Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality (Score 2) 449

by Aqualung812 (#46616097) Attached to: WSJ: Prepare To Hang Up the Phone — Forever

You're making a false choice.

Those family members already have POTS service. Some do not need Internet, but all would like it.

Where they live, cellular is NOT an option. No Internet service exists (not even slow and rickety DSL) that they can use for VoIP, as Satellite-based Internet has too high of a RTT to work.

The phone companies want to take away their POTS service.

I'm fine with that, as long as they have something that is at least the same cost & functionality running over VoIP.

Again, MANDATE LTE coverage without limits (my grandma can talk as long as she wants over POTS on a local call with no extra fees), OR, mandate fiber be put in to replace the POTS infrastructure.

Universal service is a something we have had for a long time and depend on. Your food is grown by people that use this.

If that means we have to charge a USF for everyone's Internet, fine with me. If that means we quit spending USF money for things that are not related to providing Universal internet access, also fine (there is a lot of waste there).

What isn't fine is removing an infrastructure that everyone that has ever had a phone paid for with USFs, and not putting in a modern replacement. Essentially, that is theft.

Comment: Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality (Score 2) 449

by Aqualung812 (#46614797) Attached to: WSJ: Prepare To Hang Up the Phone — Forever

They will just be connected to SIP now

And what will the SIP run on?

I have several family members without access to any network than can support VoIP. Another's only choice is LTE via HomeFusion from Verizon. 30GB for $130 a month. Have you tried running a modern family of 6 people (each with their own tablet, phone, and then the varied internet connected devices like DVRs and consoles) on 30GB? It sucks.

If they mandate unlimited LTE at a reasonable price or mandate fiber optic instead, then I agree this would be great & we should kill POTS.

If this is just a scheme to get people that pay $30/mo for phone service to start paying $100 a month for internet + voice, then it should die.

Comment: Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality (Score 4, Insightful) 449

by Aqualung812 (#46614773) Attached to: WSJ: Prepare To Hang Up the Phone — Forever

Couple things:

1. Traffic Shaping *CAN* be done in a Network Neutral way. If all RTP traffic is higher than all SMTP traffic (regardless if the RTP traffic is from my house to a friend and the SMTP traffic is from Comcast), then you have preserved NETWORK (not traffic) neutrality. I think this is acceptable to most people that support Network Neutrality.

2. Traffic Shaping should only be used in bursts. If you are using it for hours at a time, BUY MORE CAPACITY. I've yet to see any shaping that works as well as more capacity.
In other words, if your ISP is saturated every night between suppertime and bedtime, they need more capacity.
If they use shaping to make sure a sudden burst of downloads for the latest Apple iOS updates don't impact VoIP and Video RTP for their customers, that is a good thing.

Comment: Re:Comcast WiFi (Score 1) 253

by Aqualung812 (#46407565) Attached to: Comcast Turning Chicago Homes Into Xfinity Hotspots

No exceptions. I'm surprised Comcast even allowed that.

Comcast, as much as I hate them, actually solved this by assigning IPv6 addresses to their modem (or your modem as the case may be), and then bridging the IPv4 customer side separately. I *think* the IPv6 side is also bridged, but it could be routed.
They have been forward-thinking on IPv6, and the 2 carriers I can think of that are not Comcast that you might work for have been dragging their feet. The time to deploy IPv6 was years ago, at least on the network management side.

Comment: G+ (Score 1) 392

by Aqualung812 (#46387631) Attached to: Free (Gratis) Version of Windows Could Be a Reality Soon

As soon as Google gets some penalty from a government regarding their use of a dominant position as a search engine to mandate that the use of their services requires using their social network (Google+), then I'll entertain the idea that Microsoft could get penalized for this.

Until then, I'm pretty sure MS is safe from the governments.

Comment: Microsoft had another option to be different (Score 1) 222

by Aqualung812 (#46295193) Attached to: Sony's Favorite Gadget Is Kinect

They could have gone without a disc.Make it like a Steam box.

There are rumors they considered it, and I wish they would have. Chances are they could have still bundled the Kinect and been at price parity without the BD drive.

I was really looking forward to the discless console. I don't normally resell my games, and I have a gamer family of 4 with multiple consoles. For me, it was a huge win to buy everything digital and never have it damaged, be able to play it on every device without buying a second copy, etc...
Plus, they had the option to cut out the distribution layer. Even if they didn't lower the price for the digital copy, more money would have gone directly to the developer, and I'm sure some of it would have also gone to Microsoft.

They majorly screwed up the PR around this, though, and backed out. When all of the "always on" rumors started, they should have jumped on it explaining all of the benefits of a digital download only model. Instead, they did a "no comment" and everyone focused on the negatives.

Comment: Re:Could we be so lucky? (Score 1) 235

by Aqualung812 (#46294345) Attached to: FCC Planning Rule Changes To Restore US Net Neutrality

(UDP is designed to drop packets, TCP is designed to make sure none are dropped and all arrive in the proper order)

TCP will re-transmit dropped packets, but this means by definition that some will arrive out of order.
The reason TCP is a bad protocol for voice is that you don't have time to reassemble the packets. The only way you can use TCP to insure that you have 100% packet in order (on a network you don't control, like the Internet) is to have a HUGE buffer. That buffer is delay. So, I might have perfect audio quality, even on a congested line, but there will be a noticeable 1-2 second delay.

UDP doesn't re-transmit, and this is perfect for VoIP because you ideally only want a 10-30ms buffer, and if a packet is outside of that, you just drop it & live without it.

Comment: Re:Nope. Still wrong, dude. (Score 1) 187

by Aqualung812 (#46282485) Attached to: Krugman: Say No To Comcast Acquisition of Time Warner

Verizon Wireless a) doesn't offer broadband

They do. It is called HomeFusion. It costs $120/mo for 30gb, but is constantly used to incorrectly claim that Comcast has competition.

As for your other points:
-FiOS is in very few markets. If FiOS is no longer being deployed, it isn't true competition to Comcast. You can't claim they are true competition if they don't plan to compete for the same market. (5 million FiOS vs 24.1 million Comcast, with only Comcast growing)
-2016 sunset or not, my point was to rebut your claim that Verizon and Comcast are competitors. Their actions over the last year or so are not that competitive.
-DSL is a joke. The speeds do not compare, and the distance limitations mean that the reach will never equal cable.
-The link to Verizon works in Chrome & IE 11. Not sure what the issue is with your browser.

To be clear, you actually feel there is healthy competition for high-speed (greater than 10mbps, unlimited) Internet? Is that the point you're trying to make? That is the point I'm calling bullshit on.
If your point is something else, maybe we agree.

The end of labor is to gain leisure.