I just want to follow through with this to prove I am not a damn idiot.We're complaining about telecoms not increasing internet speeds fast enough to satisfy the market and blaming it on telecoms controlling the internet market. But that is a a one sided, narrow perspective.
Before we had internet all communication was tremendously faster than it is now. why?
Because cable companies were delivering a tight NTC beam over a coaxial cable at the speed of light, and phone companies were transmitting TCP/IP packets over telephone lines at speeds so slow your watch wouldn't be able to connect. Back then internet speeds were atrocious but television, phone, radio, and even short band coverage was fantastic.
Here is what actually happened. Cable companies had higher bandwidth to spare so they began offering access to TCP/IP packets (very inefficient method of transmitting data BTW) in order to attract those high paying internet customers away from the phone companies. Phone companies couldn't compete so they invested in installing DSL lines and T3 lines as fast as they could afford to in order to stave off the cable companies.
Then the market kept moving at a pace faster than either types of companies could keep up. Broadcast radio providers had to share bandwidth now with more TV stations and increasing cell phone providers. Less bandwidth to go around so either a, invest in more towers, or b, consolidate to cut costs. They chose to do both. Radio companies began consolidating in order to cut costs because they could run multiple stations out of a single office. Jobs were lost. Money was tightened.
The market kept moving at a pace faster than tech could keep up. Broadcast TV stations were facing increased costs and less bandwidth because cell phones. They made the switch to digital in a way to get more out of the bandwidth they had access to. But cell phone companies continued to demand more data so they had to build more towers. Governments were slow to invest in building more towers because demand was exceeding the supply and costs were going up as a result.
The market kept moving at a pace faster than the cable companies could keep up. Facing increased competition from cable companies, and wireless providers, phone companies had to adapt. They had to continue to increase their spending on adding lines, increasing their cost, but not being able to charge more because of outdated laws and having less access to bandwidth. Cable companies took advantage and cut their throats by offering VOIP. Phone companies had no choice but to consolidate, cutting costs while bleeding customers and losing profits.
The market kept moving at a pace faster than the government could keep up. Because phone companies were treated like utilities and cable companies were not that gave cable companies the upper hand. So they began consolidating in an effort to squeeze out competition and make siphon all those internet users into their customer base. They problem was they were now facing increased competition from mobile carriers and they had to invest money in infrastructure.
Here is the reality. Broadcast TV and radio signals are actually incredibly fast, even faster than fiber optic. A straight shot, at the speed of light, with multiple translators and satellites allowd for the instantaneous transmission of HUNDREDS of NTSC channels simultaneously for pennies. This allowed satellite and cable companies to increase the product they offered while slowly increasing the bandwidth for internet usage.
The market kept moving at a pace faster than satellite companies could keep up. They were now forced to also dedicate some of their bandwidth to the increasing TCP/IP packets being transmitted.
The problem comes down to the very nature of the internet. If you wanted instant access to HD ATSC TV with On Demand capabilities investing in cable made a whole lot more sense. BUt we didn't do that. Instead we, (Us the gamers and them the hackers/pirates) kept pushing for faster internet speeds so we could
1. Cut the cord and have a negative impact on broadcast companies whos's costs kept rising but profits were sinking.2. Provide unfair free alternatives (often relying on theft of Intellectual Property) for news sites which taught the public to expect free access to news while using ad blockers (under the guise of saving bandwidth or protest choose your poison) and forcing newspapers (the cornerstone of our Republic) to go bankrupt or consolidate.3. Network our video games while demanding telecoms increase speed without providing them incentives for investing and then demonizing the companies providing our services to us.
4. Newspapers, broadcasters, cable companies, network providers and wireless companies were all forced to consolidate putting us in the situation where content providers have to sell to content developers in order to stay in business.5. We have to pay for all of this by losing access to solid reporting at the local and state level, replaced by a social media platform that propgated Fake News to the point of influencing not only the election but the response by companies (many of whom have resorted to collecting and selling data in order to stay in business) while demonizing journalists (broadcast, print, radio, digital) as a scapegoat for the mess we created.6. We continue to demand cable companies decrease their bandwidth devoted to providing INSTANT access to HD content by replacing it with increasing bandwidth for more TCP/IP packets which have to travel in spider web mazes before reaching their destination. This, while increasing vulnerabilities and decreasing consumer safety. (in the name of faster internet)7. Increase dependence on data forced wireless companies to consolidate and reduce competition while purchasing other media and communications companies to streamline the process and increase revenues while cutting costs (jobs) in an effort to continue to meet demand for a product that is an absolute luxury at best but treated as a life or death utility.
I could go on, but as I work in the media business and I studied the affects the INTERNET has had on destroying the very business we are all not complaining we are losing all because WE demanded faster internet in the name of video games.
At the end of the day there are 7 billion people on the planet, less than 400 million world wide are gamers. I don't think we should invest, or force companies to invest, resources into increasing internet speeds anymore than we already have.
I was on that side until I went back to Dish and freed up my internet usage for more important things. Sure my actual internet is slower than it was BUT since I can push a button and bam there is all the HD content I want, with On Demand and DVR, I remembered how much better it was to have a system where we transmitted CONTENT at the speed of light versus transmitting TCP/IP packets (with cyber risks in the process) at speeds that will NEVER match ATSC HD content delivered at the speed of light over the 50 year old cables we installed before there even was an internet.
It comes down to convenience. We demand the convencience of Netlfix and instant chat and playing games online without realizing the costs it had to our society. Are we better off? I don't know it sounds to me like it depends on which sector you are in. If you work for the cable companies I would say no as they have consolidated to the point where chances are you've been laid off more than once and are working now for less money than you did 20 years ago.
If you work in the broadcast TV business or the print news business I would say HELL MF NO. Because you've been laid on more than once and are working now for considerably less money than you did 20 years ago. IF you can even get a job.
If you work in radio...wireless...movie theaters... telephone companies...movie studios...cable TV networks... the list goes on.
Here let me spell it out clearer. I have a friend who got his first job working for a local ABC station in 1985. Back then he was a photo (camera man following a reporter around in a big ass van) and they paid him $18 an hour. TV stations don't even hire photos anymore. That positon has been all but eliminated to save money. Now reporters are MMJ's. Instead of sending a van with a bunch of good solid radio equipment, a news reporter, a camera man, a sound engineer to set up the mic, and a video editor (all professionals with years of experience well paid for their work) you now send out a 22 year old fresh graduate in a Chevy sonic with a backpack that contains a very lousy portable radio not that different than soldiers used in WWII. She has to carry the camera and mic herself, shoot and edit the videos and do it for, starting wage, $10 an hour.
Then we (society/gamers/techies) complain the quality of our local news has diminished and bitch when Sinclair Broadcasting petitions the government to grant them permission to SAVE the newspapers in their markets as both a cost cutting measure and desperate last ditch effort to keep real journalism alive.
Yes my attitude on the internet changed, a lot, when I left college after studying what the internet did to the news media, broadcast media and print industries. Oh and guess who makes money of it all, here is a hint it's NOT the cable companies desperately trying to maximize profits to keep meeting demands.
My news reporter friend told me he used to make $18 an hour just as a staff writer at a daily newspaper. Now he's barely getting $11 an hour and he's expected to write, shoot, and deliver the newspapers.
Forgive me if I am cynical. Forgive me if I am one to think that the more money and resources we pour into making internet speeds faster at the expense of the very journalists who would be able to do a better job fact checking and vetting sources if they didn't have to worry about being technology experts, video experts and audio experts when they are being asked to work harder for considerably less pay.
The first camera job I applied for paid $20 an hour. The last camera op job I had started at $8 an hour and I had to work 3 months to get up to ten.
TL:DR version
20 years ago we could send high speed CABLE TV at the speed of light for less money and cable companies were profitable. Internet speeds increase at the expense of bandwidth to cable and companies have to consolidate. 20 years ago journalists in the print and broadcast industries were paid a damn good wage for highly profession, skilled work. Today those same journalists do the work it used to take 4 or 5 people for less money than the lowerest paid of those previous.
Cable companies started stealing customers from phone companies but weren't regulated the same and phone companies went out of business or branched into other industries to stay afloat. The market consoldiated into the mess we have today all in the name of faster internet at the demands of gamers, a statistically insignificant percentage of the worlds population.
Final final edit and I am going to bed: even with all this taking place the larger market as a whole is still oblivious to internet speeds and how gamers are still pretending like TCP/IP is somehow better than what we had before.
I swear final edit and I am done.
If we could get away from TCP/IP and transmit RAW data over those pipelines it would be at the speed of light and we would have faster internet than we can ever imagine. Again, telecoms would gladly make the, very expensive switch, if the tech companies would get over their beloved, antequated protocol and find a way to send raw data over a direct line. the protocol was created as a way to transmit data over extremely tight bandwidth with very few nodes. We have so many nodes and open pipes now if we replaced the Internet with a direct line to data centers we'd all be in heaven with gigabit speeds.
Topic: The Next Console Generation Will Be The Last...... Except For Nintendo (Read 11928 times)
