On 10/6/09 18:40 , Brenda Ann wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
Heavy users downloading hd movies and tv shows, playing high speed
games requiring large amounts of bandwidth, can cause performance problems
for other users on the radius as the bandwidth limitations of the network
are approached. In the case of Comcast or ATT U-Verse, this can actually
cause TV performance compromises for users who are very light internet
users, but pay heavily for cable TV. I've experienced this in prime time
at my g/f's house with Comcast.

Bandwidth limitations are necessary to prevent a few heavy users from
compromising the performance of other users who equally pay the costs.
Though Comcast abuses the privilege, to be sure.

Further, bandwidth limitations prevent residential users, on less
efficient pipes, from using the net for high bandwidth businesses, like
hosting FTP sites, as I do on my T-1, video streams, and other servers.
Again consuming the bandwidth of other users. Compromising their service,
for which they pay.

The way to solve this problem is not to oversell bandwidth. For instance,
if they sell you a 15 Mb/s connection, then you should be able to have that
15 Mb/s available to you at all times, no matter what you are doing with it
(running an FTP server, or whatever). If they don't want you to use 15 Mb/s,
they shouldn't SELL it to you. They should sell you 680 Kb/s or whatever
they really MEAN for you to have. Right now, we are paying for three 10 Mb/s
cable drops, and between the three we're getting MAYBE a solid 1.5 Mb/s. One
drop is dedicated to a 64 Kb MP3Pro audio stream, and yet it can't even
always keep up with that! I've had to pay for the additional drops (from two
different providers, two completely different systems) in order to have an
almost constant net connections for the home computers (one drop), the audio
stream (one drop) and our Vonage phone lines (one dedicated drop). Our
internet drops on the line for the computers about once every 3-7 minutes
for about a second and a half. It's annoying as hell.


It is. And a lot of it has to do with the configuration of the
network. You're not on a private radius. So you're sharing bandwidth.
Cost saving measure for the carrier. Cable is a lot worse than DSL. Some
cable installations have near an entire neighborhood on a single radius.
Irritating isn't enough of a word for it. But that's how they keep end
user costs manageable. The hard truth is, your 3 cable drops are on the
same radius. You might as well be on a single drop.

On Oct 6, 6:40*pm, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in ...





* *Heavy users downloading hd movies and tv shows, playing high speed
games requiring large amounts of bandwidth, can cause performance problems
for other users on the radius as the bandwidth limitations of the network
are approached. In the case of Comcast or ATT U-Verse, this can actually
cause TV performance compromises for users who are very light internet
users, but pay heavily for cable TV. I've experienced this in prime time
at my g/f's house with Comcast.

* *Bandwidth limitations are necessary to prevent a few heavy users from
compromising the performance of other users who equally pay the costs.
Though Comcast abuses the privilege, to be sure.

* *Further, bandwidth limitations prevent residential users, on less
efficient pipes, from using the net for high bandwidth businesses, like
hosting FTP sites, as I do on my T-1, video streams, and other servers.
Again consuming the bandwidth of other users. Compromising their service,
for which they pay.

The way to solve this problem is not to oversell bandwidth. *For instance,
if they sell you a 15 Mb/s connection, then you should be able to have that
15 Mb/s available to you at all times, no matter what you are doing with it
(running an FTP server, or whatever). If they don't want you to use 15 Mb/s,
they shouldn't SELL it to you. They should sell you 680 Kb/s or whatever
they really MEAN for you to have. Right now, we are paying for three 10 Mb/s
cable drops, and between the three we're getting MAYBE a solid 1.5 Mb/s. One
drop is dedicated to a 64 Kb MP3Pro audio stream, and yet it can't even
always keep up with that! I've had to pay for the additional drops (from two
different providers, two completely different systems) in order to have an
almost constant net connections for the home computers (one drop), the audio
stream (one drop) and our Vonage phone lines (one dedicated drop). *Our
internet drops on the line for the computers about once every 3-7 minutes
for about a second and a half. It's annoying as hell.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can buy guaranteed bandwidth through most all major internet
carriers.
DSL or Cable is NOT a guaranteed bandwidth.

On Oct 6, 9:55*am, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

* * Net neutrality is a good thing, to be sure. It's very democratic.

Where do I vote!?

How stupid can you get?

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 07:13:02 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 30, 8:59*pm, Ima wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:36:42 -0700, N? ?baMa? wrote:
New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski could
have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday speech

I see nothing wrong with prohibiting common carriers from censoring your
internet. They took a big bite out-a usenet already

The GOP Hypocritical do-nothing party of NO!
They want to give all our constitutional rights to large trillion dollar
corporations in the name of "not socialist"

These people can't think past their large beacon beer belly but find it
easy to cut-n-paste content from the republiCAN'T propaganda machine.

Sorry bunch of folks. *No brains to think for themselves.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...bmufQD9B54ACO2

What a bunch of SCUM! You can tell who bribed them.

federal COMMUNIST CRIMINALS Limit Freedom Of Speech On The Internet.

(Enterhernet)

www.rense.com Teh article linky dinky parlez vouz, to
www.guardian.co.uk

Yeahhhh,,, Sure and Begorra, y'all Clinically INSANE democraps and
libturds,,, blame tat one on Boosh too.

www.devilfinder.com
Dave Daubenmire And to the Republic

AMERICA is a REPUBLIC, TEXAS is REPUBLIC too.

Remember the ALAMO!!!!!!
cuhulin

On Sep 30, 8:36Â*pm, N∅ ∅baMa∅
wrote:
New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski
could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday
speech advocating enforceable “network neutrality� rules for the
Internet. Despite declaring “we cannot know what tomorrow holds on the
Internet,� he showed he intends to lead the FCC as if it were all-
knowing. That will only end up choking the greatest engine of
innovation in modern times.

Genachowski laid out his plans in a highly anticipated speech at the
Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. The mostly voluntary concept
of net neutrality — which encourages the free flow of content across
the Internet — would be transformed into formal rules Internet service
providers (ISPs) would violate at their peril.

Instead of managing traffic in response to market forces, ISPs would
be forced to cede such decisions to the FCC, which would decide which
practices are “fair� and “reasonable� on a “case-by-case basis.� But
it would be foolish to replace the swift judgment of millions of
consumers with the dictates of a handful of slow-footed, uninformed,
unaccountable bureaucrats.
[...]http://sroblog.com/2009/09/29/new-fcc-chairman-targets-internet-ameri...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._targets_inter...

sounds like the HD Radio debacle.

N? ?baMa? wrote:
New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski
could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday
speech advocating enforceable “network neutrality” rules for the
Internet. Despite declaring “we cannot know what tomorrow holds on the
Internet,” he showed he intends to lead the FCC as if it were all-
knowing. That will only end up choking the greatest engine of
innovation in modern times.

Genachowski laid out his plans in a highly anticipated speech at the
Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. The mostly voluntary concept
of net neutrality — which encourages the free flow of content across
the Internet — would be transformed into formal rules Internet service
providers (ISPs) would violate at their peril.

Instead of managing traffic in response to market forces, ISPs would
be forced to cede such decisions to the FCC, which would decide which
practices are “fair” and “reasonable” on a “case-by-case basis.” But
it would be foolish to replace the swift judgment of millions of
consumers with the dictates of a handful of slow-footed, uninformed,
unaccountable bureaucrats.
[...]

You really are nothing but a shill for entrenched big business. Network
Neutrality threatens no one but Time Warner.

On Sep 30, 6:36Â*pm, N∅ ∅baMa∅
wrote:
New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski
could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday
speech advocating enforceable “network neutrality� rules for the
Internet. Despite declaring “we cannot know what tomorrow holds on the
Internet,� he showed he intends to lead the FCC as if it were all-
knowing. That will only end up choking the greatest engine of
innovation in modern times.

Genachowski laid out his plans in a highly anticipated speech at the
Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. The mostly voluntary concept
of net neutrality — which encourages the free flow of content across
the Internet — would be transformed into formal rules Internet service
providers (ISPs) would violate at their peril.

Instead of managing traffic in response to market forces, ISPs would
be forced to cede such decisions to the FCC, which would decide which
practices are “fair� and “reasonable� on a “case-by-case basis.� But
it would be foolish to replace the swift judgment of millions of
consumers with the dictates of a handful of slow-footed, uninformed,
unaccountable bureaucrats.
[...]http://sroblog.com/2009/09/29/new-fcc-chairman-targets-internet-ameri...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._targets_inter...

Thank god. The future of the internet was looking pretty grim for a
while there.

Ooooooooohhh, regulation! Poor consumers, not gonna get to shape the
future of the.....wait, wait, I is a consumer! Did I SHAPE through the
natural genius of the MARKET and my thus endowed POWER my relationship
with Google (track me track me)? With my mortgage company (now that's
cheating, pick on the poor mortgage companies when they're down, poor
angels)? With Microsoft (I'm gonna get me a better word processor
spreadsheet powerpoint an' ever otha kindo softwares raht now dang
it !!!! )? With my gentle, loving bank, caring for my best interest,
Wells Fargo? With my beloved airlines (it's ok, just go to the
bathroom in the seat, we gotta get off this tarmack sometime this
week, otherwise it'll cause a GLITCH in the profits!! And you can rest
assuuuuured, young lady, that your government ain't gonna touch a hair
on the precious head of our free airline market
forcesssssssszzzzz!!!! )

Gee, I guess I musta! An I DIDN"T FEEL A THING! Free markets
haleluuuuuuuah *&*)$&*^& shoot them commies raht now sir *()&^%$ !!!

And who am I ??????? The voice of REASON !!!! TRUTH incarnate and no
less!! Listen, heathens!! Repent, protectors of the ole joke about
the bartender, the lobbyist, the congressman, and the CEO !!!!

Yessuh....yessuh.....

On Sep 30, 7:36Â*pm, N∅ ∅baMa∅
wrote:
New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski
could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday
speech advocating enforceable “network neutrality� rules for the
Internet. Despite declaring “we cannot know what tomorrow holds on the
Internet,� he showed he intends to lead the FCC as if it were all-
knowing. That will only end up choking the greatest engine of
innovation in modern times.

Genachowski laid out his plans in a highly anticipated speech at the
Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. The mostly voluntary concept
of net neutrality — which encourages the free flow of content across
the Internet — would be transformed into formal rules Internet service
providers (ISPs) would violate at their peril.

Instead of managing traffic in response to market forces, ISPs would
be forced to cede such decisions to the FCC, which would decide which
practices are “fair� and “reasonable� on a “case-by-case basis.� But
it would be foolish to replace the swift judgment of millions of
consumers with the dictates of a handful of slow-footed, uninformed,
unaccountable bureaucrats.
[...]http://sroblog.com/2009/09/29/new-fcc-chairman-targets-internet-ameri...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._targets_inter...

Ah yes, how wonderful government control of the internet will be for
The People.

Uncontrolled government internet
Turn up the spigot. Hold a gun to the Capitalist heads.
This ain't no Internet no mo'!
Regulatin' that spigot.
Spewin' Liberal Fascist Lies.
This is the bankrupt, penniless Socialist Imbicil.
Give me mo', but their ain't no mo'.
Death and Destruction for All.

N∅ ∅baMa∅ wrote:


Ah yes, how wonderful government control of the internet will be for
The People.

Uncontrolled government internet
Turn up the spigot. Hold a gun to the Capitalist heads.
This ain't no Internet no mo'!
Regulatin' that spigot.
Spewin' Liberal Fascist Lies.
This is the bankrupt, penniless Socialist Imbicil.
Give me mo', but their ain't no mo'.
Death and Destruction for All.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You are supporting Old
Media's right to block New Media traffic on the internet, (which should
be a dumb, content-neutral packet delivery service and nothing more.)

Your status as a shill for corporate toadies is laid bare again.