[ NNSquad ] Re: Subject: Re: [IP] "Entry level pricing"

[Cliff Sojourner <cls@employees.org>]

George -

thank you for reconfirming Lauren's reply to your original statement:

>    [ George, your response is notable, in the "best" traditions of Big
>      Telecom telling customers "what Big Telecom thinks they need" rather
>      than reacting to what technically-skilled customers are asking for.
>
>      If Robert, obviously no slouch at this stuff, says that his firm
>      is unable to work effectively at those bandwidths, who are you to
>      tell him "no, you're wrong, you can work just fine!"  That sort
>      of reaction encapsulates so much of what is wrong with Internet
>      access in the U.S. today.

why do you presume there is no legitimate business application for some 
services?  my, what a narrow view of "business" and "services".

the reason packet networks succeeded over PSTN is that we don't have to 
ask permission to provide and use new services.  We have only begun to 
explore the possibilities.

The conversation started with discussing how to share bandwidth among 
competing services. 

Seems to me it keeps coming back to 1) more practical to add bandwidth 
than try to manage for scarcity, and 2) the US is underprovisioned 
anyways so let's get the show on the road for the 21st century.

oh and by the way, I am sure you wouldn't call me an ass in person, so 
don't do it on the intartube-web-nets either.

thanks
Cliff


George Ou wrote:
> "3mbps ought to be enough for anyone"
>
> Don't be an ass and put words into people's mouths.  I specifically said
> BUSINESS users.  If any business users working for me or anyone else were
> using OnLive services, they'd get fired.  You're not a business user.  A
> gamer is not a business user.
>
> OnLive is an application for nextgen broadband, of course you want to see
> more bandwidth because it brings you more potential customers.  Nothing
> wrong with that of course (and I've spoken kindly about your types of
> companies
> http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/cloud-rendered-online-gaming-will-need
> -a-lot-more-bandwidth/), but we need to point out the self serving
> motivations here.  Now it remains to be see how many hardcore gamers you'd
> draw to your service and whether people want to put up with much lower
> resolution, compression artifacts, loss of detail, and higher lag.  It may
> very well be "good enough", but it remains to be seen if such a high
> bandwidth model works.
>
>
>
> George
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cliff Sojourner [mailto:cls@employees.org] 
> Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 2:25 PM
> To: George Ou
> Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
> Subject: Re: [ NNSquad ] Re: Subject: Re: [IP] "Entry level pricing"
>
> George Ou wrote:
>   
> > "We can't even use that to do remote work on our computers at work and the
> > overall thruput is severely limited by the ridiculously low upstream
> > bandwidth."
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, what kind of work do you do that requires more than
> >     
> 3
>   
> > Mbps?  
> >     
>
> well gee, I work at OnLive, and if I want to do any development & 
> testing of a live client video, it requires 5 or 6 Mbps down, and as 
> much as I can get upstream for my dev work.
>
> wow George, how presumptuous of you - "3mbps ought to be enough for anyone"
>
>
>
>
>