funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| Okay, PRETEND that I believe. So what's worse?
Okay, PRETEND that I believe (I definitely do not). So what's worse?
1. You can't do the things you want because the Internet is overloaded?
or
2. You can't do the things you want because your ISP prohibits or limits it?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL |
|
Dampier
Phillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY | Lazy Media
I wrote the reporter asking why they would dredge up this astroturfing nonsense a full two years after it was debunked as AT&T bought and paid for nonsense.
Fox News is promptly carrying this BS again as well. Time to debunk for them. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  He said, she said
Odlyzko & Nemertes agree on the facts. quote:
Odlyzko himself has stated that much of Nemertes data is sound
But they disagree on the interpretation. Karl prefers Odlyzko's interpretation because it supports his premise - that companies are greedy and invent problems to rip off customers.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
goalieskates
join:2004-09-12
Knoxville, TN
·Knology
·Comcast
| said by TKJunkMail  :Odlyzko & Nemertes agree on the facts. quote:
Odlyzko himself has stated that much of Nemertes data is sound
But they disagree on the interpretation. Karl prefers Odlyzko's interpretation because it supports his premise - that companies are greedy and invent problems to rip off customers. Only because companies really ARE greedy and invent problems. It's classic marketing. |
|
AlexNYC
join:2001-06-02
Edwards, CO
|  Internet growth = Cell Phone growth
Internet growth is kind of like cell phone growth, eventually the potential "new" customers will be a relatively small number, because everyone already has a cell phone and a broadband connection. Capacity will continue to increase due to more and more multimedia on the Internet needing more and more speed, but that's about it. By the way there will always be some people who do not need/want either cell phones or broadband. Me thinks the apocalypse will be canceled.  |
|
DarkLogix
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
·Comcast Workplace
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: He said, she said
There will be no internet brown-outs
but I think they should buy equ that is more overkill than just modest upgrades (overkill upgrades have a longer life than modest ones do so the ROI is longer and better)
If the tier 1 ISP's would light up all the dark fiber and upgrade existing transivers to OC768(40Gbit) then buy routers that are far beyond what is needed then the internet would be faster and we could totaly laugh at the ExaFlood crap (we can now but the laugh would be even better) |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Odlyzko & Nemertes agree on the facts. quote:
Odlyzko himself has stated that much of Nemertes data is sound
But they disagree on the interpretation. Karl prefers Odlyzko's interpretation because it supports his premise - that companies are greedy and invent problems to rip off customers. No, it's because Odlyzko's argument is the one based upon fact and past usage. The 1990 to 2007 compound annual internet growth rate is 85% ... and in places like Hong Kong which has a higher per-capita usage level, traffic is drastically slowing -- not increasing.
Just look up the ESnet traffic stats or any of the Odlyzko's MINTS presentations. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to TKJunkMail
Odlyzko & Nemertes agree on the facts. No, they don't. Says Odlyzko:The basic, and highly debatable, assumption behind their work, though, is that traffic is growing at 100% per year or more, and will continue to do so for the next half a dozen years. So far there is little evidence of that He then goes on to list countless carriers and backbones who show growth is nowhere near 100%...
You're excellent at manufacturing straw men so you can shoot them in a barrel. |
|
jaytb
@rpi.edu
| Hey carriers:
Instead of spending money on lobbyists and thinktanks like this, why don't you *gasp* spend money on network upgrades? That way you won't have an exaflood and your customers will be happy. Oh god what a thought that was. I think my brain will explode from it! |
|
MalibuMaxx
join:2007-02-06
Chesterton, IN
·Comcast
| hmm
I happen to be sitting on a flooded network here at work. Its no picknik. But seeing most ISP's will if not already have upgraded their OC connections and what not I do not see this occuring. If internet continues to grow without the upgrading then this could occur but I believe most isp's would just upgrade their backbones etc... |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ | reply to Karl Bode
Re: He said, she said
I just quoted what YOU wrote in the news item. |
|
Hpower
Roflmao
join:2000-06-08
Glendale, CA | @ picture
I just love that picture of the guy holding both of his hands up "IT'S OK GUYS! WE'LL BE ALRIGHT!" lol
--
The Internet is about to go down....it is actually. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| reply to funchords
Re: Okay, PRETEND that I believe. So what's worse?
said by funchords :Okay, PRETEND that I believe (I definitely do not). So what's worse? 1. You can't do the things you want because the Internet is overloaded? or 2. You can't do the things you want because your ISP prohibits or limits it? No more terabytes of porn over my Comcast cable* which has a 250GB cap? ONOES!!1
*Inside joke at a certain group of people...
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533 | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: He said, she said
So you didn't actually read any of the articles? Straw man down! Straw man down! |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Sourcewatch and the letter Hmmm.
The Sourcewatch link, pointed to by the PR tank link above is interesting. I can't say I'm a fan of the thinktank, but the reporting of it seems agenda-ized.
First is this:
said by SourceWatch :
Founded in 1990 by Bruce Chapman, a former Reagan administration official Chapman was director of the Census Bureau and a diplomat. Not exactly part of Reagan's inner circle.
I thought this was an odd comment:
said by SourceWatch :
the Discovery Institute engages in a variety of projects including: technology ... foreign affairs and cooperation within the bi-national region of "Cascadia." Cascadia? How is Cascadia relevant in a way that all the other stuff they mentioned is? That sounds like something someone was dying to mention, but couldn't figure out how.
Another targeted comment was:
said by SourceWatch :
Although D.I. describes itself as based on the apologetics of C.S. Lewis, there is little to no basis for this claim. ... [Lewis] was not an evangelical Christian. Well, neither is Bruce Chapman. He's Roman Catholic; a faith that has been long and heavily targeted by Evangelistic Christians.
But the term Evangelical Christian wasn't widely in use when C.S.Lewis was establishing his faith. It was unlikely that Lewis would have applied the term to himself; no matter his alignment.
The article writer and I assume SourceWatch have put forth an article, designed to nurture anti-Christian, anti-Conservative sentiments. It makes it a bit difficult to respect SourceWatch's accusations of Discovery Institute being biased and agenda driven.
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: He said, she said
Apparently you need to read better. |
|
Dampier
Phillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY
| reply to TKJunkMail
More important is the fact Nemertes findings are like magic sprinkles that anyone can use to justify anything. I waded through the latest, which is just as alarmist as the last one, and the one before that. I am afraid to even go outside now.
Nemertes waves away Odlyzko by claiming that their discrepancy in data with his comes from the 'secret Internet' private backbones. Of course, that data Odlyzko can't get from them is the same data Nemertes cannot get from them either. So we are left with an assertion without raw data.
Equipment makers love Nemertes because they can trumpet the scary findings on their upgrade now brochures. ISPs love Nemertes because they can claim they have to cap and tier customers in order to buy equipment to combat the "exaflood." Proponents of government funding for the Internet love Nemertes because it suggests public funding to subdue the crisis is needed.
Hell, even *I* could love Nemertes because the report says nothing about the need for usage caps and limits -- it instead suggests that insufficient infrastructure spending will cause the Internet to brown out causing loss of innovation, jobs, and all the rest. So I *could* use Nemertes to justify why cable companies have a basic responsibility to stop cutting infrastructure spending and start increasing it, instead of capping people to ration the net.
But the reason I won't is that I have integrity. I realize there is one substantial difference between Nemertes and myself. They are paid and supported by companies that find their research useful and helpful in making whatever case they want. So it helps to create magic sprinkles findings that can be pitched to everyone.
I, on the other hand, am not paid a cent to find anything. I'm just a consumer and customer. I realize the taint that automatically exists when you start finding out who is "contributing" to the organization that creates these findings. Last go around, it was AT&T, who coincidentally was pushing against net neutrality and wanted to get into a commercial backbone build out. Use the exaflood study and illustrate the need. I wonder if Nemertes produced reports skeptical of commercial intent in this area if they would be as well funded. I think not.
I think the fundamental truth I have always witnessed in my years of following all of this is that innovation brings a lot of solutions to problems we fear and panic about today, but aren't that big of a deal tomorrow.
What we don't need here is another effort to super-maximize profits by reducing competition, installing artificial usage limits, and trying to legislate protectionist measures to forestall that competition. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
1 edit | reply to DarkLogix
said by DarkLogix :If the tier 1 ISP's would light up all the dark fiber and upgrade existing transivers to OC768(40Gbit) then buy routers that are far beyond what is needed then the internet would be faster and we could totaly laugh at the ExaFlood crap (we can now but the laugh would be even better) This is a misread of the situation.
1) IP/Internet carriers aren't going OC768 because of the ungodly expense of gear that meets SONET framing/channelization requirements. The push is for 40/100gigabit Ethernet; even though the final standards for 40/100 won't be out until Q2 next year at the earliest, many carriers are building on pre-standard gear simply because of the cost efficiency of it.
2) The backbone carriers won't be a problem for capacity. They already have a pricing schedule based on peak mbps consumption. When people use more bandwidth, the backbone providers make more money.
The problem with the residential broadband market is that the ISPs have engineered themselves into a corner. Normally if you were operating a service where your demand exceeded your annual planline growth budget, you would correct for it by increasing prices to boost revenue to facilitate the additional growth. The problem in the broadband market is that the price increase will tend to drive customers away, specifically your low-use budget-conscious users who provide the balance to keep the high-use customers from toppling the system. As a bonus, any obvious solution to the problem (be it throttling, ejecting the high-use customers as "abusers", or usage-based billing) is an automatic PR nightmare, largely because sites like these have more of an interest in finding ways to point fingers instead of giving an honest investigation into the situation.
Overall, I'm glad I work in private enterprise and this isn't my problem to solve. |
|
Dampier
Phillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY
| reply to Noah Vail
Re: Sourcewatch and the letter Hmmm.
I think the issue with Sourcewatch is more about identifying the principles behind the front groups and allow the reader to decide whether or not such a person(s) is really qualified and knowledgeable in a subject area. I think it's also a group project, which may explain some of the fragmentation in their material.
For me, some of the most suspicious indicators are the group's funding sources (always follow the money), and secondly their secretive involvement in their initiatives. I don't care about the religious motivations behind this, just the cynical "intelligent design" of the astroturfing campaign driving it. These things are always sold to the public as some sort of spontaneous public movement, never that there is a pressure group(s) behind it driving the agenda. And as we've seen, that could be about religion or the Internet. The methods are often the same. |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Dampier :...Sourcewatch is more about identifying the principles behind the front groups and allow the reader to decide whether or not such a person(s) is really qualified and knowledgeable in a subject area... Then I would expect to see a proportional number of Leftist Front Organizations exposed on their site. After randomly spot checking their front group list, I couldn't find a Single Leftist Front Group. There is no counterpoint.
There is a solitary, external blog; referenced to on the front page, that illustrates some of the Media-Obama-DNC Ménage à trois, but that was it.
If there is any evidence SourceWatch isn't wholly an anti-Conservative, anti-Corporate, anti-Christian web entity, I'd be curious to see it.
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. |
|
