Net Neutrality?

[EarlyMon]

I have to admit I'm nostalgic for those big blocky rotary phones.

https://market.android.com/search?q=rotary+dialer

Just saying - people like mine.

And - my landline is not only a rotary - it's a candlestick.

 

[byteware]

You are wrong. 4G can absolutely handle more data than 3G or 2G. I saw this whole presentation on how Wimax can handle more data than HSPA+ a while back. Wimax could handle more users, at faster speeds, with the same spectrum. You really need to do some research on this because you are wrong.

No, you are misunderstanding what they've said.

It can handle more data per user, but not more data overall.

Again, this is not true. You are speculating about the problems of tomorrow with the technology of today. You don't need more spectrum in order to get more use. Adding spectrum is certainly one way to expand, but it isn't the only way. Going from analog to digital is a prime example of this. So is going from 2G to 4G.

Digital wireless communications were predicted YEARS out. YEARS. When we reach a saturation point... we are going to be saturated. That's accepted FACT.

Again, you're wrong. Bell Labs was a major innovator back in the day. They later changed their name to Lucent, and are currently a major player in wireless equipment (and even have news from this years MWC).

I'm wrong, and your proof is that non-providers are doing the innovation?

The majority of people on this forum were also happy with Sprint's customer service over the last several years, while Sprint was dead last in customer service rankings. That doesn't mean anything. What does Verizon do to keep customers? I can bring up several examples, such as when customers were over charged for data and had to class action sue to get it back. Or when Verizon started putting caps on their supposedly unlimited data plan.

Verizon hasn't put CAPS on their unlimited data plan. They will slow down your connection after a certain limit, but there are no caps.

It doesn't say anything, lol. All the other carriers practice the same business model- lock them into a contract. Compare Verizon's customer service to say, Red Lobster's, or any other "top of the line" place in any industry that doesn't lock their customers into a contract. No comparison.

??? Seriously? That's just ridiculous. Compare your car to an elephant... there's no comparison... because you can't compare two completely different things.

Not an accident, just an example of you comparing Verizon to a bunch of other companies that don't care about customer service either. They all practice the same business model- lock the customers into a contract. Compare any of them to the customer service you get from companies that actually care about customer service- you know, where there is plenty of competition and you are not bound by contract to keep coming back (like a fine restaurant, a chartered or first class flight, a 5 star hotel, limo, etc). For being at the top of their industry, their customer service sure is a long way behind the other leaders of their industries in customer service. Verizon is the most expensive, the 5 star, of carriers. Don't act like they are so great just because they are better than the others (who are also pretty bad).

They all practice the same business model, but one has a vastly higher customer satisfaction. So... what's different?

 

[byteware]

Anyone who believes Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, TMobile or for that matter any other company out there is in it to keep the customers happy is deluding themselves. There is one basic drive behind all companies, greed, and the ability to control the pipeline and what goes over it is a major cash cow for them.

I'm gonna stop you right there. All companies want money. Every company realizes that you have to make people happy in order to get that money.

Every company's primary focus is money, but that doesn't mean that they don't focus hard on customer service. Not at all. To indicate otherwise is just ridiculous.

The most profitable service companies in the world are the ones with extremely high end customer service.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

I'm gonna stop you right there. All companies want money. Every company realizes that you have to make people happy in order to get that money.

Every company's primary focus is money, but that doesn't mean that they don't focus hard on customer service. Not at all. To indicate otherwise is just ridiculous.

The most profitable service companies in the world are the ones with extremely high end customer service.

Companies pay "lip-service" to c.s. issues, they provide it only because they have to.

Are there companies that truly believe in the "customer service is priority one" business model? Yes, but they are few and very far between.

All you have to do is look around or should I say listen around for the Indian accent saying "Good day to you, this is insert generic American name here, how may I be assisting you?". How many companies have sent c.s. overseas? Is this the act of a company that "truly cares" about customer service? Not in the least. And it is happening more and more every day.

Companies try very hard to figure out how to reduce c.s. costs, and it quite often comes at the cost of the customers, while the real solution would be to create a product that had little need for c.s., but that also would cut into profits, so I would not count on that.

I can give you a prime example, DOG Pumps (the name has been slightly altered) manufactures some of the heads we use on our misting pumps. This is a company that supposedly has a high customer service satisfaction index and claims to stand by it. They even offer a 5 year warranty.

The truth? We have had almost no pumps warrantied by them, and we have sold a lot over the 18 years we have been in business. The common response is "It has been run without water" which voids the warranty, well guess what, our pumps include a low pressure cut off switch, you CAN'T run it without water. On one RA we had four pumps, one of which was a faulty crankshaft seal that leaked out all of the oil within a few days of install. Yep, you guessed it, "ran without water", how that affects the crank seal that is at the other end of the pump from the wet parts is beyond me, but it shows they really don't give a shit about customer service.

Unfortunately, when they work properly they are one of the best pumps for our application, but luckily that is changing now that more of the manufacturers are taking note of the field.

And I am sorry to say, we see that from a large number of companies we have to deal with.

Don't be deluded that they are in it for the customer, other than a precious few they aren't, it is all about profit, and they will only go as far as it is profitable with customer service.

 

[cjr72]

Two things I would say about customer service:

1. The more competitive the market the better customer service generally will be. Monopolies are notorious for bad customer service.
2. If customers prioritize customer service over say rock bottom prices when forking over cash, the better customer service will be. I'd bet for most things though customer service is an afterthought at the time of purchase so it is an afterthought with many companies.

 

[byteware]

Companies pay "lip-service" to c.s. issues, they provide it only because they have to.

Are there companies that truly believe in the "customer service is priority one" business model? Yes, but they are few and very far between.

All you have to do is look around or should I say listen around for the Indian accent saying "Good day to you, this is insert generic American name here, how may I be assisting you?". How many companies have sent c.s. overseas? Is this the act of a company that "truly cares" about customer service? Not in the least. And it is happening more and more every day.

Companies try very hard to figure out how to reduce c.s. costs, and it quite often comes at the cost of the customers, while the real solution would be to create a product that had little need for c.s., but that also would cut into profits, so I would not count on that.

I can give you a prime example, DOG Pumps (the name has been slightly altered) manufactures some of the heads we use on our misting pumps. This is a company that supposedly has a high customer service satisfaction index and claims to stand by it. They even offer a 5 year warranty.

The truth? We have had almost no pumps warrantied by them, and we have sold a lot over the 18 years we have been in business. The common response is "It has been run without water" which voids the warranty, well guess what, our pumps include a low pressure cut off switch, you CAN'T run it without water. On one RA we had four pumps, one of which was a faulty crankshaft seal that leaked out all of the oil within a few days of install. Yep, you guessed it, "ran without water", how that affects the crank seal that is at the other end of the pump from the wet parts is beyond me, but it shows they really don't give a shit about customer service.

Unfortunately, when they work properly they are one of the best pumps for our application, but luckily that is changing now that more of the manufacturers are taking note of the field.

And I am sorry to say, we see that from a large number of companies we have to deal with.

Don't be deluded that they are in it for the customer, other than a precious few they aren't, it is all about profit, and they will only go as far as it is profitable with customer service.

Generalizations are great, except when dealing with a specific situation. Yes, most of what you have posted is absolutely true, with the exception that outsourcing overseas is not synonymous with bad customer service.

However, we are talking specifically about Verizon, and their amazing (relatively) customer satisfaction ratings.

If you know of any practices within Verizon that are aimed at reducing customer service, then let us know. Otherwise, generalizations don't further the conversation any one bit, but to imply that because Verizon is a company it therefore has bad customer service.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Generalizations are great, except when dealing with a specific situation. Yes, most of what you have posted is absolutely true, with the exception that outsourcing overseas is not synonymous with bad customer service.

However, we are talking specifically about Verizon, and their amazing (relatively) customer satisfaction ratings.

If you know of any practices within Verizon that are aimed at reducing customer service, then let us know. Otherwise, generalizations don't further the conversation any one bit, but to imply that because Verizon is a company it therefore has bad customer service.

Actually, we are talking about Net Neutrality and Verizons part in this whole mess. Specifically I am addressing the fact that what Verizon did was for their bottom line and not in a manner which is positive for the customer, which goes to show they are more interested in their bottom line than the customer service rating they so proudly show off.

If you doubt this, explain to me why they argued that Net Neutrality was crucial but turned around and got provisions allowing them to do exactly what they said Net Neutrality was needed to prevent. Is this the action of a company that is all about customer service?

What it all boils down to is a "wolf in sheeps clothing" routine, they spout how they have the highest customer service rating, but they are more than willing to turn around and screw that customer to get more money out of them.

I love a good discussion/debate!

 

[BlackDynamite]

No, you are misunderstanding what they've said.

It can handle more data per user, but not more data overall.

Again, you are wrong. See this:
http://a.blip.tv/scripts/flash/show...//blip.tv/?utm_source=brandlink&enablejs=true
It's pretty long but it will show you that Wimax does indeed handle more users, at faster speeds, than HSPA+. It is not as simple as running out spectrum when a certain amount of data is used. The technology being used also comes into play. And it would be foolish to think that Verizon going to VoLTE is actually going to mean less data usage for customers than they had available back in the 1x days.

Digital wireless communications were predicted YEARS out. YEARS. When we reach a saturation point... we are going to be saturated. That's accepted FACT.

No it isn't, lol. Yes, it's accepted fact that any given technology will max out at some point. But it is certainly not accepted fact that 4G has the same maximum limit as 1x or analog.

I'm wrong, and your proof is that non-providers are doing the innovation?

Are you not paying attention? Lucent is a big time innovator, and used to be part of AT&T. In case you still don't understand- providers were the ones doing the innovating at one time. No, they don't do it anymore- they just ask for legislation to make the current technology last forever instead of innovating new technologies.

Verizon hasn't put CAPS on their unlimited data plan. They will slow down your connection after a certain limit, but there are no caps.

Verizon DID put a cap on their unlimited plan, and they lost a law suit because of it and removed it after that. See this:
Verizon settles “unlimited data” suit | Prepaid Reviews

??? Seriously? That's just ridiculous. Compare your car to an elephant... there's no comparison... because you can't compare two completely different things.

Anyone who knows anything about customer service will tell you that good service is good service. There is no apples to oranges comparison. Good service is good service, regardless of the industry. Back in the day I actually got an IMPACT customer service certification for a job I was working while in college, and they stressed that point to us- good service is good service.

They all practice the same business model, but one has a vastly higher customer satisfaction. So... what's different?

No, one has a SLIGHTLY better customer service rating. That does not mean Verizon is great, by any means. It just means they are slightly better than the other ones- who are terrible.

 

[BlackDynamite]

If you know of any practices within Verizon that are aimed at reducing customer service, then let us know. Otherwise, generalizations don't further the conversation any one bit, but to imply that because Verizon is a company it therefore has bad customer service.

How about getting rid of the early upgrades? Or raising the ETF? Or the whole charging data fees for MMS usage they got sued for? Or the calling their data plans unlimited and then enforcing a hidden limit that they got sued for?

Charging customers for no reason and refusing to credit it back? Guilty:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20021076-266.html

Seriously man, just because Verizon is slightly better than the absolute worst, it doesn't make them great.

 

[byteware]

Actually, we are talking about Net Neutrality and Verizons part in this whole mess. Specifically I am addressing the fact that what Verizon did was for their bottom line and not in a manner which is positive for the customer, which goes to show they are more interested in their bottom line than the customer service rating they so proudly show off.

If you doubt this, explain to me why they argued that Net Neutrality was crucial but turned around and got provisions allowing them to do exactly what they said Net Neutrality was needed to prevent. Is this the action of a company that is all about customer service?

What it all boils down to is a "wolf in sheeps clothing" routine, they spout how they have the highest customer service rating, but they are more than willing to turn around and screw that customer to get more money out of them.

I love a good discussion/debate!

Unfortunately, I have to agree with them when it comes to Wireless, as we have a limited amount of data that can be transmitted over the airwaves.

Until we discover a technology that allows for an unlimited amount of data to be transmitted over the airwaves, then we are stuck with having to throttle something. I would rather throttle videos than emails. That's just me personally.

 

[byteware]

Again, you are wrong. See this:
http://a.blip.tv/scripts/flash/show...//blip.tv/?utm_source=brandlink&enablejs=true
It's pretty long but it will show you that Wimax does indeed handle more users, at faster speeds, than HSPA+.

You are confusing what the technology is capable of handling with what the airwaves are capable of transferring.

I watched a bit of it, granted not all of it. Yes, they are a more efficient technology handling more users faster, but they haven't made the upper limit of the airwaves any higher.

Think of it as a pvc pipe... You can put pressure to the water, but as some point you reach a limit as to how much water can flow through that pipe. Some techs are more efficient at pushing water through that pipe, but there is an upper limit.

You are talking about how there will always be a greater technology to push and receive water... however you are missing that it's the PIPE that causes the upper limit, not the technology to push/receive.

It is not as simple as running out spectrum when a certain amount of data is used. The technology being used also comes into play. And it would be foolish to think that Verizon going to VoLTE is actually going to mean less data usage for customers than they had available back in the 1x days.

At the moment... no, we haven't reached a saturation point. When we do... then yes, that's exactly what it's going to mean.

No it isn't, lol. Yes, it's accepted fact that any given technology will max out at some point. But it is certainly not accepted fact that 4G has the same maximum limit as 1x or analog.

Dude... See the pipe analogy above... the tech can max out as high as it wants, if there isn't enough spectrum to carry all that data, it doesn't relaly matter.

Are you not paying attention? Lucent is a big time innovator, and used to be part of AT&T. In case you still don't understand- providers were the ones doing the innovating at one time. No, they don't do it anymore- they just ask for legislation to make the current technology last forever instead of innovating new technologies.

Providers were at one time, they haven't been in quite some time.

That's been said.

Verizon DID put a cap on their unlimited plan, and they lost a law suit because of it and removed it after that. See this:
Verizon settles

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with them when it comes to Wireless, as we have a limited amount of data that can be transmitted over the airwaves.

Until we discover a technology that allows for an unlimited amount of data to be transmitted over the airwaves, then we are stuck with having to throttle something. I would rather throttle videos than emails. That's just me personally.

I agree with you on that one, but it scares me that they got it approved to be able to charge for access coming and going, to the end user and the website both. And you can say they will never do that till your blue in the face, but if it is out there they are already considering it, if not implementing. See my phone company analogy from earlier.

Repeat the mantra: Suits are not our friends...suits are not our friends...

 

[BlackDynamite]

You are confusing what the technology is capable of handling with what the airwaves are capable of transferring.

I watched a bit of it, granted not all of it. Yes, they are a more efficient technology handling more users faster, but they haven't made the upper limit of the airwaves any higher.

Think of it as a pvc pipe... You can put pressure to the water, but as some point you reach a limit as to how much water can flow through that pipe. Some techs are more efficient at pushing water through that pipe, but there is an upper limit.

You are talking about how there will always be a greater technology to push and receive water... however you are missing that it's the PIPE that causes the upper limit, not the technology to push/receive.

I will say again- you are wrong. Please research this before you comment any further on it. I posted a video that explains it all in great detail. Please watch it. Wimax allows for more users, using more data, than HSPA+. Period. This is not debatable. You keep saying it isn't true but it only shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Please watch that video in its entirety. It totally proves my point. The technology we use does give us access to more data per user, as well as more data per tower.

At the moment... no, we haven't reached a saturation point. When we do... then yes, that's exactly what it's going to mean.

Unless we come up with some new technology to make better use of the spectrum (again) to get more data out of it.

Dude... See the pipe analogy above... the tech can max out as high as it wants, if there isn't enough spectrum to carry all that data, it doesn't relaly matter.

Unless the spectrum carries data differently int he future than the way it carries data today. It's not like that hasn't ever been done before or anything...

Providers were at one time, they haven't been in quite some time.

That's been said.

So what is your point? Yes, providers are the ones who started innovating. They determined it was easier to just force stagnation of the technology instead of innovating, and you took that to mean any further innovation was impossible. I think there is plenty of innovation ahead of us.

Then you'll agree, the fact that Verizon has high customer satisfaction means that they are providing good service.

They don't have "high" customer service. They have "slightly better" than the others. And in some other ratings, Verizon isn't even the highest. So no, I don't think they are great just because they are slightly better than horrible.

lol... of the 5 options, 2 are satisfied and Very satisfied... the "VERY SATISFIED" for Verizon is 47%.

Less than half are very satisfied and you think that's great? lol

Exactly what do you think Verizon HAS done that indicates horrible customer service?

I already listed several things. Killed the early upgrade program, raised their ETF fee, put in a hidden limit on their data plans and refused to tell anyone what it was (and had to lose a lawsuit in order to change that policy), billed everyone expensive pay per use data charges without telling them why (when nobody had used any data) and the FCC had to step in and order Verizon to pay it back and stop the practice, lied about creating an open network that would allow any compatible unlocked phone to be activated, crippled phones just so they could charge extra to get features that should be for free (GPS on several smartphones comes to mind).

They have done plenty of things that a company who really cares about customer service would never do. Just because they weren't as bad as Sprint doesn't mean they were great.

 

[EarlyMon]

And those are net neutrality issues how, exactly?

Or are we back to confusing QOS, bandwidth, and neutrality?

 

[byteware]

I agree with you on that one, but it scares me that they got it approved to be able to charge for access coming and going, to the end user and the website both. And you can say they will never do that till your blue in the face, but if it is out there they are already considering it, if not implementing. See my phone company analogy from earlier.

Repeat the mantra: Suits are not our friends...suits are not our friends...

Mozzie... I like the suit, personally.

That being said, I completely agree with you. They are charging for data both directions, and I personally think that is absolutely wrong, since we are PAYING for access to those sites.

 

[byteware]

I will say again- you are wrong. Please research this before you comment any further on it. I posted a video that explains it all in great detail. Please watch it. Wimax allows for more users, using more data, than HSPA+. Period. This is not debatable. You keep saying it isn't true but it only shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Please watch that video in its entirety. It totally proves my point. The technology we use does give us access to more data per user, as well as more data per tower.

Let me make something clear.

I have experience in this area.

You aren't even arguing the same thing that I'm talking about, and you aren't paying enough attention to my argument to understand you aren't on the same topic.

I am NOT Talking about how much technology is capable of handling.

I AM talking about how much the frequency spectrum is capable of handling.

There are only so much electromagnetic radiation on a particular frequency range that can be tolerated before you start to interfere with your own data traffic.

There is a limit to the baud rate of a signal over the air waves due to signal degradation.

There is, in fact, a limit. That's not debatable, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

You haven't countered a single thing I've said, but to say I'm wrong and need to do research on it.

Unless we come up with some new technology to make better use of the spectrum (again) to get more data out of it.

Again, please try to understand. We are NOT talking about the limits of the current technology. We are talking about the limits of em spectrum that we are utilizing.

Unless you know of another technology besides digital or analog that's being worked on (and for the record, I know of none), then we have limits that cannot be exceeded by simply making better use of the spectrum for digital signals.

Unless the spectrum carries data differently int he future than the way it carries data today. It's not like that hasn't ever been done before or anything...

Yes, we moved from Analog to digital. However, as far as I know there is NO projection for a different communication type, aside from Digital.

So what is your point? Yes, providers are the ones who started innovating. They determined it was easier to just force stagnation of the technology instead of innovating, and you took that to mean any further innovation was impossible. I think there is plenty of innovation ahead of us.

Let me clarify, yet again... before you start making snide generalizations about my position... you should know that you apparently are having a hard time even understand WHAT my position is.

You are talking the technology, and I am talking the spectrum. There is a limit to both the amount of em radiation an area can handle, and the baud rate of that radiation.

Those are things that we cannot overcome with technology. We aren't going to be able to make more efficient spectrum.

They don't have "high" customer service. They have "slightly better" than the others. And in some other ratings, Verizon isn't even the highest. So no, I don't think they are great just because they are slightly better than horrible.

Those "Very Satisfied" make up almost 50% of those surveyed.

That doesn't include the merely "satisfied".

Less than half are very satisfied and you think that's great? lol

Yep... for a company that size that can't change it's business practices for each individual person, I absolutely do.

I already listed several things. Killed the early upgrade program, raised their ETF fee, put in a hidden limit on their data plans and refused to tell anyone what it was (and had to lose a lawsuit in order to change that policy), billed everyone expensive pay per use data charges without telling them why (when nobody had used any data) and the FCC had to step in and order Verizon to pay it back and stop the practice, lied about creating an open network that would allow any compatible unlocked phone to be activated, crippled phones just so they could charge extra to get features that should be for free (GPS on several smartphones comes to mind).

You seem to be confusing business with customer service.

They have done plenty of things that a company who really cares about customer service would never do. Just because they weren't as bad as Sprint doesn't mean they were great.

I have to disagree, but I guess we'll have to disagree on that one.

 

[byteware]

And those are net neutrality issues how, exactly?

Or are we back to confusing QOS, bandwidth, and neutrality?

I understand that YOU understand that Early, but others on here have made it clear that they do NOT think that would be appropriate under net neutrality.

 

[EarlyMon]

^Oh. I thought we all hit the same page and this was a sub-topic I wasn't following.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

I really don't see how things get off topic like they som...oooh, shiny!

 

[BlackDynamite]

Let me make something clear.

I have experience in this area.

You aren't even arguing the same thing that I'm talking about, and you aren't paying enough attention to my argument to understand you aren't on the same topic.

I am NOT Talking about how much technology is capable of handling.

I AM talking about how much the frequency spectrum is capable of handling.

There are only so much electromagnetic radiation on a particular frequency range that can be tolerated before you start to interfere with your own data traffic.

There is a limit to the baud rate of a signal over the air waves due to signal degradation.

There is, in fact, a limit. That's not debatable, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

You haven't countered a single thing I've said, but to say I'm wrong and need to do research on it.

So the sum of your argument is...
1: The technology we have today has to last forever because it can't and won't ever be improved.

2: Even though the theoretical limit of wireless spectrum is much greater than any of the technologies using wireless spectrum today, we have to respect that theoretical limit (and pretend it can never be increased, even though it has been increased in the past). So lets just ignore the theoretical maximum limit of fiber optic or other physical cables. Even though we would theoretically come out of the other side of the earth if we dig forever, or run out of copper/glass/whatever if we keep making cables. Instead, lets just focus on some theoretical maximum in the wireless spectrum that we are not likely to ever hit, and the technology of today (Wimax/LTE) isn't capable of hitting it anyway.

3: Lets again pretend that the way spectrum is used today is the only possible way it can ever be used and worry about theoretical problems of tomorrow based on the technology of today.

And you are again wrong... The way the spectrum is used is absolutely a technology. How much data the spectrum is capable of handling is absolutely based on technology. The baud rate limit is absolutely based on technology.

Again, please try to understand. We are NOT talking about the limits of the current technology. We are talking about the limits of em spectrum that we are utilizing.

The so called limits of the em spectrum are based on the technology we are using. How does the em spectrum carry data? Do you think that is how we will use it to carry data in 5000 years? If your answer is yes, then you shouldn't be posting in this thread.

Unless you know of another technology besides digital or analog that's being worked on (and for the record, I know of none), then we have limits that cannot be exceeded by simply making better use of the spectrum for digital signals.

Now that is just ridiculous. If I am not personally on top of every technology that will ever be developed, then I have to assume none will ever be developed. lol, that is not how it works.

Yes, we moved from Analog to digital. However, as far as I know there is NO projection for a different communication type, aside from Digital.

There was no projection to go from analog to digital at one time either. There is never a projection before the technology is even invented.

Let me clarify, yet again... before you start making snide generalizations about my position... you should know that you apparently are having a hard time even understand WHAT my position is.

I understand your position. I just don't agree with it.

You are talking the technology, and I am talking the spectrum. There is a limit to both the amount of em radiation an area can handle, and the baud rate of that radiation.

Again, you are wrong. Clarify it all you want, you'll still be wrong. Those limits you speak of are based on current technology. We won't be using current technology forever- unless companies are allowed to pass laws forcing us to stifle innovation to put some extra coin in their pockets.

Those are things that we cannot overcome with technology. We aren't going to be able to make more efficient spectrum.

Totally false. The way we utilize spectrum today will be obsolete in 5000 years. Just because that is how we do it today doesn't mean it is the only possible way.

Those "Very Satisfied" make up almost 50% of those surveyed.

That doesn't include the merely "satisfied".

So? There are plenty of businesses out there with much higher satisfaction ratings than that. Again, just because it is slightly better than horrible doesn't mean it's great.

Yep... for a company that size that can't change it's business practices for each individual person, I absolutely do.

Companies that size cater to the individual every day.

You seem to be confusing business with customer service.

Not at all. I am just not confusing "barely eeked out a best out of 4 companies, in one set of rankings" as "super great"

I have to disagree, but I guess we'll have to disagree on that one.

We'll have to disagree on a lot more than that one, lol.

 

[byteware]

So the sum of your argument is...
1: The technology we have today has to last forever because it can't and won't ever be improved.

Umm... again, you aren't paying attention to the actual point I'm making.

Limits to the amount of Em radiation in a given frequency range, and limits to the baud rate that radiation can use limit how much data can be transmitted across the Em spectrum.

That has nothing to do with the technology that is transmitting or receiving that em radiation.

We can upgrade the transmitters and receiver technology all we want, but the spectrum will work the same.

2: Even though the theoretical limit of wireless spectrum is much greater than any of the technologies using wireless spectrum today, we have to respect that theoretical limit (and pretend it can never be increased, even though it has been increased in the past). So lets just ignore the theoretical maximum limit of fiber optic or other physical cables. Even though we would theoretically come out of the other side of the earth if we dig forever, or run out of copper/glass/whatever if we keep making cables. Instead, lets just focus on some theoretical maximum in the wireless spectrum that we are not likely to ever hit, and the technology of today (Wimax/LTE) isn't capable of hitting it anyway.

First off, we have never increased the limit of how much data a given range of the em spectrum can transmit. Ever.

Secondly, whether or not we CAN hit that limit as of now, is pointless. We are moving in a direction where we have no choice but to someday HIT that limit.

3: Lets again pretend that the way spectrum is used today is the only possible way it can ever be used and worry about theoretical problems of tomorrow based on the technology of today.

Well, until you present us with another option, besides sending ones and zeros, then there is NO other way of using the EM spectrum on the horizon.

Will it come one day? I'm sure. What will it be? I have no idea. Will it use something other than the Em spectrum to transmit data? Possibly.


But we have to have this discussion based upon the technology we have, and the technology coming down the pipe in the foreseeable future. We cannot reasonably and rationally have this discussion under the idea that someone might invent a subspace transmitters/receiver, and make these problems go away

And you are again wrong... The way the spectrum is used is absolutely a technology. How much data the spectrum is capable of handling is absolutely based on technology. The baud rate limit is absolutely based on technology.

Does the technology have a baud rate limit? Absolutely. No ones arguing that.

What I am saying, and you are failing to comprehend, is that the EM Spectrum ALSO has a baud rate limit.

Let me explain why this is.

The moment you send a radio signal, it begins to attenuate (weaken). If the baud rate is too high, then you begin to be unable to differentiate the 1's from the 0's. Let me rephrase that, they are no longer differentiated in the radio signal.

Now, up to a point, this can be accommodated by placing towers closer together. The attenuation is worse the further the wave travels.

However, that really isn't going to be financially feasible as a solution in this country due to the VAST space we have.

The so called limits of the em spectrum are based on the technology we are using. How does the em spectrum carry data? Do you think that is how we will use it to carry data in 5000 years? If your answer is yes, then you shouldn't be posting in this thread.

We aren't going to be using em spectrum to communicate in 5000 years.

Again, if you want to have this discussion based on non-existent technology, then fine. You can discuss sub-space transmitters all you want. However, the rest of us don't have that technology. And have to make these decisions based upon the technology at hand.

Now that is just ridiculous. If I am not personally on top of every technology that will ever be developed, then I have to assume none will ever be developed. lol, that is not how it works.

So, you know of no technology that will make a radio wave keep it's shape and clarity enough for us to use higher baud rates over the em spectrum than is currently possible?

No one else does either. There is no technology in development that deals with manipulating radio waves in the wild after they have been transmitted.

 

[byteware]

I wanted to reply to this statement separate from the rest, because I think it is important that you understand something.

There was no projection to go from analog to digital at one time either. There is never a projection before the technology is even invented.

There absolutely WAS a projection of analog to digital.

The computer processes in a digital fashion, on/off.

The first computer signals were analog, sending tones of one pitch to represent "ON", and tones of another pitch to represent "OFF". This is also a form of Frequency Modulation. Which is similar to what is used on your FM radio, with the exception that they are modulating sound frequencies instead of EM frequencies.

It was desired from day one that we move from Analog, which is an adapted form of communication, to digital which is a computer's natural form of communication.

The move from Analog to digital was desired before there was even an Analog signal to begin with. It's the NATURAL way computers process information.

 

[BlackDynamite]

Umm... again, you aren't paying attention to the actual point I'm making.

Limits to the amount of Em radiation in a given frequency range, and limits to the baud rate that radiation can use limit how much data can be transmitted across the Em spectrum.

That has nothing to do with the technology that is transmitting or receiving that em radiation.

em radiation is ITSELF a technology. For all the talking about how I don't understand YOUR point, you have failed to stop and realize that I DO understand your point. It is YOU who don't understand MY point. All this crap about how much data an em spectrum can handle, baud rate limits, and so on, can be thrown right out the window if tomorrow we start sending subsonic sounds as data over radio waves with different sound combinations being used for different data strings. Again, you are stuck in the mindset that the way we do it right now is the only possible way we can ever do it. me (working in the telecom industry myself) know better than that.

We can upgrade the transmitters and receiver technology all we want, but the spectrum will work the same.

No it won't. If we use the spectrum the same way we use it now it will work the same, But there are other ways to use the spectrum- as evidenced by the fact that we don't use it the same as we did back in the 1800's.

First off, we have never increased the limit of how much data a given range of the em spectrum can transmit. Ever.

We absolutely have too. Are you telling me we could transmit as much data over radio waves back in the 1800's? Of course we know that it couldn't. Sure, if we used 4G back then we could have the same 4G data we have today. But we didn't use 4G back then, and we couldn't even transmit voice over radio waves back then.

Secondly, whether or not we CAN hit that limit as of now, is pointless. We are moving in a direction where we have no choice but to someday HIT that limit.

And we are also moving in a direction that will provide for a higher limit if that day ever comes.

Well, until you present us with another option, besides sending ones and zeros, then there is NO other way of using the EM spectrum on the horizon.

Oh, so that's how it is in your world? Either the general consumer invents something else, or they shut up and accept the false limits being put on the current technology by greedy corporations. lol, nice.

Will it come one day? I'm sure. What will it be? I have no idea. Will it use something other than the Em spectrum to transmit data? Possibly.

Ah, so there is room to grow in your world...

But we have to have this discussion based upon the technology we have, and the technology coming down the pipe in the foreseeable future. We cannot reasonably and rationally have this discussion under the idea that someone might invent a subspace transmitters/receiver, and make these problems go away

If we can only talk about the technology we have TODAY, then we can also only talk about the problems we have TODAY. And TODAY it is not possible to max out the spectrum. LTE, our most advanced technology in use that uses the most data, is not capable of hitting the theoretical limit that em radiation has on a baud rate (the way it is currently implemented). So if you are going to talk about theoretical problems of TOMORROW, then you also have to talk about the theoretical technology of TOMORROW.

Does the technology have a baud rate limit? Absolutely. No ones arguing that.

What I am saying, and you are failing to comprehend, is that the EM Spectrum ALSO has a baud rate limit.

Dude, I understand perf34ctly well what you are saying. What you are failing to understand is that the baud rate limit on em radiation that you keep speaking of, is based entirely on how we send/receive/read/understand a baud.

Let me explain why this is.

The moment you send a radio signal, it begins to attenuate (weaken). If the baud rate is too high, then you begin to be unable to differentiate the 1's from the 0's. Let me rephrase that, they are no longer differentiated in the radio signal.

Now, up to a point, this can be accommodated by placing towers closer together. The attenuation is worse the further the wave travels.

However, that really isn't going to be financially feasible as a solution in this country due to the VAST space we have.

lol, I know all of this. Not what if we stop sending 1's and 0's and send something else instead? Something not invented yet? I gave the example of sending sounds. That was just off the top of my head but we could send Tesla's wireless electricity, or send invisible light, or heat, or something that neither of us can even imagine. Just because we don't do it today or it hasn't been invented yet doesn't mean it isn't possible and will never happen.

We aren't going to be using em spectrum to communicate in 5000 years.

You don't know that. We certainly won't use it the way we do today, but we may very well be using it in some fashion.

Again, if you want to have this discussion based on non-existent technology, then fine. You can discuss sub-space transmitters all you want. However, the rest of us don't have that technology. And have to make these decisions based upon the technology at hand.

I'm not even talking about sub space transmitters. I'm saying the way we use that space may be the only way we know how today, but that doesn't mean it always will be the only way we know how. If huge corporations and governments know that we MUST find another way, you better believe we'll find another way. If those same corporations and governments are allowed to stifle any innovation just so they can save the cost of upgrading their networks and prevent any newcomers, then we won't ever find another way.

So, you know of no technology that will make a radio wave keep it's shape and clarity enough for us to use higher baud rates over the em spectrum than is currently possible?

Well I can theorize another one real quick- we could stop looking at the shape and clarity of the radio wave and use a different property to carry our data. You're stuck on 1's and 0's like it's the only way that will ever be possible.

No one else does either. There is no technology in development that deals with manipulating radio waves in the wild after they have been transmitted.

None that you know of anyway. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean that nobody else will ever know of a way. And we aren't necessarily talking about manipulating radio waves after they have been transmitted anyway. We're talking about using them in a different manner than we use them today.

 

[BlackDynamite]

I wanted to reply to this statement separate from the rest, because I think it is important that you understand something.



There absolutely WAS a projection of analog to digital.

The computer processes in a digital fashion, on/off.

The first computer signals were analog, sending tones of one pitch to represent "ON", and tones of another pitch to represent "OFF". This is also a form of Frequency Modulation. Which is similar to what is used on your FM radio, with the exception that they are modulating sound frequencies instead of EM frequencies.

It was desired from day one that we move from Analog, which is an adapted form of communication, to digital which is a computer's natural form of communication.

The move from Analog to digital was desired before there was even an Analog signal to begin with. It's the NATURAL way computers process information.

There absolutely was NOT a projection to go from analog to digital in the 1800's. This was long before the first computers.

Again, there was no projection to move from analog to digital at one point. Just because we have no projection of where we're headed right now, it doesn't mean we aren't headed anywhere.

 

[EarlyMon]

OK - at this point, it's gone way past sub-topic and well into off-topic.

Net neutrality is an important issue.

There's much for newcomers to learn and absorb on the subject.

Spectrum use and future potential will simply turn others off.

Please take this side discussion to a new thread, if there's any interest.

As for this thread, let's recognize that it's ok to agree to disagree and move back on-topic.