Report: Microsoft Interested in Buying Yahoo Again

[amk-aka-Phantom]

Yes, your movies are best left on local storage... unless you bought them and can download them faster than you can watch them. Same with music... My games are all on Steam, and when I feel like playing DoD, I just download it and in 10 minutes it's ready to go. Game DVDs? Pffft, it takes the same amount of time to find the DVD and install the game as it does to get it through Steam. And it's only going to get better and faster (while DVDs remain the same speed and even Blue-ray is losing ground).

I can NOT download faster than I can watch. 4 Mbps line here, mind you, and I'm not alone.

People like you are what overloads the Internet and forces ISPs to enforce download caps and other BS. You think "ah who cares, I can download that again..." - now multiply by 10 millions and you'll understand why the ISPs can't manage with a flow of BS data through their networks.

 

[killerclick]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]I already said I'm NOT talking about Gmail, Google Docs, Dropbox[/citation]

So, you're against web based software and storage but you're fine with Gmail, Google Docs and Dropbox...? What's the difference?


[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]People like you are what overloads the Internet and forces ISPs to enforce download caps and other BS.[/citation]

No, ISPs enforce download caps because they want that sweet PPV money. People like me are the reason all this comms infrastructure was built in the first place. Download caps, seriously? If you have download caps I can understand why you wouldn't be enthusiastic about cloud based storage... but the solution is not to be all thrifty with bandwidth but to increase capacity. CPUs get faster every year, hard drives get more capacity, why wouldn't bandwidth grow as well?

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

So, you're against web based software and storage but you're fine with Gmail, Google Docs and Dropbox...? What's the difference?


No, ISPs enforce download caps because they want that sweet PPV money. People like me are the reason all this comms infrastructure was built in the first place. Download caps, seriously? If you have download caps I can understand why you wouldn't be enthusiastic about cloud based storage... but the solution is not to be all thrifty with bandwidth but to increase capacity. CPUs get faster every year, hard drives get more capacity, why wouldn't bandwidth grow as well?

What's the difference? Gmail, Google Docs and Dropbox are MADE to be web-based. You can't use e-mail if you don't have an Internet connection, can you? However, you can watch movies, play games and work locally if you are not connected to the Internet. And if you are, you STILL can do all these tasks locally because your local Sandy Bridge/C2D/Phenom II/Bulldozer will STILL be way more powerful.

Why wouldn't the bandwidth grow? IDK! Ask those a$$holes that provide Internet in my area! And ask AT&T and others if you're based in the US.

 

[soo-nah-mee]

[citation][nom]jacekring[/nom]data caps for comcast are at 250gb....in 5 years I see that dropping to 100gb as companies tighten belts to increase profits.[/citation]This is it in a nutshell.
U-verse has the same cap. I'm all for a daily passive backup to the clouds, but my ISP is not too keen on the idea.

I back my media server up to local externals, but I also make a (roughly) bi-annual backup of all my data to blu-ray discs and keep them at my folks house in their firebox.

When (if) the ISPs lift the limits, I'll be all in on cloud backups.

 

[killerclick]

Well I just can't see bandwidth becoming more restricted globally. I think it's a consequence of all the surplus bandwidth from the dot-com bubble era not paying off. Don't worry, sooner or later bandwidth will start growing again and we'll all be up to 100Mbps both ways in no time.

I'm in Europe, the cheapest package my ISP offers is 8Mbps unlimited and it goes up to 32Mbps. I don't think any ISPs in my area have download limits - even my phone is 2Mbps unlimited and it's a pretty basic package.

Edit: actually my ISP offers up to 60Mbps unlimited. It's a bit pricey though

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

Well I just can't see bandwidth becoming more restricted globally. I think it's a consequence of all the surplus bandwidth from the dot-com bubble era not paying off. Don't worry, sooner or later bandwidth will start growing again and we'll all be up to 100Mbps both ways in no time.

BS. US ISPs are enforcing tighter caps all the time!

Meanwhile, Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 will STILL be way faster. Also, they will disregard Internet connection failures. And my data will stay with me.

 

[anony2004]

Let the IT companies exist individually for once!

 

[joshybo7]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]No, ISPs enforce download caps because they want that sweet PPV money.[/citation]

I work at a ISP technical-support building, and i am not talking a sub-contracted building, I mean the building where service decisions are made. We have been looking at data caps on our services because there are some consumers that use much more data than others, which leads them to not want our services when their download speeds are 1-2 Mbps lower than what they should be. Some users will utilize so much of a RT's available bandwidth that we might end up losing several other customers in that area. When it comes down to, "do i keep 1 customer happy by letting him download hundreds of GB of data a month or do I limit everyone's download capability so that all can have an equal experience which will save hundreds of other customer," that one user is more of a liability than a profit. his business might actually belong elsewhere. And it is not that we do not want to provide that sort of capability to the power-users out there as much as it is just a limitation of the equipment vs. maintaining a satisfied customer base who get also are going to demand getting what they pay for. The needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few, in a very true sense of that statement.

 

[killerclick]

The needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few, in a very true sense of that statement.

Oh, I didn't mean that there aren't technical reasons for download caps. But why doesn't your ISP invest in higher bandwidth? Not like it's technically unfeasible, Europe and Asia are wired to the gills. The biggest reason is PPV profits.

 

[Max Collodi]

[citation][nom]MK23454[/nom]BREAKING NEWS:Microsoft enjoys throwing money out the window. More at 11.[/citation]
If I had as much money as Microsoft does, I'd throw some out the window too.

 

[joshybo7]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom] But why doesn't your ISP invest in higher bandwidth? Not like it's technically unfeasible, Europe and Asia are wired to the gills.[/citation]

it's a telephone company which is suffering due to the vicious onslaught of cellular telephone companies replacing most landlines, so money is an issue which keeps us from being able to purchase the equipment necessary for bandwidth expansion.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

it's a telephone company which is suffering due to the vicious onslaught of cellular telephone companies replacing most landlines, so money is an issue which keeps us from being able to purchase the equipment necessary for bandwidth expansion.

That's the same issue my ISP is suffering from. Wait... not so much, they own cellular service, too. I guess my ISP is just a bunch of lazy a$$holes. 8 Mbps with 20GB download limit and then unlimited for the rest of the month @ 512 Kbps costs $35. I get 100 Mbps/20GB, then 8 Mbps/unlimited for half the price back in Europe.

 

[mayankleoboy1]

MS and yahoo does not a google make

 

[Guest]

They bought skype but what was changed?

 

[Wish I Was Wealthy]

It's good that there is competition & so we need Yahoo around a lot more longer so MS or the likes of Google can not end up having a monopoly & they're the two main companies that want the Cloud concept idea.

 

[Camikazi]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]I can NOT download faster than I can watch. 4 Mbps line here, mind you, and I'm not alone.People like you are what overloads the Internet and forces ISPs to enforce download caps and other BS. You think "ah who cares, I can download that again..." - now multiply by 10 millions and you'll understand why the ISPs can't manage with a flow of BS data through their networks.[/citation]
Umm that is the problem of the ISP who setup such huge bandwidth tubes yet can't manage them, you cannot fault the user for using what he has signed up for and paid for.

 

[cats_Paw]

Hahhaahh, Microsoft is soooo... nevermind.
Microsoft: buy stuff, then charge for it once its ours.
Google: make as much as possible free, "survive" on ads.

Microsoft user goes to google .

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

Hahhaahh, Microsoft is soooo... nevermind.
Microsoft: buy stuff, then charge for it once its ours.
Google: make as much as possible free, "survive" on ads.

Microsoft user goes to google .

BS. MS bought Skype and..?

 

[eddieroolz]

I thought it was serious last time, but simply rebuffed by Yang.

Either way, now that Yahoo! shares are less than half of what Microsoft offered back then, perhaps it would be a cheap buy.