Linked by Howard Fosdick on Fri 27th Jul 2012 02:57 UTC
Internet & Networking A free, new report from the New America Foundation compares cost, speed, and availabilty of internet connectivity in 22 cities around the world. The report concludes that U.S. consumers face comparatively high, rising connectivity costs, even while the majority have very limited choices -- often only one or two providers. The report argues that U.S. broadband policies need to change, otherwise consumer choice will continue to deteriorate.
Thread beginning with comment 528760
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Dunno why this got downvoted so much. It's not clear to me that fast residential speeds are that important. I have a few handkerchiefs to lend to those poor souls who can't watch Netflix while their children torrent the latest episode of Gilmore Girls and stream YouTube.


Agree. There are plenty of modern routers that allow you to explicitly throttle the bandwidth of specific IP addresses. Use static IP assignments. Nobody should be allowed to monopolize the entire pipe.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

tomcat,

"Agree. There are plenty of modern routers that allow you to explicitly throttle the bandwidth of specific IP addresses. Use static IP assignments. Nobody should be allowed to monopolize the entire pipe."

Not to contradict anything you said, but throttling bandwidth of non-critical tasks is usually the opposite of what is wanted, which is guaranteeing bandwidth of critical ones. It's actually very difficult to guarantee bandwidth for "critical" tasks like VIOP and netflix while simultaneously maximising bandwidth utilisation among non-critical tasks due to varying conditions in the network.

OT: what gets me is that ISPs add port restrictions and charge even more for premium accounts to unlock them. One of my providers blocks incoming SSH (in fact all ports below 1024), this is very annoying to say the least!

Edited 2012-07-29 04:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Not to contradict anything you said, but throttling bandwidth of non-critical tasks is usually the opposite of what is wanted, which is guaranteeing bandwidth of critical ones. It's actually very difficult to guarantee bandwidth for "critical" tasks like VIOP and netflix while simultaneously maximising bandwidth utilisation among non-critical tasks due to varying conditions in the network.


In a perfect world, everyone would get their critical tasks handled when they need -- and everything else would get deprioritized. But networks don't function that way. There's no way to signal that "this remote terminal session is more important than anything that my kid is doing", so the various usages battle one another in a random way. All that I'm saying is that, if you want to prevent somebody in your house from completely saturating your network pipe to the Internet, limiting their bandwidth on the router is a very good way to do it.

OT: what gets me is that ISPs add port restrictions and charge even more for premium accounts to unlock them. One of my providers blocks incoming SSH (in fact all ports below 1024), this is very annoying to say the least!


Well, yeah, I agree that it sucks. But, at the same time, they are running a business to make money, and realistically speaking, it's tough to differentiate Internet connectivity in any other axis than bandwidth. Not trying to justify what they're doing. Just flipping the coin.

Reply Parent Score: 2