Is it so hard for you Batter Up to swallow the fact that other countries have a much better system than you do?

Cheers.

Is it so hard for you Batter Up to swallow the fact that other countries have a much better system than you do?

Cheers.

======================================================
most of the steel mills in the EU and JAPAN were built after wwII

making all of them newer and more modern than some of the plants in the US.

am I willing to have owers bombed flat so we can rebuild anew I think not.

---

Is it so hard for you Batter Up to swallow the fact that other countries have a much better system than you do?

That's preciousness. Let's look at the facts.
Download speed, United States 25.34 Mbps number 29, Australia 15.15 Mbps number 61. This after Ma Bell has been dead for quite some time. US were number one in the world for 100 years when she was alive.

---

Is it so hard for you Batter Up to swallow the fact that other countries have a much better system than you do?

That's preciousness. Let's look at the facts.
Download speed, United States 25.34 Mbps number 29, Australia 15.15 Mbps number 61. This after Ma Bell has been dead for quite some time. US were number one in the world for 100 years when she was alive.

UK 30.4 Mbps Number 20 Hmm thought we would be higher.

Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, so perhaps I had better mod myself.

---

Is it so hard for you Batter Up to swallow the fact that other countries have a much better system than you do?

That's preciousness. Let's look at the facts.
Download speed, United States 25.34 Mbps number 29, Australia 15.15 Mbps number 61. This after Ma Bell has been dead for quite some time. US were number one in the world for 100 years when she was alive.

Funny, that site tells me that I'm getting 21Mbps down and 9Mbps up, not bad at all considering I'm miles from civilisation out here in the bush. ;-)

Cheers.

Funny, that site tells me that I'm getting 21Mbps down and 9Mbps up, not bad at all considering I'm miles from civilisation out here in the bush. ;-)

I have DSL 10 meg down for home, 4G 20 meg down mobil, I get a discount. I could get 101 meg down from the CATV company but it would cost my first borne. So most of the US speed is what we need not what we can get.

---

Ideally in a capitalist society I would have hundreds of providers

to choose from and the competition would keep them honest.

Having a system that started out with phone and wire only

the move from a central provider too something were a lot of competition can

happen has not accrued.

As long as there are a vary limited number of providers the emily litella line

"I don't care I work for the phone company I don't have to," is all to true.

And there are really only 2 choices 1) constant vigilance, 2)building more paths

For 1) people are going to congress and the fcc and telling them what we think.

For 2) this is more local and maybe harder talk to your city councilman and

insist on more than 1 provider, now since a lot of the local cable companies

are owned by well connected local businessmen you my need your friends and their

friends when you talk to the city council.

Until you can tell comcast and the like, I do not need your service and I am

taking my business elsewhere they can and will keep trying to do this stuff.

comcast may be a lot more reasonable when reminded that eminent domain was used

to let them put up their infrastructure and it can be used to take that

infrastructure and lease it to someone else.

---

Well I'm happy that the feds here supply the wire/cable setup here and any phone company/ISP is allowed to access those lines.

Cheers.

For 2) this is more local and maybe harder talk to your city councilman and

insist on more than 1 provider,

There is so much pie in the sky in your post I can't even began to address them. What you want is one provider of a "dumb pipe" common carrier. Whether government (communist) or The Bell System, the best communication company the world has ever known. Which do you want and how would you make it so?

Well I'm happy that the feds here supply the wire/cable setup here and any phone company/ISP is allowed to access those lines.

Is your "dumb pipe" a tax payer or a tax consumer?

---

It's neutral in the end, the only dumb bit is that you can't accept it. ;-)

Cheers.

It's neutral in the end, the only dumb bit is that you can't accept it. ;-)

Accept what? I'm just asking. What you people do doesn't affect me unless you come here and buy the Wall Street Journal and Fox News.

---

Ideally in a capitalist society I would have hundreds of providers

to choose from and the competition would keep them honest.

Having a system that started out with phone and wire only

the move from a central provider too something were a lot of competition can

happen has not accrued.

As long as there are a vary limited number of providers the emily litella line

"I don't care I work for the phone company I don't have to," is all to true.

And there are really only 2 choices 1) constant vigilance, 2)building more paths

For 1) people are going to congress and the fcc and telling them what we think.

For 2) this is more local and maybe harder talk to your city councilman and

insist on more than 1 provider, now since a lot of the local cable companies

are owned by well connected local businessmen you my need your friends and their

friends when you talk to the city council.

Until you can tell comcast and the like, I do not need your service and I am

taking my business elsewhere they can and will keep trying to do this stuff.

comcast may be a lot more reasonable when reminded that eminent domain was used

to let them put up their infrastructure and it can be used to take that

infrastructure and lease it to someone else.

And that is the crux of the problem. There are in many cases no other providers.So the comsumer gets shafted. Like allways.

---

[/quote]

Old James

And that is the crux of the problem. There are in many cases no other providers.So the comsumer gets shafted. Like allways.

I have a choice of 4 cell providers and they all shaft; Verizon and at&t are more expensive but have better coverage, T-Mobile and Sprint less expensive but if I get out of the metropolitan area there is no coverage.

I find it amusing all of this net neutrality talk was started by a false premise that this will be harmful to low bandwidth users. How seriously do you think the FCC will take those writing stating such?

---

And that is the crux of the problem. There are in many cases no other providers.So the comsumer gets shafted. Like allways.

I have a choice of 4 cell providers and they all shaft; Verizon and at&t are more expensive but have better coverage, T-Mobile and Sprint less expensive but if I get out of the metropolitan area there is no coverage.

I find it amusing all of this net neutrality talk was started by a false premise that this will be harmful to low bandwidth users. How seriously do you think the FCC will take those writing stating such?

===================================================
In south America many of the cell towers are owned by the drug cartels, they need this to give them encrypted communication as a result I can get a smart phone connect for 1/4 what is is in the US a better connect.

---

I was just on DSL reports a site for broadband geeks from all sides in the business. Don't let the name DSL fool you; when the site was setup DSL was cutting edge. Anyway if you want to get an idea of how complicated this is with he said she said take a look at the thread about the Verizon Netflix blame game. Verizon: Our Review Shows No Congestion; Netflix to Blame.

---

I find it amusing all of this net neutrality talk was started by a false premise that this will be harmful to low bandwidth users. How seriously do you think the FCC will take those writing stating such?

Nice to know that Dr Korplea has got it all wrong, and in fact he and distributed computing have nothing to worry about.

I sure he will be so relieved!!

---

I find it amusing all of this net neutrality talk was started by a false premise that this will be harmful to low bandwidth users. How seriously do you think the FCC will take those writing stating such?

Nice to know that Dr Korplea has got it all wrong, and in fact he and distributed computing have nothing to worry about.
I sure he will be so relieved!!

It is what it is. You were in the business and know it is true.

---

I was just on DSL reports a site for broadband geeks from all sides in the business. Don't let the name DSL fool you; when the site was setup DSL was cutting edge. Anyway if you want to get an idea of how complicated this is with he said she said take a look at the thread about the Verizon Netflix blame game. Verizon: Our Review Shows No Congestion; Netflix to Blame.

And you trust Verizon? You trust them to be honest about their own review? They are about as trust worthy as any other industry that 'regulates' or 'reviews' itself. That is, they are about as trust worthy as a compulsive liar.

I find it amusing all of this net neutrality talk was started by a false premise that this will be harmful to low bandwidth users. How seriously do you think the FCC will take those writing stating such?

I suggest you go read Dr. Korpela's post again. He never started this talk with a false premise. That would be your twisted interpretation of events.

Dr. Korpela's argument is exactly:

The existence of volunteer computing is predecated on a open Internet where ISPs cannot extort money out of other organizations for access to their users. In a neutral Internet, users decide what content they want, not the ISP.

[...]

Will ISPs be approaching us demanding payment? I don't know. We don't have any money to give them.

He is concerned that ISPs will be able to go after content providers for more money, rightly so. You argue that SETI isn't high bandwidth like Netflix is, so there's no worry. You fail to understand that were distributed computing to ever gain in massive popularity, there would be nothing in place to stop ISPs from going after non-profit organizations like SETI@home for more money. SETI@home already pays for their access to the internet, as do it's users. Making everyone go back and pay again for access to each other shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Anyway if you want to get an idea of how complicated this is with he said she said take a look at the thread about the Verizon Netflix blame game. Verizon: Our Review Shows No Congestion; Netflix to Blame.

This is no different than the ArsTechnica article I linked earlier; merely from a different source.

The problem is that nobody believes Verizon. They are responsible for their own routers and gateways. What Verizon is essentially saying is that internally their network is fast, so therefore it cannot be their problem. One commenter on that page hit the nail on the head with that argument:

So with this argument.

I've got gigabit between my router and my PC, so it can't be MY fault.

It's got nothing to do with the fact they I only bought a dialup connection to the internet.

This is the same issue. VZ doesn't have ENOUGH PEERING bandwidth.
It's not a problem with Netflix it a problem between VZ and Netflix Transit provider.

Basically, Verizon's connection to the backbone (which I believe is Cogent or Level 3) is their choke point and they refuse to purchase a faster connection to the backbone. Rather, they insist on double-dipping and going after Netflix because they are a "bandwidth hog" - which is irrelevant because A) Netflix has already paid for internet access and B) it is Verizon's Netflix users that have decided they wanted to use the service and pay Verizon for internet access.

We've been repeating this same argument to you in this thread over and over again, but you continue to criticize the project for bringing up a non-issue when clearly Dr. Korpela's concerns are very real.