LOGIN  .  SIGNUP   .  SUPPORT 
HOME / MESSAGE BOARDS / GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

General Discussions

Signup   Message Boards Home   Newest Posts   My Favorite Boards   My Threads
Page 2 of 2   •  First Page  •  Previous Page  •   Next Page  •   Last Page
Signup or Login to Post
Congress told that Internet data caps...
 
Neo7  posted on Mar 16, 2011 10:14:11 AM - Report post

Moderator
Send a message to Neo7
MODERATOR
They need to develop better DRM. The new Pokemon games had a very interesting and effective DRM system in that when a pirate dumped the game pack into a ROM image, the game would allow you to play it, but it would no longer reward EXP to pokemon at all (that was their piracy technology). Very effective.
 
saurabhfzd  posted on Mar 16, 2011 10:20:56 AM - Report post

Current rank: 3 Stars. Next Rank at 4000 Posts.
Send a message to saurabhfzd
ELITE
quote:
originally posted by Neo7

They need to develop better DRM. The new Pokemon games had a very interesting and effective DRM system in that when a pirate dumped the game pack into a ROM image, the game would allow you to play it, but it would no longer reward EXP to pokemon at all (that was their piracy technology). Very effective.

exactly. coming up with better DRM protection is a more feasible solution to piracy rather than capping net usage. capping net usage in my opinion is inhuman.

 
Dhampy  posted on Mar 16, 2011 5:18:51 PM - Report post

Current rank: 2.5 Stars. Next Rank at 2000 Posts.
Send a message to Dhampy
ELITE
You guys are all missing the point.

They (Congress) know damn well it has nothing to do with piracy, but with a forty year old infrastructure that cannot handle even what it's asked to right now--much less in the near future.

However, it is easier for providers to cap their usage to discourage casual users than to address the fundamental issue; which is insufficient network capacity by all of these ISP's that have oversold themselves.

 
DABhand  posted on Mar 16, 2011 5:22:36 PM - Report post

Current rank: 3.5 Stars. Next Rank at 8000 Posts.
Send a message to DABhand
AUTHOR
Dhampy is mostly right.

This little push by the copyright bodies on ISP's has forced ISP's to cheat a bit and not upgrade any UBR's to cope with oversubscription in area's. And they in turn blame it on the constant heavy users on poor performance, when a year before + it was stable enough.

They just got greedy like Virginmedia in the UK and tried to get everyone on board quickly with a big "to hell with consequences".. To them it was better to try and get £1B per month revenue than spending a couple hundred million to fix up UBR's to cope.

And to show you their greediness VM only allocated £40m for the whole of the UK in upgrades which is just not good enough, so I suspect its pretty much the same worldwide, except Sweden and Japan who have the best networking in place.

 
Dhampy  posted on Mar 16, 2011 6:01:31 PM - Report post

Current rank: 2.5 Stars. Next Rank at 2000 Posts.
Send a message to Dhampy
ELITE
Time-Warner, for one, has actually admitted that they have oversold their service across the US; and have more users in most areas than they have the capability of providing advertised speed to.

Incidentally, they were the leaders in test markets for capped service.

 
AdmiralThrawn  posted on Mar 16, 2011 7:38:44 PM - Report post

Current rank: 3 Stars. Next Rank at 4000 Posts.
Send a message to AdmiralThrawn
CRAHSYSTOR
quote:
originally posted by Dhampy

The real answer is that the US doesn't have the infrastructure to have a functioning communications network without caps discouraging the causal user.

Actually, they do... they just don't want to admit it so that they can charge obscene amounts of money.

Link

This report also reveals that AT&T's profit margin (before their new-fangled cap) was about 90%.

If they're making that much money, they can spare some to upgrade their 'overburdened' networks, which actually aren't.

[Edited by AdmiralThrawn, 3/16/2011 7:39:46 PM]

 
Dhampy  posted on Mar 16, 2011 8:09:48 PM - Report post

Current rank: 2.5 Stars. Next Rank at 2000 Posts.
Send a message to Dhampy
ELITE
quote:
originally posted by AdmiralThrawn

quote:
originally posted by Dhampy

The real answer is that the US doesn't have the infrastructure to have a functioning communications network without caps discouraging the causal user.

Actually, they do... they just don't want to admit it so that they can charge obscene amounts of money.

Link

This report also reveals that AT&T's profit margin (before their new-fangled cap) was about 90%.

If they're making that much money, they can spare some to upgrade their 'overburdened' networks, which actually aren't.

[Edited by AdmiralThrawn, 3/16/2011 7:39:46 PM]

Firstly, why would they spend the money, regardless? It is counter-intuitive when they can make more money without spending any.

Secondly, the Stop the Cap blog you posted is arguing more on my side than against me.

"evidence continues to arrive illustrating the company’s planned usage limits are more about protecting their U-verse video business than actually controlling “heavy users.”"

They are working with what is known to be a finite asset, and are giving priority to their own product lest competing products use more of their finite asset.

--------------

Thirdly, you can argue that there is no endemic bandwidth shortage at all in the US--because we have vast untapped resources--but that's merely an exercise in sophistry; an untapped resource may as well not exist for the effect it has.

It's a meaningless argument, because for the consumer there is most definitely a shortage.

 
pisces  posted on Mar 18, 2011 4:22:34 AM - Report post

Current rank: 3.5 Stars. Next Rank at 8000 Posts.
Send a message to pisces
ELITE
Giving unlimited internet access sounds extremely hard to me considering ISPs would run out of bandwidth if overused. Eventhough I'm on unlimited plan, my ISP is still secretly doing some capping whenever I reach my limit. It's not stated anywhere in their policy but they protect them self under "Fair Usage Policy" which give people hard to deal with.
Page 2 of 2   •  First Page  •  Previous Page  •   Next Page  •   Last Page
  Post Reply
Go to page: 1  2 
All times are (GMT -06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Current time is 10:47:33 PM