalds), and what to believe (the great global warming bible).
As you said: "the group's definition should be based on the way they actually behave".
They behave like national socialists.
(ducking and running)
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that photographs of naked children are not illegal, or pornographic.
The court also ruled that children engaged in sex is not illegal if said children are legally married (i.e. 16 or 17 year olds married young).
And the person viewing said photos is a victim, not a criminal. Only the photographer/producer/distributor is a criminal.
Well that's something else Dialup providers have improved. "Graphic compression". My Netscape service can take a bloated 200 kilobyte image and smash it down to 20 kilobytes. It may not look great, but I have observed many cases where the Dialup service actually loaded faster than my DSL (which does not compress anything).
I do agree with you that it's ridiculous how many webpages have bloated.
The worst offender is IMDb.com with its annoying flash-based ads. Grrr. Why is it necessary for me to download a movie just to view a pop-up ad? Have they not have heard of animated GIFs? Or "If you want to see a preview, click here"??? Users should be given the OPTION to load the flash movies, not forcefeed them down the pipe without our permission.
Speaking in general, someone needs to take these web designers and show them tools like "GIFwizard" or "Photoshop" and how to use them to reduce colors to create smaller files. Displaying uncompressed or barely-compressed images on a website is truly poor design.
P.S.
I should add there's also FREE internet available in the United States. It's only ten hours a month but if all grandma does is check email or the tvguide every other day, that's all she needs.
So here are your "variety of plans" for different usage patterns:
- free
- $7 for dialup
- $15 for minimal broadband
-~$40 for standard broadband
-~$90 for maximal broadband
The various companies offer the users different options based upon how much bandwidth we think we're going to need. If a low-usage pays more than what he/she needs, well then maybe they should downgrade & save some money. (IMHO).
Dear Anonymous Coward:
You may have heard of the V.92 standard. It allows grandma's modem to intercept a call-waiting signal, temporarily suspend her web-browsing, and answer the phone to talk to her friends. Thus:
- You don't need a second line to use dialup.
- $7 dialup is still a cheaper option than $20 or $40 for high-speed internet.
- The previous poster was correct when he said, "The casual user is paying too much."
>>>"Doing a download and upload test using a significantly large file (100+ MB) yields results more in line with everyday usage experience, usually about 1.2 Mbps down"
:-)
Now I know my 1.0 Mbps DSL line is not really any slower than a Comcast cable line. But it a heck of a lot cheaper ($15 a month versus $45 a month). Glad I saved my money.
>>>>> Broadband, like dialup, is subsidized by the low use casual customers.
>>> In other words the casual user is paying too much.
Well...
People can still get $7.00 a month Netscape dialup accounts (unlimited usage). This is what I have for travel, and it works just fine for web-browsing. The problem is that many customers (like grandma) are convinced by Comcast/Verizon/et cetera that they MUST have high-speed internet, so these customers spend $20 or $40 a month for speeds they don't need.
Conclusion:
Per usual, it comes down to the casual, low-usage customer cheating him or herself. If they were wise, they'd get a cheap $7 dialup connection but because they didn't do their research, they end-up paying far far more than they need to pay.
WOW. YOU GUYS BLEW THIS OUT OF PROPORTION. If I had to design this CD I would consider two choices:
(a) Don't design it. Get fired. I lose my house and my wife & daughter starve 'cause we can't pay the bills.
(b) Design it & prevent someone from copying their CD to their Ipod.
Weighing those two options, (a) is the worst choice so naturally I'll pick (b). This *is* an ethics-issue & the issue is that many of you want engineers to choose joblessness/possible homelessness, just so you can copy your song to your Ipod.
That's sick. You value copying songs *above* a person's survival?
Sick. Sick. Sick.
Why would anyone choose an inferior standard? BLU-RAY has the capability of holding 100 gigabytes now (200 gigabytes in the future)..... HD-DVD only 1/3rd as much. Why choose a standard that is already so limited in space???
That's why VHS won the war circa 1980... 6 hours per tape vs. only 3 for Beta. More storage space is better for the customer.
troy
Why would anyone choose an inferior standard? BLU-RAY has the capability of holding 100 gigabytes... HD-DVD only 1/3rd as much. Why choose a standard that is already so limited in space???
That's why VHS won the war circa 1980... 6 hours per tape vs. only 3 for Beta. More storage space is better for the customer.
troy
A better analogy is to compare it to Pirate TV:
.
- a local station buys the bandwidth that equals "channel 8" on the dial. Yes it's publicly broadcast, but that is *their* bandwidth and nobody elses.
- Along comes a Pirate with a huge transmitter. The Pirate is stealing the property that properly belongs to Channel 8.
No that's not a perfect analogy, but it's close. Fuddrucker was stealing the Gaming Site's bandwidth, aka property, to promote Fuddrucker. Forcing the Gaming Site to PAY for Fuddrucker's self-promotion is stealing money.
troy
"Its not stealing, if you *give* the bandwidth to them." . ERROR. (reaches into Direct's pocket) I'm not stealing your wallet. You left it easily accessible & "gave" it to me. Sounds stupid? So was your original statement. The gaming website was not giving away bandwidth. He was using it *for himself* for self-promotion. Nobody has a right to take his property & use it for themselves (as fuddrakers did). troy
.
Stealing means taking someone else's property. And bandwidth *is* property. You hand over xxx dollars for yyy gigabytes of bandwidth. You trade one type of property (your money) for another type of property (your bandwidth).
So someone using your bandwidth is taking your property.
It's stealing.
electrictroy@yahoo.com