Jump to content

ToadMan

NF Staff
  • Content Count

    2,536
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9
  • NF$

    2,723

Posts posted by ToadMan


  1. So, I fully agree that the way the ILEC's have set their pricing scheme doesn't make that much sense. But that doesn't make the idea bad. The only point about that in your excerpt is that the internet is capacity based. I don't agree.

     

    First I'd like to point out that the terms are awkward. So to be clear lets talk about "instantaneous capacity": The amount of data that can be simultaneously transmitted and "integral capacity": the amount of data that is transmitted over a period of time. In reality both are the same thing (integral capacity would be the integral of instantaneous capacity). This is important because ILEC's have to provision for both. If you have a 10 MBit backbone, then you can sell 2 5 MBit lines, or 4 2.5MBit lines. I assume that in practice, the ISP sells more than the instantaneous capacity of their link. They would do this because they don't expect all users to be using full bandwidth at all time. This is the same as how a city only builds a 4 lane highway, even though 400 cars pass a given point at rush hour. A 400 lane highway would maximize throughput at peak, but would cost a lot, and not be running at capacity for a lot of the time. ILEC's want to be running at capacity so that their trenched in fiber is doing it's job.

     

    So the amount of integral capacity you use (your usage) is just as important as instantaneous capacity to the ILEC for provisioning. If all the users are going to be saturating their link at all times, then the ILEC needs to add capacity; if users saturate their link sporadically, then the ILEC might not need to add capacity. So both integral capacity and instantaneous capacity have a real impact to them. Admittedly, even sporadic saturation still has an impact since network traffic models are bursty, unlike phone traffic.

     

    Since both have a real impact, and cost the ILEC money to provision for, then they have a real case for charging you the cost of that provisioning. You don't complain that you pay more for a higher link rate, so why is it an issue to complain that you are paying to be constantly using that link? An alternative for the ILEC's would be for them to provision (and charge) based on 100% saturation. This would force them to deploy much more network capacity, and probably drive your cost up even higher (though at that kind of amortization they wouldn't have any reason to imply limits or UBB).

     

    So, in the end we need to look at the reasonability of the prices, and the plans need to make sense. But UBB as a model is valid.


  2. Ok, I have to weigh in a little on this playing devils advocate. First let me be clear that I don't defend nor support big telecos.

     

    I think it's important to consider that UBB is a valid business model. First consider all the services you get to your home that are usage based. Gas, electric, water, sewage and trash (along with any others you might get). So what makes internet different? I don't see how it is that much different, you consume and different people consume at different levels.

     

    If you can accept that there is a valid business model, then I think you get to the real issue. That is that the cost of 1 MBit of internet is pretty hard to determine. With the other billable services, the utility usually has a part in creating or otherwise processing what you consume along with delivering it. Internet is really only a delivery, so it might be harder to figure out what the cost of the service is. As with other utilities, there is amortized cost of infrastructure and infrastructure planning, however there is not cost of production.

     

    I believe that it is the problem with the assigned cost, and not the model that is the real issue that the Canadian consumer is going to face. If ISPs decide to charge you 1cent per GBit, then you are not going to see huge increase. However, if they decide 10cents per GBit, then it might get a little more crazy. So really I think that consumers need to be fighting for ISPs to be regulated on what they can charge, rather than trying to reject what I see as a valid business model.


  3. Hey hey now. By and large his threads are unique. Not like once upon a time when someone wanted to ask a question that had been answered 100'rds of times they would just start a new thread... Hence my thread, and animated gif (which I didn't create, but was given in tribute) about searching.


  4. That line kinda bugs me.

     

    To be honest, I think one of the fallacies of making computers more approachable is trying to visualize their behaviour in a more classic sense. It's really it's own world.

     

    Reflecting on TRON. Not a fan, it was decent enough I suppose.


  5. I'm becoming convinced you do this only for the shear enjoyment you get out of people commenting on how idiotic they think you are being.

     

    I've been there...

     

    Anyway, I mostly just start skimming your posts after the first part that seems to be trying to hard. Therefor I have nothing to contribute more, but I thought I would give you the satisfaction of this response.


  6. Honda's right.

     

    Until "In a coma" most of the tracks weren't even completely available. Now it's not as big of a deal.

     

    "Lo-Fi B-Sides" is pretty much the only rarity. I don't think "Loser Anthems" is really that rare (except the blue one).

     

    I almost got a hold of "Lo-Fi" about 4 years ago, the record store I was in told me that they had just sold one that they had in stock for the past couple of months... oh well.


  7. I'm pretty sure that 10/10 happens every year (not leap dependent), so assuming we keep with only using the last 2 digits of the year, there will be a 10/10/10 in 2110.

     

    I'm missing why 2410 can only have a 10/10/10... unless you are going for it being on the same day of the week. But that has a more complex algorithm, and I'm not willing to figure out if 400 years happens to be the next occurrence.


  8. 10/10/10 = b101010 (byte alignment failure implies MSB padding) => b00101010 = 0x2A... I'm not sure where you're going with this.

     

    0x101010 might be interesting at b00010000001000000010000

     

    Ascii 10/10/10 = 0x313031303130 ('/' excluded). That's really not very interesting either.

     

    Yeah... except for that one conversion it's really not very interesting.


  9. Too weird for me... I like the acoustic work... but the song feels too empty to me without lyrics. Apparitions is a song that is really carried by its words, it is stripped down best (in my opinion) by striping the audio... anyway, to each their own.


  10. You know there are plenty of clubs I paid to be a member of. They too share information only with me (and other paying members). They are, in no important order (and not a complete list): AMA, AAA, IEEE. And though you can join the first two by simply paying a fee, the later one you actually have to have graduated with a degree in engineering... so I guess it is an elite club.

     

    I tried to write a sensical reply to your point. Unfortunately I just can't seem to understand what you are getting at. I guess you are frustrated... but I can only understand that if you believe that posts which would normally be in the main blog are now only in the M+ blog. As others have said, this is not the case. And given that the nature of the content hasn't changed, it seems that it's not the closure of the free blog that upsets you, but rather the existence of M+ at all.

     

    I just realized though, that we're an elite club too http://www.nearfantastica.com/bored/index....showtopic=13706


  11. Those links aren't working for me. Nevertheless, if they don't work out to be what you need, I own one of the patches, I can dig it out and take some pictures if that would be useful.


  12. I think there are a lot of things that would be good to see. I make a lot of fun of Cera, but I do think that the casting and actors/actresses did catch the essence of the characters.

     

    I do think that a movie script has to run a precarious balance though. You either pare down the story so it fits, or you half ass things. When you do the later you rely more and more on the audience having the back story. For example, they couldn't have introduced Lisa, because she would have necessitated that piece of backstory, which would have in turn required more attention to the Kim-Scott arc. They could have skipped the backstory part, but then the dynamic would have been inaccessible to me (because I hadn't read the books). Alternate angles would be cool, but given how they had to re-craft the plot, they really couldn't do it now.

     

    I just realized I've become one of those people who compares the book to the movie... "People always say the books are better" (Self referential humor is awesome, breaking the fourth wall and all).


  13. Different strokes. The adorable didn't drive me through the story. What was great was that all the characters are heinously flawed, and they stay that way.

     

    Retrospectively, the movie would have struggled to tell the story in the book and have been as humorous. Even though it's not a complex classic of literature, it's still sufficiently complex to have required a lot more busy time developing the characters.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.