Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Makes more sense (Score 1) 218

Again, when things are congested nobody can rightly complain if speeds get throttled *during the congestion*. See dropped calls around a concert venue. It has nothing to do with their wider network ability but localized tower supplies.

But that's not what Verizon (and the rest do). They CUT you off entirely if you use more than 4GB....completely independent of any congestion

Now, Verizon will, for a additional fee, not cut you off entirely but throttle your entire connection to 256kbps for the remaineder of your billing period...again completely independent of any congestion.

It's almost as if congestion isn't actually a problem since it isn't what they use to set their pricing.

Your points are logically sound...they just aren't supported by the realities of the wireless networks current status.

Verizon has flatly stated "We don't compete on price". In what fucking mass market does a company say this and survive? It's a oligarchy among a few companies controlling duplicate massively inefficient networks that know they don't have competition to force them to be competitive.

Comment Re: Makes more sense (Score 1) 218

The cost of the data to Verizon is zero. They didn't spend a dime to put YouTubes videos online for me to stream over Verizon s network. Congestion on the network is a real issue but unrelated to a per GB charge. nothing stops them from simply slowing speeds on a congested tower. Which solves that problem, but doesn't make them money. There is so far no evidence of the significant limits claimed by Verizon. Not the theoretical, but actual on the network.

Comment Re: Makes more sense (Score 1) 218

Physical good analogies don't work here. Your gasoline or burger costs money to be created. Verizon isn't creative the data on the network so there is zero cost to Verizon for the data transiting their network. The cost of data transit is not a per data amount so charging that way is pure profit for Verizon

Comment Re:Give me local news and I'll cancel (Score 1) 92

the flaw in your argument is copyright. you can't just start up a service delivering content without paying for it.

Netflix bread and butter was DVDs...because they didn't have to pay for them each rental. Just buy a DVD and rent it 100-1000 times at pure profit.

Now, they are charged ridiculous streaming rates, per view. It's why Netflix keeps dropping movies...unless there's a significant viewership ongoing it's not profitable to keep it in stock. (and this is not a stock rotation costs them basically zero actual dollars to keep movies active on their service...only the copyright fees prevent it).

Comment Re:Give me local news and I'll cancel (Score 1) 92

yeah, I hear these 30% will cancel cable...and I think 100% of those are single.

Even if you could get all the equivalents via took my wife a few years to get the hang of Tivo. Tivo! that bastion of stupid simple TV watching. I haven't yet seen a decent interface that can really qualify as luddite friendly and encompass streaming, internet and likely some OTA.

Comment Re:A real comparison? (Score 1) 286

the AC has a a point anyway.

There are competing interests. Longer lifespan of cars...and selling more cars. Every part manufacturer could build a more robust widget for not that significantly more cost. But if that part never needs replacing, that's at least 1 lost sale for that small increase. And because cheaper makers will undercut you, there isn't the incentive for the added cost for longer reliability; except in really niche markets.

What's happening now is what you say...every car made today is significantly better than 40 years ago. And it's costing sales numbers as cars last 10-15 years vs 6-10. When its 20? LOTS harder to be in the auto business.

Slashdot Top Deals

fortune: cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.