.Guy. Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 There have been some recent articles on the real reasons why broadband companies are restricting bandwidth and they are on to something. Basically it comes down preservation of digital cable tv. All of the companies imposing bandwidth also offer TV services. They claim they are capping it because they are running out of pipes... which is total BS. They are worried people will switch over to just using the internet to get all of their entertainment and will soon forgo paying for TV services. Its preemptive move that will probably pay off. Its a good business decision but terrible for us consumers. http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1052029/net-neutrality-bandwidth-caps-matter I think soon enough the caps will be so low where we could not even think about streaming netflix and watching shows on hulu for fear of going over the limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 come on, at least get a credible source! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Guy. Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 come on, at least get a credible source! ...could compete with an ISP’s existing video businesses, but the worst part is that it’s rapidly becoming more popular to the average consumer http://gigaom.com/2009/04/22/nielsen-data-offers-real-reason-isps-are-metering/ LOL at least the first source isn't the national inquirer. I do think the speculation is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 http://gigaom.com/2009/04/22/nielsen-data-offers-real-reason-isps-are-metering/LOL at least the first source isn't the national inquirer. I do think the speculation is spot on. 'theinquirer' isn't the national inquirer? oh well. On topic, I long for the day that competition is viable. Verison coming in with FiOS is a good first step, assuming they don't collude with their competitors. I'm not a fan of these cable companies with their state-endorsed monopolies and glad someone's stepped in to challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Guy. Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 'theinquirer' isn't the national inquirer? oh well. Yeah they are different. This inquirer deals with computer and hardware news. On topic, I long for the day that competition is viable. Verison coming in with FiOS is a good first step, assuming they don't collude with their competitors. I'm not a fan of these cable companies with their state-endorsed monopolies and glad someone's stepped in to challenge. I just hope we can stop these shenanigans before we start paying for each gig we download. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 'theinquirer' isn't the national inquirer? oh well. That one is spelled with an 'e'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 That one is spelled with an 'e'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer :doh: I should've noticed that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 :doh: I should've noticed that I've always found it weird that they spell it that way. In trying to understand why, I found this: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enquire Kinda like the difference between 'effect' and 'affect'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I've always found it weird that they spell it that way. In trying to understand why, I found this: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enquire Kinda like the difference between 'effect' and 'affect'. Effect is a noun, and affect is a verb. The effect of her cheating on him, affected him tragically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 'theinquirer' isn't the national inquirer? oh well.On topic, I long for the day that competition is viable. Verison coming in with FiOS is a good first step, assuming they don't collude with their competitors. I'm not a fan of these cable companies with their state-endorsed monopolies and glad someone's stepped in to challenge. First off, The ISP's have the right to cap your bandwidth. They also have the right to selectively slow down your packet connections by application. They won that right when congress did not support Net. Neutrality a few years back. As for competition, Verizon isn't competition; it's actually the oppisite of competition. You see the cable companies like Comcast were granted a monopoly on cable TV for 8-10 years in order pay for building the infrastructure; but after that period; which is running out now; they have to allow other companies to offer Cable service on their coper wire network. Verizon isn't using coper wire, but FIOS. So the laws passed to regulate cable TV over copper wires don't apply to them. They never have to allow anybody to use their network; and they rip out the coper cable when they install their fiber in their consumers houses. So once you have Verizon FIOS; you are never going back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 They never have to allow anybody to use their network; and they rip out the coper cable when they install their fiber in their consumers houses. So once you have Verizon FIOS; you are never going back. So not true. http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/FiOS-Kills-Copper-Or-Does-It-85606 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 and they rip out the coper cable when they install their fiber in their consumers houses. So once you have Verizon FIOS; you are never going back. That's not true, in my case at least. Verizon laid new FIOS fiber to the outside wall and from that point they use the existing cable inside the home. In my house, Comcast told me all sorts of bull**** including that I needed to rewire because the existing cables inside the walls were too old to carry the signals required by HD. Given that my signal strength was OK until other people were connected to the tap I didn't buy that argument, and of course the series of Comcast technicians who showed up conveniently never had the equipment with them to test the signal strength to prove the case either way. My suspicion was that the Comcast signal was so weak arriving at the house that it couldn't survive a long cable run inside the walls of the house. I switched to FIOS and their signal does just fine using the same cables that weren't good enough for Comcast. So for about $75 less per month I get a service with far more HD channels, far better DVR/On Demand, and one that actually works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.