Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think you're still conflating signal bandwidth overutilization with networking bandwidth overutilization.

In your given situation, they're both potentially happening, but they're caused by different things and resolved in different ways.

Bandwidth crunch is an issue, but it's not what Comcast and Netflix were fighting about and is a separate problem from Net Neutrality.

Have you ever noticed how the internet is spotty during the night but in the morning its fantastic? The main reasoning is that there are tons of people using the internet at the same time. That its taking up the bandwidth.

Because hardline cables can only carry so much data a time, limited by their network bandwidth, not their signal bandwidth.

 daedalus wrote:
I think you're still conflating signal bandwidth overutilization with networking bandwidth overutilization.

In your given situation, they're both potentially happening, but they're caused by different things and resolved in different ways.

But there is the problem that this illusion of a fast lane won't happen.

There is no faster lane currently. And I am willing to bet the companies are not going to be reasonable in dealing with other competition.

And are willing to hold up websites and make them pay more to get faster services, by I.E. making someone pay more money.

Now what I do support is more competition, and more of a global effort to protect net neutrality.

Currrently the way it is set up right now there are territories between different companies. They control certain regions and do not allow other companies around.

Yeah it won't happen because it's not like Comcast is going to just make a new super fast ultra high speed internet appear from thin air, but not because of signal crunch.

It's not even the issue of paying for faster internet (we already do that quite a bit). It's the issue of restricting specific data to a specific internet speed, i.e. only allowing certain kinds of data to use certain lines that we and data providers are forced to pay extra for.

It's a straight money grab. The idea that this is a service issue that is a real problem is a completely fabricated myth. The reason the internet keeps growing and growing is because more and more data is on it. The cables we have now, exist to allow Youtube and Netflix and Hulu to operate faster.

The idea that we have to move some of that data or the internet will break is a complete fiction created by Verizon and Comcast.

 LordofHats wrote:

whembly wrote:


*note, the competition is pretty intense between cable/baby-bell/wirless companies.

Except the cable company lobbies have managed to pass into law regulations that have crippled the growth of wireless internet providers. And that's ignoring the innate and overwhelming market advantage that comes with selling television, phone, and internet services as a package.

So... they're acting like other companies... got it.

it's only a monopoly by region, not in the industry.

If you're the only game in town, you have a monopoly. That other games exist on the planet is irrelevant to the consumer who lives in town.

That's true for cable simply because of the "Right of Way" regulations. It's common sense.

But, they're NOT the only game. Satellite (DirectTV, DISH, etc...) are still around.

 whembly wrote:
Satellite (DirectTV, DISH, etc...) are still around.

Best joke all thread!

EDIT: Also not even true as many Neighborhood Associations and lease agreements don't allow you to put dishes anywhere on your property, so they're really not in town and the places where they are cable companies are also largely not present in.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Satellite (DirectTV, DISH, etc...) are still around.

Best joke all thread!

What's wrong with them?

EDIT: Also not even true as many Neighborhood Associations and lease agreements don't allow you to put dishes anywhere on your property, so they're really not in town and the places where they are cable companies are also largely not present in.

Actually, that's a good point.

I bet someone is getting some sort of kickback with having those rules.

I think it's mostly just more of the unspoken rule that you don't impose on another carriers turf mixed with dishes looking damn tacky. Granted its also not much competition, as DISH/etc. are all cheaper than cable, but the service is vastly inferior. Generally, if someone can afford the better service (which pretty much anyone can) they'll take it if available.

I would also point out that there have been numerous companies that have gotten municipal attempts at broadband shutdown as well.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think it's mostly just more of the unspoken rule that you don't impose on another carriers turf mixed with dishes looking damn tacky. Granted its also not much competition, as DISH/etc. are all cheaper than cable, but the service is vastly inferior. Generally, if someone can afford the better service (which pretty much anyone can) they'll take it if available.

Lordy... I think the bigger issue will be when everyone models after COMCAST by being both the ISP (cable internet) and Content Providers (Hulu, NBC, etc...).

That's when you see serious monopolistic activities that we should be interested in... initially, I was on Netflix's side with their dispute with Verizon/Comcast. But, my brother works for Charter and I was able to "see behind the curtain" a bit to how that industry operates.

Another case in point.

Cable companies have local monopolies by necessity. The Right of Way laws on the utility lines only have so some much space. That's why there's one and only one local cable companies in the region. However, if a wireless company wants to offer local WiFi... the cable company may want to prevent that by using the same Right of Way laws that they're privvy to on the poles... and add the required access points along with their exisiting equipments to compete directly with that hypothetical wireless company.

I have a problem with that... and so does the MO legislature. So, Charter, being sensitive to that, is now thinking of only offering it to their existing customers for free... as a way to "keep" their customers in the fold.

 whembly wrote:


That's when you see serious monopolistic activities that we should be interested in... initially, I was on Netflix's side with their dispute with Verizon/Comcast. But, my brother works for Charter and I was able to "see behind the curtain" a bit to how that industry operates.

Not even talking about that. More like *sees thunderclouds* well, guess I'm stuck inside with NO TV or internet today

Cable companies have local monopolies by necessity. The Right of Way laws on the utility lines only have so some much space.

Except its not a necessity. Just because the law allows it and companies follow a specific line of logic doesn't mean it's the only one that can exist. The rest of the world gets by just fine having multiple providers in 1 place.

Frankly at the end of the day even though they aren't classified currently under the law, internet providers are common carriers, and probably should be treated as such. That they aren't is simply the result of technology racing ahead of law. Japan has the fastest and cheapest internet service in the world, and guess what? They also have over 30 providers. A major part of Japan's speed advantage is geographic, but obviously, competition isn't really hurting service.