>> ^SpaceDude:

Yeah that's true, maybe he deserved it then . I also get annoyed at people driving too close behind me. But sometimes you can't avoid it on crowded motorways. Leave too much space and some jackass will just come and fill it.
>> ^guymontage:
This driver was WAY too close to the vehicle in front of him, especially for highway speeds.




If a car gets in front of you, say once every minute as you maintain your gap. The average car is about 16 feet. Assuming they are tailgating at 10 feet behind the first person,
That's (26 feet/minute)*(1 mile/5280 feet)*(60 minutes/1 hour) = .295 miles/hour you go slower to maintain your gap. You have more time to react, and relieve a lot of congestion caused by how people react while tailgating.

>> ^deathcow:

Reality... most bandwidth is consumed by very few people, and they're fucking it up for the rest of you.

No they're not. Bell/Rogers/CRTC would like everyone to think so, but they're not. Quit drinking the Koolaid.

I've never experienced speed problems when downloading a file, so I don't buy that a select few are causing congestion issues. It costs the carriers a few cents per GB, but they want to charge up to $4/GB for overages. You can say, "Well take your business elsewhere then," but that's just it - there's nowhere else to take it to! If there were, Bell/Rogers would be fucked.

Canadian taxpayers pay/have paid for a large part of our telecom infrastructure, but Bell/Rogers get to make the rules and set the prices. It's a corrupt system.

Well my question to this is, is the bandwidth actually as advertised at all hours of the day and do they guarantee it will be available at that rate at all times in the future under the terms of the agreement?

For instance, Time Warner in my area was consistently fast at all hours of the day when I first got it....much better than the DSL I had prior. And it slowly got a little slower...a few more outages a year...more "massive outages"... plus other problems unrelated to speed like them cutting off my net connection because they can't read a street address properly so they killed my net access when they installed my neighbors "business class"...that took me 2 days of calling to straighten out and total of 5 days to fix.

So the conclusion I can draw there is, his business class plus the other subscribers signing up in my loop drastically affected my bandwidth. Yet they claim higher bandwidth offerings with "Roadrunner Boost"...and I've got that...it's almost as fast as my connection was back when I first got it maybe a little better late at night.

So their claim of higher speeds is technically true, only because they've gotten slower. And the minimum speed they offer is pretty appalling although I don't remember it off the top of my head...I think it was like 125 or 250 kbps down.

Killing off non-digital television was supposed to give more bandwidth on the line for better internet speeds and better digital programming, except you have to pay for both...and the internet speeds aren't guaranteed until you step into business class. And for them to guarantee those speeds on a loop they would have to throttle residential users on the same loop.


I am not aware of DSL being improved upon. I know they offer the Fios and what not offerings through some of the phone companies, but they are not offering in this area. And you have to research them to see if they have hidden download caps or other nasty little things in the works to stick on their network to create artificial speed bumps to their own offerings.

Beyond that you'll have to direct to me to the information you speak of.

As for cell phones, I don't use data plans on them, but my parents have a property that has cell towers located on them...and I've been able to catch a couple of the guys and ask them some questions. Even without asking them...there's a screwed up little story related to these towers.

About 10 years back they got hot and heavy about putting in towers, for 3-5 years they were renting lots of land off people and installing these towers. My dad did some work for them paving the roadways, got to know one of the head guys in charge of the project. And while my information is not going to be perfect I know a few things affected their installation and their coverage.

Many of the cities and burbs wouldn't allow them to install towers that would be consider eyesores, in some cases they decorated the towers or put something on them to mask them being a tower...maybe the city name or some kind of design. Many of the "perfect" spots for towers people would not rent the land, so they had to pick imperfect places as close as they could get. So this led to problems with the coverage areas and causes some towers to bear more burden than they should, which Im taking a stab here and saying this really affects big cities network speeds. Within the last 3 years they upgraded the tower on my parents property by installing fiber landlines to the towers, presumably to speed up their network and alleviate some of the congestion.....however....the tower on the property has 2 "boxes" (equipment rooms with racks of network gear and the like) it feeds signals into...and I believe each ring or triangle of receivers transmitters is another cell phone companies signal range...so it services at least 3 networks. Meaning all 3 of those networks shares that one fiber line they installed to the tower unless they have multiple lines in the cable to be split, not very familiar with fiber cable.

Now the weird thing here is...Verizon did the majority of the tower installs I'm familiar with..as soon as they finished all of the towers were taken over by a company called "American Tower". They service the towers, you call them when you see a problem... I called them once about their air conditioner unit running all the time (it has 2 and one was running morning noon and night every time I got close enough to hear it). Two or three months later I thought I'd check to see if they fixed it, I could hear it running as I approached it...and when I got to where I could see it..it was frozen solid. This was in the Fall a year or two back, like 50 degrees or so outside with Winter coming. So they obviously don't pay very close attention to their equipment. AC failing in the summer means their shit cooks, and engineer said stuff in there is easily 100 grand worth of equipment.

So what I gather is, Verizon sold the towers, and rents from them....and now the other carriers rent from them. American Tower is in charge of maintaining the property and the building, but probably not the equipment since I see the various company engineers show up from time to time. They also provide power generators, there's a diesel powered unit that sits near these buildings and turns on from time to time.

I was also told the height of a tower limits it's usefulness. The tall towers can host more companies various signals versus the short towers. So For some reason they put in a bunch of short towers but they have limited utility and are just as ugly as the tall ones...so I dunno why in the hell they did that.


But for them to offer less congestion and higher speeds in high population areas they need more towers so they can break the area up in smaller coverage areas to limit the number of devices hitting any one tower. I have not see them put in a new tower since American Tower took over. I have seen them remove tower locations, probably due to cost of operation/replacement being high due to people hitting them with vehicles or breaking in.

In my opinion, cell phone pricing is a little better than it was but I am not happy with how Verizon handles their plans. For instance, if you want just a voice plan..no data no text. Your phone selection is terrible, I mean basic basic phones...most generally being flip phones with poor external screens and OK internal screens. If you want a better phone, you have to buy a text or data plan. Because if you buy specific types of phones, Verizon assumes you will be using that phone for what they specify that phone is. Take the EnV line of phones, I hate texting, but I like having the keyboard for typing in contacts and just general moderate to heavy usage it's easier to use than a flip phone keying in alternative. If I wanted that phone, I need a texting plan. If you get into smart phones you need a data plan...you can't activate one on your account without the plan. I don't know if the phones need the data plan to even function or not, but texting phones don't need texting plans to function...that's Verizon's plan offerings to maximize their earnings.

And texting in general is cheaper to the phone company than any voice call will ever be. Except texting is almost universally in ADDITION to voice packages....yet texting costs them very little in transfer costs compared to transmitting voice.

I hope some company out there is actually trying to implement new technologies and improve transfer speeds and push down prices. But if they are, they are taking their sweet time doing so...because if it was a big push...the other companies would have to react to that. Right now the only thing I see them all doing is trying to push through contract changes, shutting down government implement ISPs, and influencing laws that help keep us in the stone age.


>> ^deathcow:

> Everything except their networks seems to increase in size and capability, which is an odd thing.
All the ISP's I'm aware of have RADICALLY increased bandwidth and package offerings. It's called survival.

Bone nobody complains about the fact the movies cost money (they do, Netflix charges you/month).

This is a small overlap of American lawmakers not going after Net Neutrality. While Netflix creates a lot of usage there are prices for everything on the net. WoW (or any MMO and ultimately every game) costs money, Videosift costs money, Amazon, Comcast, "x", "z", etc... We're already paying through the nose.

Your Grandma might disagree with the "fabricated" .63 cents if she knew how little ISPs pay in regards to bandwidth. It's a joke. What ISP doesn't already have a hard cap? Comcast (and before that, XMission) has always had a fairly high cap. Congestion on the large scale are from inept engineers and planners. If your area block should only have 35 users at 240 GB/month and it gets congested because they let 40 people into the block, that isn't "our" problem. It's poor management with bad design and engineering; no one wants to build infrastructure.

If it was solely P2P stuff I might agree, but your talking about paid, "doubly so", Internet usage fees. Guess where all the "extra" (money for Blizzard, Microsoft - for Gold & Zune, Netflix, and many, many, more) money goes. To the ISPs. Bandwidth IS dirt cheap for them and will continue to be the same as long as the tech goes up at "x^2".

The fault is entirely at the ISPs feet. If they don't innovate they find themselves not offering "the best product". Legislating away your problems is like the U.S. Congress and Senate.

Anyway... I said my two cents before, but these kind of moves are horrifically laughable when you know how fast you'd go "uncapped" and the bandwidth available (in our area, Salt Lake City, heavy fiber optic lines; which again I payed for as a taxpayer).

[redacted]

>> ^Stu:

Lights aren't on a timer. They are on sensors that allow traffic that is there to go. Where do you people live with these timer lights. They might still use them in east bumblefuck but in regular cities it's fine. Also, if you put a roundabout in a major city, the amount of traffic and accidents wouldn't go down and the average blood pressure from assholes ignoring the roundabouts would skyrocket. Then again I live where there is alot of traffic.
Quoting things from Wisc does not help the cause of roundabouts. Pick information from somewhere with more people and I might consider it to have merit. It's like me giving out information on the low amount of tornados in my area (we don't have them) and using the information to make a warning system in Kansas. >> ^dannym3141:
Agree with the above - roundabouts are FAR FAR FAR better than traffic lights. Roundabouts are meant to be a way of decereasing congestion. Lights go green on a timer or whatever, but if there's no cars at a particular stop, people are waiting for nothing. And between changes there's significant time where no traffic is crossing. At a roundabout, everyone gets a turn - if traffic is low on one lane then no one waits, and there can more or less be a constant stream of moving cars.
This roundabout's problems are a combination of it not being prominent enough and people not taking it seriously.
There's a roundabout near me ..............with traffic lights on it. Now that's some stupid shit that needs to go. You join the roundabout then sit at lights ON THE ROUNDABOUT. Combine the two and make something with all the disadvantages of both and none of the advantages of either!



I don't know what wisc is in order to quote it, but the majority of traffic lights around my area are on timers. There are, of course, traffic lights that have sensors to help ease the load on a particular set of lights, but unfortunately that still doesn't overcome the fact that there's large periods where there's no one using the central bit as the lights are changing. I appreciate the irony that you accused me of stating facts that have no evidence (which i didn't), when you then go on to say that adding a roundabout would make things worse! I live in an area where there is a hell of a lot of traffic, and the roundabouts are the easier thing to get out of

I also do not tailor my posts in order to ensure that you specifically give them merit. I didn't quote any facts, i didn't quote anyone or any thing, and i can't understand why you think i'd be giving any kind of parallel to a tornado warning system!

Did you quote the right person? The content and tone of your reply are really strange in reply to what i posted!

Lights aren't on a timer. They are on sensors that allow traffic that is there to go. Where do you people live with these timer lights. They might still use them in east bumblefuck but in regular cities it's fine. Also, if you put a roundabout in a major city, the amount of traffic and accidents wouldn't go down and the average blood pressure from assholes ignoring the roundabouts would skyrocket. Then again I live where there is alot of traffic.

Quoting things from Wisc does not help the cause of roundabouts. Pick information from somewhere with more people and I might consider it to have merit. It's like me giving out information on the low amount of tornados in my area (we don't have them) and using the information to make a warning system in Kansas. >> ^dannym3141:

Agree with the above - roundabouts are FAR FAR FAR better than traffic lights. Roundabouts are meant to be a way of decereasing congestion. Lights go green on a timer or whatever, but if there's no cars at a particular stop, people are waiting for nothing. And between changes there's significant time where no traffic is crossing. At a roundabout, everyone gets a turn - if traffic is low on one lane then no one waits, and there can more or less be a constant stream of moving cars.
This roundabout's problems are a combination of it not being prominent enough and people not taking it seriously.
There's a roundabout near me ..............with traffic lights on it. Now that's some stupid shit that needs to go. You join the roundabout then sit at lights ON THE ROUNDABOUT. Combine the two and make something with all the disadvantages of both and none of the advantages of either!

Agree with the above - roundabouts are FAR FAR FAR better than traffic lights. Roundabouts are meant to be a way of decereasing congestion. Lights go green on a timer or whatever, but if there's no cars at a particular stop, people are waiting for nothing. And between changes there's significant time where no traffic is crossing. At a roundabout, everyone gets a turn - if traffic is low on one lane then no one waits, and there can more or less be a constant stream of moving cars.

This roundabout's problems are a combination of it not being prominent enough and people not taking it seriously.

There's a roundabout near me ..............with traffic lights on it. Now that's some stupid shit that needs to go. You join the roundabout then sit at lights ON THE ROUNDABOUT. Combine the two and make something with all the disadvantages of both and none of the advantages of either!

jUST BECAUSE i think you are neat, here you go. Gewd morning !, well that wont be happening here for another four hours, But I am tired, and quiet honestly that little video made me smile, I work nights and its winter and ALWAYS shitty. Edmonton sucks balls when it comes to winter happyness in this congested glib shit encrusted city. But I have a job. and not livin in my car like I was six months ago, fuck me I came a long way.

How are the 'fatcats' intending to implement their supposed schemes for superhighways for the rich?

If this is just allowing QOS over the network, and actually using it on congested links....then whats wrong with that?

@blankfist well, would you support raising the gasoline tax to cover any of those things, then?

The "make it cheaper to operate a car in a highly-congested area" was about the $400 registration fee. It's that high, because there are more people who want to drive in LA than the roads can handle. Market forces indicate that when demand exceeds supply, price should increase, but since people are usually opposed to congestion charges, it shows up as a high registration fee in metro areas. It's $40 for me in Franklin county, but compared to LA we're practically rural.

The DMV here is, for no good reason, the BMV. BMV's across the city vary -- the one closest to OSU campus is pretty god awful, but the one where I live these days is quick, efficient, and friendly. Mostly though, I don't even go in there because I can order new tags online (https://www.oplates.com/) or by mail, and I usually do that.

As for court costs, I'm not so sure raising those to meet the demand so no one waits is a good idea. It creates a civil liberties issue in line with poll taxes. You're ultimately discouraging poor people from being able to get their day in court.

@NetRunner. Gasoline tax was designed to pay for the roads, so that pretty much negates everything you said. Even if we believe fines are necessary to keep drivers from parking inappropriately, do they have to be so steep? And shouldn't the registration costs really only cover the cost of processing and the sticker?

Courts should be paid for by court costs. Seems fair. It's not like the local government of Los Angeles isn't raking in billions from the tax payers.

Also, apparently the DMV was privatized in either SC or NC, and I hear the wait times are minutes. How's the DMV in Ohio? It sucks ass out here.

Not sure what you mean by "make it cheaper to operate a car in a highly-congested area".

@blankfist, so what are you asking your local government to do about it? Are you wanting them to raise local income or sales tax, and use the money to lower the fines on traffic violations?

Do you want them to raise your taxes so they can sweep the streets more often?

Do you want them to raise your taxes so they can hire more court tellers?

Do you think that they should raise your taxes, so they can make it cheaper to operate a car in a highly-congested area?

Do you want them to lease the roads to a private company?

They're doing that last here in Ohio. Granted, we're talking about a turnpike, not city streets, so I actually expect it to work out fine.

It's certainly congested, I'd love to go there.

I didn't realize I was obligated to respond to you but, since I apparently am, here it is: I think net neutrality is a lose/lose situation.

First off, there's no 'neutral' option in this argument. The options are either to allow corrupt megacorporations to determine which traffic is prioritized or to allow a corrupt government agency to determine which traffic is prioritized.

Either way, us regular people are out in the cold. Basically, I mostly agree with you.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You never addressed any of my problems and instead fed the troll and then complain about him being a poor debater when not taking place in the actual debate? Do you also not have anything to say about net neutrality and just want to engage in an asinine debate over corrupt politics?
I laid out a very sound argument that the government has been involved with the regulation of the radio, and TV waves since 1934 and has helped aid in the corporate take over all during that time. The rule sets and regulations they put in place favor people who have large sums of capital and extra man power. The assume they would do anything different with the internet would be counter to 60 years of history. What started as an effort to "clean up the air waves" of both congestion and indecency has ended up with the larges concentrations of media power in free society. TV tells the same, and even worse story. AM radio stations are about the only public domain for broadcast, but is volumes times higher than your public access TV station. The corporate take over of the media was facilitated by gaming the regulation system in favor of large corporate pools of influence over time. The web resembles the early radio days in many ways. There is one key difference, the ones who own a lot of the pipes now are legal monopolies. Erase that status, and you will get what you almost had 60 years ago with radio, truly free communication. Undo the damage that has been done to the cause of net neutrality be undermining the monopoly power base of those companies that are growing out of size and scope with the level of their consumer fulfillment.
Trying to legislate net neutrality will ultimately undermine it. That is, unless you are going to fund lobbies on the level that some of the richest companies in all of humanity are going to. If not, then it is a bad idea.
( I have to learn to stop speaking in the second person, it sounds so accusatory)