Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

It really sucks to stay seeding a torrent only to watch people drop off the peer list once they hit 100%

  1. BuckGup

    BuckGup

    Welcome to torrenting circa 2007

  2. Trik'Stari

    Trik'Stari

    That's why I'm glad my tracker has a time limit requirement. Either upload the same amount you downloaded, or upload for a set amount of time.

     

    Anything over either counts as bonus towards future downloads.

  3. Donut417

    Donut417

    Well a vast amount of people dont have the upstream to be seeding for long. Comcast only gives us 10 Mbps. You clog up your upstream then you take down your whole internet connection. Not to mention the data caps that many ISP's have at least in the US. This is why I dont use bit torrent. Not to mention Comcast was known to throttle bit torrent traffic. 

     

  4. Trik'Stari

    Trik'Stari

    God I love having gigabit lol. The way we have it set up, the max any user in the house can draw is 500/500

  5. Donut417

    Donut417

    @Trik'Stariunless you have Fiber Gigabit it still doesn't matter. Cable providers can only do about 45Mbps up. PERIOD. So I could get Comcast gigabit and still be in the same boat. Plus the data caps. It sucks that we have no Fiber in my area. We are like in a dead zone for providers. With AT&T killing DSL that only leaves Comcast in our area. Well we can get LTE or Satellite but those are not very good contenders. 

  6. Trik'Stari

    Trik'Stari

    I feel for you, I recently moved to this location from one that had a max of 5 down and 3 up (allegedly. It NEVER hit those kinds of numbers).

     

    I do indeed have fiber, and I absolutely love it. At this point, I would not hesitate to say that government should find a way to force ALL the ISP's to upgrade every single line on their networks to fiber. It would revolutionize so many things.

     

    Satellite will always be crap imho. And data caps need to not be a thing.

  7. Donut417

    Donut417

    @Trik'Stariunless you and the rest of the over 300 million here in the US want to pay more in taxes, it will NEVER happen. Unfortunately I dont think the Government even legally has that kind of control over ISP"s, at least not after Title II was taken out. The only reason phone lines were put in most of the US was due to the fact tax payer dollars were used to wire up the poles. I know for a fact that most conservatives are against government involvement in businesses. Even though those are the people who like in the RURAL areas that would benefit the most. The reason ISP's wont do it is due to profitability. Verizon proved that Fiber is not as profitable as copper that the government foot the bill for. Keep in mind that investors want to make money, and the investment required to put Fiber everywhere would take too long to pay off to make it worth it for them. 

  8. Trik'Stari

    Trik'Stari

    The irony being that I am a conservative that 100% hates government involvement in most things, but for this I make an exception.

     

    I'd be willing to believe the stuff about fiber being less profitable, if it weren't for the outright lies of the ISP's ("people are happy with what they have now"), the fact that fiber is cheaper to maintain, and the part where incumbent ISP's are given every advantage possible over start up ISP's  by local laws and ordinances in most of the USA.

     

    Honestly, having an internet connection is a necessity in this day and age, and it just needs to become a full on utility. Although I would also argue we need an internet bill of rights guaranteeing privacy and whatnot, to prevent mass scale surveillance of the general population, by the government.

     

    Government pays for the roads, I see no problem with them paying for the internet infrastructure as well. As technology advances, it's only going to become more necessary. It just needs to be run correctly, with as few bureaucrats as possible ruining things with terrible ideas, and terrible work ethic.

     

    I hope we aren't violating the politics rule here.

  9. BuckGup

    BuckGup

    I'm pretty sure this goes 100% the new anti political rule lol

  10. Trik'Stari

    Trik'Stari

    Meh, it's about tech policy.

     

    Honestly, I don't really agree with, or endorse, the approach of either American political party when it comes to internet regulation. Neither one really has a grasp on how important the internet will actually be in the coming decades.

  11. Donut417

    Donut417

    ISP's are not lying about profitability. Verizon stopped deploying much Fiber due to the fact is was not as profitable and the Shareholders were not making as much money. ALSO take this as an example. Comcast has about 130 ish people on a Node, a node is connected to the Local Comcast office via Fiber, which means 130 people share that one Fiber cable. Verizon FIOS from what I have read, only 30 people share a Fiber cable. Thats a big difference. 

     

    Even if Fiber is cheaper to maintain, The copper was put up on the poles by the government. Most ISP's have done a shit job maintaining it, Verizon is the biggest one but even AT&T let much of it rot. 4G LTE and 5G are easier to deploy and more profitable. Which is why AT&T gave up on DSL. Verizon has been selling off DSL markets for years. Its no secret that the Wireless Division of Verizon is able to bring in more money, thats why Verizon bought out the other company who owned 49% of Verizon wireless many years ago. Yeah, Verizon wireless was 51% owned by Verizon and 49% owned by some French company I think. Verizon bought out the French company because they saw the dollar signs. 💲💲💲

  12. Trik'Stari

    Trik'Stari

    I make an extreme distinction between "not profitable" and "not AS profitable".

     

    If government would require a company to do something that is flat out "not profitable" that would be egregious, simply being "not AS profitable", meaning they still make a profit, is an argument I can dismiss. So long as they are still making a profit, I don't really care what their complaints are.

     

    They are not entitled to as much profit as is physically possible (in fact they often demand more than is realistic), they are entitled to make as much profit as they can whilst following the rules we set forth for them as a society.

     

    Kowtowing to the shareholders is the primary problem with our current economy. Little to no effort has been made to disabuse them of the notion that they are entitled to, as Jim Sterling puts it, "all of the money, all of the time". In fact, far too much effort has been made to convince them of the contrary.

     

    Companies rise and fall, and are supposed to do both. In short, the shareholders can cry me a river.

     

    And again, I only say any of this because truly high speed internet access, in my humble opinion, is going to be one of the most important factors for our population over the coming decades. Them making "all of the money, all of the time, for as little investment as possible" is not realistic, or beneficial to society and the economy in the long run.

×