April 23rd, 2009 02:23 AM
if there isn't a choice right now, there will be soon.Verizon is covering the country bit by bit.
Originally Posted by Cheap Scotch Ron
April 23rd, 2009 06:45 AM
Except if you live in one of those areas that Verizon dumped it's customers, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine for example.
Verizon couldn't wait to dump us, sold us to to companies that are already bankrupt or about to file bankruptcy. Your only hope is if you are a cable TV customer.
"Somehow saying I told you so just doesn't cover it" Will Smith in I, Robot
April 23rd, 2009 01:44 PM
sorry, wasn't aware of that. But I know that they are covering this area. My cousin has FIOS and I was hooked up to their system last week, they are getting roughly 14 Mb up and down. In other words it's no longer asynchronous.
April 23rd, 2009 02:38 PM
... and it's not just low population density states. They are picking and choosing here in NJ too.
Except if you live in one of those areas that Verizon dumped it's customers,
In God We Trust....Everything else we backup.
April 23rd, 2009 02:52 PM
I still have to think that that's just preliminary. They are probably targeting certain areas first, but they will probably go back and pick up every other place. They are looking to take the market away from cable companies, it doesn't make sense to just leave them certain areas, indefinitely. Generosity is not a characteristic I associate with corporations.
April 23rd, 2009 03:42 PM
lol. <> generous.. for sure... and thats exactly the point.
The cost/benefit doesnt work in low density areas.
You may be right, but as I recall, about one hundred years ago, the Feds had to pay AT&T to run phone lines into rural areas because the cost/benefit didnt work. Knowing the direction the country is headed, it wont be long before Obama taxes us to pay Verizon to run FIOS to every corner of the country.
I cant help but think that wireless broadband is the long term play. In 3rd world countries, they are building out the wireless infrastructure and skipping the copper and fiber altogether (or at least for the last mile).
In God We Trust....Everything else we backup.
April 23rd, 2009 04:09 PM
I don't think the technology is ever going to go completely wireless here. It's too easy to crack, and subject to too much interference. Americans are much fussier and more inclined to complain, LOUDLY, than most third world countries, I'll wager.
April 26th, 2009 03:42 AM
I think ISP in the whole world will use this scheme once it seems success...
even now I suspect that my ISP is *capping* the usage bandwidth... esp from download sites like rapidshare, torrent port... well, fair usage policy...
For example, some customers use P2P or file sharing software, which constantly sends and receives videos and other types of very large files, throughout the day. These activities (download and upload continuously) use a lot of bandwidth and can significantly reduce the connection speed, which other customers are getting to access the Internet during peak hours. We donít believe this is fair to the vast majority of our customers.
I can predict anything, except future!
April 26th, 2009 02:09 PM
I believe that the current ISP's internet business models are largely broken. The concept of "unlimited" is no more, unless you are prepared to pay for what you get.
I have always felt that "net neutrality" was a load of BS. What we ought to demand and must be provided with is "internet honesty".
What ISPs must be legally forced to state (in brightly coloured capital letters, and not buried on page 27 of the fine print that nobody reads) is as follows:
What we will provide and what we will not.
What is allowed and what is not.
How much bandwidth you are allowed over time.
How much it will cost.
What excess charging provisions are in force.
I don't care about the ISP's spurious claims to "unlimited".............if that is what you advertise and contract to..........that is what you must do, even if it means giving some greedy little scumbag his own dedicated T1 at YOUR expense.
If the law enforces transparent contractual terms then consumers will have sufficient information upon which to base their choice of provider and scheme.
I have nothing against people who want to consume high bandwidths........... provided that they are prepared to pay for them. After all that is what a supply and demand, market economy is based on.
There might have been a short period when you could get virtually unlimited service due to excess capacity at the time.......... those days have gone, so live with it.
If you cannot do someone any good: don't do them any harm....
As long as you did this to one of these, the least of my little ones............you did it unto Me.
What profiteth a man if he gains the entire World at the expense of his immortal soul?
April 26th, 2009 03:43 PM
that's all well and good John but for those of us who are not used to having any sort of metering whatsoever, it's going to be a major adjustment. What I find most egregious about this possibility is that we are now more than technologically capable of providing massive bandwidth to everybody, at no more cost, and possibly less cost, than ever. To my mind it's just another machination designed to pry more profit from us.
By Egaladeist in forum Security News
Last Post: October 15th, 2005, 07:00 AM
By jinxy in forum Tech Humor
Last Post: October 7th, 2005, 01:25 PM
By Noble Hamlet in forum AntiOnline's General Chit Chat
Last Post: March 17th, 2002, 08:38 AM
By ac1dsp3ctrum in forum The Security Tutorials Forum
Last Post: February 13th, 2002, 11:36 AM
By Ennis in forum The Security Tutorials Forum
Last Post: November 15th, 2001, 06:42 PM