Check out Shift, the best new browser for managing all your apps.
Click HERE to Download Shift for Free
One window for everything you do on the internet. The first browser to integrate your web apps into one seamless experience.
An anonymous reader cites an amusing article on Stuff:
When Telstra offered its mobile customers unlimited data for two separate days this year as compensation for network outages, some customers took it as a challenge to download as much as they possibly could in one day. On Sunday, 27-year-old Sydney resident John Szaszvari outdid himself and everyone else by ploughing through
almost a whole terabyte of data
. That's more than double what he managed during the first free data day in February --
an already mammoth 425GB
.
>> To stop morons from you from using wireless
> Why is it always just when you insult someone that your proof-reading skills disappear into the abyss... Now you just look plain silly, AC.
;)
Yeah, but that's not the core point here. He can insult others if that makes him feel some kind of weird satisfaction.
The one thing he can't do is say BS -- and that's pretty much what he has managed to accomplish. Because he has been brainwashed into believing bandwidth is some scarce thing, I had to endure a d
If you don't know what you're talking about, you might as well just stop talking.
The air only has so much bandwidth, the tower is only fed with so much bandwidth.
Yes, mobile providers oversubscribe. There's no getting around the fact that it makes sense to do.
If you want every customer of a mobile provider to have their own time division slot in the air in the available frequency bands, then each sector (oversimplified to hell) can support somewhere around 250 concurrent customers. (I forget the exact numbe
1Gb uplink is only because they don't want to spend the extra $5k for a 10Gb or 40Gb uplink. On a $22mil install, that's free. When it comes to lots of clients, TDMA is sub-par to CDMA. In theory, a CDMA tower can support millions of connected devices, you just need enough processing power from the ASICs. CDMA scales nearly linearly with processing power, the number of towers, and the number of channels, while having virtually no issue with all towers using the same channels.
Technology keeps making equipm
Why is it always
just
when you insult someone that your proof-reading skills disappear into the abyss... Now you just look plain silly, AC.
;)
Not sure if
/. does it or not but on Reddit when someone posts something the admins dislike they can use a "wand" to screw up the grammar in order to make people perceive them as idiots.
Reddit is the "modern" slashdot, the 2010s decade equivalent, less marred in ancient 90s themed software. A feature that "advanced" won't exist here because it would be too difficult for the imbeciles responsible for such things here to code.
Anyway, it isn't even necessary. People with such stupid things to say tend to fuck up the grammar all on their own.
Wireless networks are no where near short of bandwidth. There was an article posted on Slashdot a few months back stating as much, at least in the US. Three in Ireland/UK offers unlimited (they throttle after 5GB) and back when I lived in the US I was on Sprint's unlimited plan. It's more than possible.
For me, unlimited internet access mean 'all I can download' Full stop.
If it's throttled at 64 kbps, or even 128 kbps, you can't download everything you want. Most web sites will time out before they're done loading, and video streaming becomes impossible.
For you it seems unlimited means 'all I can download at maximum speed
Not maximum, but a useful speed.
Not true. I have unlimited 128kbps and I can do 'most anything online I need to, save Netflix. 'Course, I have a wired internet connection at the house (and work, etc), so this is just for when I am out and about, but webpages load fine & I can even listen to Pandora (though admittedly, there is some buffering time between tracks - but not much).
If it's throttled at 64 kbps, or even 128 kbps, you can't download everything you want. Most web sites will time out before they're done loading, and video streaming becomes impossible.
Strange, but I used to use video conferencing on dial-up at 30 kbps up / 56 kbps down kbps. Now, I'm not going to claim that it was 4k ultra-def 3dTV standard (or whatever this weeks buzz word is). But it was adequate for conversation with colleagues, and hooking the webcam up to the microscope to show them what I was talking
There is plenty of bandwidth to go around.
That depends entirely where you are, and how many people are sharing the same cell tower/sector with you.
We have no room for your "physics" nonsense around here, buddy. Go back to YouTube with all those ridiculous evolution and other psuedoscience videos. People come to Slashdot to discuss real science. Come back when you've finally learned the earth is flat.
Parent
twitter
facebook
There is plenty of bandwidth to go around.
That depends entirely where you are, and how many people are sharing the same cell tower/sector with you.
And if his tower/cell had been crowded then he wouldn't have gotten the throughput that he did.
1 TiB during 24h is on average ~102Mbps (+ protocol overheads)
And that on a day when other people were doing the same thing as he: binging on downloads. Had there been true infrastructural limitations on what he COULD download, his speeds would have slowed to a crawl.
Or maybe he's just lucky to be the only one close to the tower in a certain sector that's interested in binging on downloads that day.
I'm not sure why this was modded down. Remeber when AT&T made a recent stink about how their mean old unlimited customers were destroying their network because they were using Netflix and the like? Last night I saw an AT&T ad advertising their 'unlimited if you are also a satellite customer' data service to.... stream video just like Netflix.
I think we all get that there are physical limitations to using the wireless spectrum, but the AC is correct that those limitations have nothing to do with
Actually it shows that the bandwidth that we all paid for is sitting mostly idle, in order to use the artificial scarcity for market segmentation. Remember, bandwidth cannot be saved or stored. None of that 1.4TB of data which that man transferred on those two days was borrowed from some other day or slowed anything down before or after those two days. That bandwidth was available right then and there, and had he not used it, it would have gone to waste.
They're referencing something known as "fiduciary duty" which, as near as I can tell, nobody actually understands that comments about it. They're convinced that it means a company must make as much profit as possible and at any cost. I am not quite sure where this notion comes from but, I can assure you, no such regulations exist. Yes, there's a fiduciary duty. No, it's not even remotely like what people claim.
A heavy user may raise costs because of increased bandwidth usage, but the only thing more expensive than that is to not have the heavy user. The lost income paying for the expensive infrastructure is more detrimental than the heavy user using an "unfair" share of the bandwidth. For any large ISP with proper peering contracts, bandwidth is the cheapest part of being an ISP. Customer service is the single most expensive cost, but I don't heavy people complaining about heavy complaint customers. It's cheaper
by
Pollux
( 102520 )
writes:
