& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
<<   <   Page 3 / 4   >   >>
chip_mate
chip_mate
12/5/2012 | 4:05:10 AM
re: Google, EarthLink Team for SF WiFi
Brookseven,
You seem intelligent. I know you are. Your statement:
"So, are you saying that I am being deliberately defrauded?"

is sort of silly. If you DARE to maintain your maximum bitrate that is in your contract, you will be shut down immediately.

What the providers of high speed internet connections understand you want to do is BURST ocassionaly to your 1.5megs/sec limit.

If you dared to sustain 1.5 megs/second you will be shut down.
Come on, you know how the game is played. Don't ask silly questions.

Hey LR, why don't you buy 6 high speed connections, all from the same provider and run high speed ping tests for as long as you're allowed to. Do it anonymously, elst you lose all future ad revenue from these guys.

Let us know how many hours before you get your service shut down.
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 4:05:10 AM
re: Google, EarthLink Team for SF WiFi

Stephen,

So, are you saying that I am being deliberately defrauded?

If the sales information does not match the reality of the service....get the point.

It doesn't matter if this is a bad deal for the carrier, they should offer a deal that is good for them. Today, that is not the offer I have.

If offer the maximum port rate = if I transmit as many bit per second as my connection will allow. I did not say that I successfully transmit all that data. But I should be able to download continuously at the maximum rate and upload at the maximum rate at a physical port level. Once congestion occurs, then I should receive the equivalent number of bits per second as anyone else with the same kind of connection.

Are you saying I should be penalized for using the connection that I am paying for?

seven
chip_mate
chip_mate
12/5/2012 | 4:05:10 AM
re: Google, EarthLink Team for SF WiFi
tera writes:
I checked the Corpus Christi website and the coverage doesn't look so good. Plus there is this statement:
"Though free access is currently provided, the City plans to charge an affordable rate to cover ongoing implementation and support costs."
It doesn't really compare to what's being planned in SF and Philadelphia.

I have YET to find a spot in CC that doesn't have WiFi access. They are still building out the system so I bet you can find a rat hole that isn't covered.
Once WiMax comes, all spots are covered. Months now, just wait, my friend.
Yes, they may charge in the future, what Government doesn't reserve the right to eventually charge for Water, or Sewer, or Trash Pick up, but for now it's free.

Bottom line:
The price will be well below GOOG or RBOC's, and if they sell out to GOOG or RBOC's then watch the price plummet.
Here's a thought: what happens when WiMax prices plunge (by 2009) where I can put up a free WiMax antenna on my roof?

Lot's to think about. The Google model in SF can NOT be a long term model for success.
WiMax will crush it. Along with Muni's and Citizens taste of FREE WiFi.

It's a public pipe. It's going to be a part of Government services like Trash, Sewer in a couple of years. Yes, GOOG might provide the pipe, but I wouldn't buy stock in GOOG with all of this knowledge.
chip_mate
chip_mate
12/5/2012 | 4:05:10 AM
re: Google, EarthLink Team for SF WiFi
http://www.cctexas.com/wifi

StephenCooke,
I'm not following your arugument.

If Corpus Christi is offering free WiFi to everyone who is within the City limits, your statement:

" What you pay for is not actually bandwidth. Read your contract with your supplier. "unlimited" is defined by various ISPs differently but tend to say that you are allowed xGBs"


As Corpus Christi and many, many other Tier 2 cities launch Free WiFi as a benefit to living there, I'm still confused by your statement.
(the Supremes will knock down rboc initiated laws that prohibit free-muni wifi eventually, you know that's true, so let's table that arguement)

Are you suggesting that Free Muni WiFi is too slow, or that the price of electricity is too high, or that more outlets should be added to City Park benches so you can spend more time on the corner of 5th and Park while you work/surf/download?

Restate your question, because when we all have Free WiFi in the Muni, I'm confused as to what you are complaining about.

http://www.cctexas.com/wifi

stephencooke
stephencooke
12/5/2012 | 4:05:08 AM
re: Google, EarthLink Team for SF WiFi
Seven,

I'm not sure how a false advertising suit would go against a carrier. I am reasonably sure that the carrier lawyers, who put together the standard subscriber agreements, have a grasp on the technical implications as well as the potential for those suits and do what they can to minimize the exposure.

They often obscure the issue by saying things like "you can achieve communications rates up to xMB/s". In my experience they often have a paragraph somewhere near the front of the agreement that defines the "service" and what it may or may not provide, guarantees (usually none for a DSL service), etc. From that point onwards in the document they can just say "the service" which applies back to that previous definition. As long as they can show that, if you are the only person in your neighbourhood who has not been affected by a power outage, you can theoretically reach those data rates, they are generally covered (legally). Of course the purpose of marketing is not to emphasize the legal stuff but to attract more customers to the "service" in as simple a manner as possible.

When I hear the words "up to" such and such I have become very cynical of ever reaching such & such. From your comments it sounds like you have perhaps been burned by this somehow...?

Steve.
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 4:05:08 AM
re: Google, EarthLink Team for SF WiFi

stephen,

No, I have not been burned. I am happy with my cable modem.

Your commentary is that it is perfectly acceptable for the restriction of offered load towards the Internet. I am not expecting an connection that offers me the 100% throughput under all conditions but I do believe the following is true:

- I should be able to use my connection 24/7. The entire idea of "always on" is always on.
- My data packets should not be penalized by my use during off peak times.
- My data packets should not be penalized by destination.
- My data packets should not be penalized by application.
- I should receive similar performance to all of those that I share the network with, who have the same service.

I don't expect 100% throughput. I do not expect my packets to be treated better than any other packet.

I agree with chip that a test of several Internet connections is an interesting test for Light Reading to do. This could give us some idea of the relative merit of the offering. I would also like the FCC or PUCs to ask companies to specify their oversubscription ratios. This is a reasonable way to get an idea of average throughput.

seven
stephencooke
stephencooke
12/5/2012 | 4:05:06 AM
re: Google, EarthLink Team for SF WiFi
Seven,

I am not saying that you should not get what you pay for, on the contrary, I feel that if you are not getting what you pay for you should take whatever action makes the most sense, legally. I am only stressing that we all need to understand exactly what it is that we have paid for with our network access. In this respect it is also good to be able to guage your usage so that you aren't leaving too much cash on the table every month.

With regards to chip's test suggestion, it is always a good thing to have independent third party confirmation/contradiction of the marketing hype. If the result is confirmation then the marketing is real, if it is contradiction, it is hype and should be exposed.

I have been involved in many network test scenarios. To be fair and relevant to your situation the testing has to be done in a way that closely mirrors your situation. In network testing there are very few apples-to-apples comparisons that make sense to the residential user. The traffic types/rates/times of day/etc., vary all over the map. You can come up with what you feel is an average but the standard dev. will be huge.

The best way that I have found to analyze network throughput is to look at how the individual elements are provisioned (policing policies, queue sizes, max throughput under lab conditions, etc.) and see if it makes sense with the specific traffic profile of interest. Basically model it, extrapolate it across best and worst case scanarios and see if the theoretical model meets the reality. If not figure out what is wrong and understand where you intuitively feel the answer should be.

Steve.
telco1158
telco1158
12/5/2012 | 4:05:05 AM
re: Google, EarthLink Team for SF WiFi
As far as business access, back in the mid 90s when a DS3 pipe to the Internet was a big deal, one of our tier 1 providers claimed to offer a full pipe of throughput all the time. In fact, the words "burst" ever appeared in the contract. I never recall a problem with sustained access up to the full port speed, which was about two hops away from their edge router. Pricing was rather simple in those days. The contract itself was about five pages total. We got what was marketed to us, and generally we paid what we expected.

Not so today. The marketing of Internet access, the contracted rate(s)/service level agreements, the sustained/bursted throughput, and the actual invoice all share a precarious relationship. My finance and contracting people get a tizzy any time I asked them for details. This was not always the case. But then again, access to a tier 1 was a ton more expensive in those days. I guess we got what we paid through the nose for.
OldPOTS
OldPOTS
12/5/2012 | 4:05:01 AM
re: Google, EarthLink Team for SF WiFi
Which one of those wireless companies do you give access to the city's lightpoles and power too?

OP

BTW I have a router/radio on almost every other pole in my neighborhood just to get some coverage. Coverage is still poor in some neighborhood places. They may have to erect more poles. But this is a city project.
laserbrain2
laserbrain2
12/5/2012 | 4:05:01 AM
re: Google, EarthLink Team for SF WiFi
oh I forgot. This is san francisco. People would complain that the homeless are being descriminated against.
<<   <   Page 3 / 4   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
October 22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events