• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Net Neutrailty is back

 
 
 
Rhea said:
What do you mean here? Isn't 150MBps normal broadband (cable, DSL) speed?
Click to expand...
Normal for whom? Apparently it's normal for some people. Apparently it's normal for the people most of the pro- and anti- net neutrality rhetoric is aimed at. Sigh.

150kbps is what I got on dial-up on a very excellent day (usually it is 56kbps, though on very bad days with heavy static it was 8-12kbps).
Click to expand...
The Verizon DSL techs tell me I ought to be getting 1.1 or 1.2 M. Speakeasy just told me I'm getting 1.02 M. That makes this a very excellent day. 600-700 K is typical. When it gets down to the 100-120K range I ask Verizon to send somebody out to mess with it again; but if I called every time it went down to 150 K they'd be out here every few weeks.

I assume the underlying problem is the 18,000 feet from a repeater. It's at the very limit of what DSL can allegedly support. If Congress is going to regulate the internet as a utility, I'd really rather they tell Verizon to put in more repeaters then tell Comcast how much to charge Netflix to deliver video at 150Mbps.
 
Bomb#20 said:
I assume the underlying problem is the 18,000 feet from a repeater. It's at the very limit of what DSL can allegedly support. If Congress is going to regulate the internet as a utility, I'd really rather they tell Verizon to put in more repeaters then tell Comcast how much to charge Netflix to deliver video at 150Mbps.
Click to expand...

The problem is put the repeaters where?? The lines were laid before DSL was an issue and spread out to the houses of the neighborhood. The phone company doesn't have places on the wires to put the repeaters. It's not just one wire, it's a whole bunch of them serving the neighborhood that need them.
 
Bomb#20 said:
rhea said:
Isn't 150MBps normal broadband (cable, DSL) speed?
Click to expand...
Normal for whom? Apparently it's normal for some people. Apparently it's normal for the people most of the pro- and anti- net neutrality rhetoric is aimed at. Sigh.
Click to expand...

Ah, well I was only assuming, since I do not get DSL or cable. Thanks for the correction.

150kbps is what I got on dial-up on a very excellent day (usually it is 56kbps, though on very bad days with heavy static it was 8-12kbps).
Click to expand...
The Verizon DSL techs tell me I ought to be getting 1.1 or 1.2 M. Speakeasy just told me I'm getting 1.02 M. That makes this a very excellent day. 600-700 K is typical. When it gets down to the 100-120K range I ask Verizon to send somebody out to mess with it again; but if I called every time it went down to 150 K they'd be out here every few weeks.
Click to expand...

After posting that earlier, I checked what we are getting here now that we have satellite, and it is apparently 600-800 range as you get. Still a helluva lot better than the 56K to 15K that we were getting on dial-up. A different satellite service promises the 5-12 MBps but costs a lot more.

I assume the underlying problem is the 18,000 feet from a repeater. It's at the very limit of what DSL can allegedly support. If Congress is going to regulate the internet as a utility, I'd really rather they tell Verizon to put in more repeaters then tell Comcast how much to charge Netflix to deliver video at 150Mbps.
Click to expand...

Yeah, repeaters would be nice. My carrier told me I could buy one for $14,000 to get DSL to my house.
 
I get a little over 1Mbps from Warner and it is cheap and kind of unreliable, but always improving. We are definitely behind a lot of other nations in terms of speed and content. That's what happens when the nation's only concern appears to be serving the ultra rich. It is the same with our mass transportation and our education and healthcare system with their many parasites. All I can add is that maybe someday we will have a better internet system and at that time the net neutrality rules will have more meaning...if we can keep them in place till then.
 
Rhea said:
Bomb#20 said:
I assume the underlying problem is the 18,000 feet from a repeater. It's at the very limit of what DSL can allegedly support. If Congress is going to regulate the internet as a utility, I'd really rather they tell Verizon to put in more repeaters then tell Comcast how much to charge Netflix to deliver video at 150Mbps.
Click to expand...

Yeah, repeaters would be nice. My carrier told me I could buy one for $14,000 to get DSL to my house.
Click to expand...

I thought they used $200 DSL Loop Extenders now for rural customers? When I was out there in the nether-reaches of Sierra Tel, I believe their limit was 5,000 feet from the repeater. Maybe you can convince Verizon you're worth $200 plus one technician (4 hours x $11.50).
 
Last edited:
"We are doomed. Free Republic to soon be nuetralized." One can only hope...
 
Nice Squirrel said:
Loren Pechtel said:
The copper wires are there. Replacing them would *NOT* be cheap!
Click to expand...

Why would they replace the wires? Why did they hook up my block last year with fiber optic (without replacing wires) and offer us cheaper and speedier service?
Click to expand...

Installing new cables wouldn't be cheap, either. Around here they're all buried under the sidewalks.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Nice Squirrel said:
Why would they replace the wires? Why did they hook up my block last year with fiber optic (without replacing wires) and offer us cheaper and speedier service?
Click to expand...

Installing new cables wouldn't be cheap, either. Around here they're all buried under the sidewalks.
Click to expand...

So they are installing them where you are?
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Nice Squirrel said:
Why would they replace the wires? Why did they hook up my block last year with fiber optic (without replacing wires) and offer us cheaper and speedier service?
Click to expand...

Installing new cables wouldn't be cheap, either. Around here they're all buried under the sidewalks.
Click to expand...
Nothing is cheap. These days, directional drilling is all the rage.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice Squirrel said:
Loren Pechtel said:
The copper wires are there. Replacing them would *NOT* be cheap!
Click to expand...

Why would they replace the wires? Why did they hook up my block last year with fiber optic (without replacing wires) and offer us cheaper and speedier service?
Click to expand...
This is a really good point. AT&T installed light speed boxes in my area and then UVerse DSL / TV was available. There was no digging anywhere.
 
Rhea said:
Bomb#20 said:
Beats me whether they lack the infrastructure to deliver 150Kb/s to everybody on the line, or only the competence. Oh, wait, that wasn't a typo, was it? You were serious.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

What do you mean here? Isn't 150MBps normal broadband (cable, DSL) speed? 150kbps is what I got on dial-up on a very excellent day (usually it is 56kbps, though on very bad days with heavy static it was 8-12kbps).

Now that I am on Satellite I ostensibly get 5-12MBps (when I am not being punished for going over my 17GB/month allotment, as I am right now, with a reduction back to 100kbps)
Click to expand...
Today on Capital Letter, Small Letter we discuss the crucial difference between MB and Mb.
MB = Megabyte
Mb = Megabit

8 Megabits (Mb) = 1 Megabyte (MB)
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Rhea said:
What do you mean here? Isn't 150MBps normal broadband (cable, DSL) speed? 150kbps is what I got on dial-up on a very excellent day (usually it is 56kbps, though on very bad days with heavy static it was 8-12kbps).

Now that I am on Satellite I ostensibly get 5-12MBps (when I am not being punished for going over my 17GB/month allotment, as I am right now, with a reduction back to 100kbps)
Click to expand...
Today on Capital Letter, Small Letter we discuss the crucial difference between MB and Mb.
MB = Megabyte
Mb = Megabit

8 Megabits (Mb) = 1 Megabyte (MB)
Click to expand...

They advertise Mb on purpose.
 
Bomb#20 said:
ksen said:
Depends on if your ISP was overselling their capacity. If they don't have the infrastructure in place to give every customer that wants 150Mb/s speed then they shouldn't be selling those packages.
Click to expand...
Beats me whether they lack the infrastructure to deliver 150Kb/s to everybody on the line, or only the competence. Oh, wait, that wasn't a typo, was it? You were serious.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

wat

In my area Bright House sells a 150Mb/s internet package. If they sell that package but can't deliver it they shouldn't be selling those packages. The problem comes in when the ISP that sold you your package artificially throttles speeds to certain sites if the owners of those sites haven't paid an extra fee to the ISP. That's deceptive and, imo, an abuse of their monopoly power. That, as well as opening up areas to more competition by getting rid of state anti-competitive laws, is what Net Neutrality regulations are seeking to fix.
 
ksen said:
Bomb#20 said:
Beats me whether they lack the infrastructure to deliver 150Kb/s to everybody on the line, or only the competence. Oh, wait, that wasn't a typo, was it? You were serious.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

wat

In my area Bright House sells a 150Mb/s internet package. If they sell that package but can't deliver it they shouldn't be selling those packages.
Click to expand...
Isn't this the killer of all of this. If they can't handle the bandwidth, they are selling a product they can't supply... or they are lying about the bandwidth issue.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
ksen said:
wat

In my area Bright House sells a 150Mb/s internet package. If they sell that package but can't deliver it they shouldn't be selling those packages.
Click to expand...
Isn't this the killer of all of this. If they can't handle the bandwidth, they are selling a product they can't supply... or they are lying about the bandwidth issue.
Click to expand...


What is the exact contract when that you get from the provider? Do they say you get XMb download from every site on the Internet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom