te72

You know, I never played any of the TG systems. Always saw ads for the games in the magazines back then, but nobody I knew had one. I have played the really good Castlevania game that was on it, via the Dracula X Chronicles version on PSP. Sounds about like I remember of it. Perhaps it paved the way for the PS1, so I'd say it was totally worth it!

Never realized the Sega CD came out here in the US in 1992... that was early, three years ahead of the PS1! Yet, it was reasonably priced compared to the other CD system of that era, the 3DO. I don't have much frame of reference for the Jaguar CD, only ever saw them in the bargain bin at $20 (new!) at a KB Toys, sometime in the mid 90's. For all that fancy new tech, how were those early CD based systems? Were there any noteworthy games? I barely got to play any of them, and apparently they didn't leave much of an impression...

This thread took a turn for the amusing, you guys are cracking me up here! Story time! Remember Excitebike? Well, buddy of mine used to play it with me on occasion when the NES was still the new thing. The scoring system seemed a bit weird to us though, in that, if you did really poorly, you might finish in 20th place or something like that. We only ever saw maybe 3 or 4 other competitors on the screen with us, where were all these other people racing? So... we decided to try an experiment. Started a race, went to lunch, came back and finished the race... in something like 1988th place, or some ridiculous number like that haha. I'm trying to decide between Suikoden 4 (the only Suikoden main series game I haven't played through), Super Mario RPG, or finishing off the last series of races in GT6.

James Rolfe (AVGN) does a side series called, "You know what's bullshit?" that has an amusing take on naming conventions in film and gaming...

I still haven't played Doom 3... from 2005 or whenever it was. Part of the fun of Doom games for me is being able to cheat, just to see the wanton destruction that can be caused. I'm in the same boat of stinking at games (mostly shooters), and on PS3 at least, you can't cheat in the Doom games. Because trophies. Grumble grumble, stupid need for dopamine via digital "reward" BS... let me play my game how I want to play it dagnabbit! *shakes fist like Abe Simpson*

Good points. I don't have much to offer due to having had a long couple days behind me, but any time a company's operating expenses (charging them more for internet) increase, it nearly always ends up being the customer on the receiving end of that increase. That said, a streaming company such as the examples listed above have more or less defined bandwidth needs. They know how much speed they need, therefore they buy X amount of connections so their servers can deliver the speeds their customers expect. Seems to me, on that point, that there is no need for a special "fast lane," you just buy as many lanes as you need at the fastest commercially available speed. If speed tiers are priced like what I've seen, it makes little sense to buy anything less than the fastest, if you need it, because the speeds increase exponentially, where the price goes up more gradually. The idea of special fast lanes for higher bandwidth consumers, or just for those with money, seems anti-competitive to me. Hopefully my points make sense, I'm somewhat tired.

For some people, a state provided internet would be helpful. Those that can't reasonably afford internet, for example. However, there would definitely be even greater privacy concerns than there already are. I for one, would never use such a service if it could at all be avoided. I don't trust our government to do the right thing in front of my face, much less on the other end of a modem. The infrastructure to establish such a high speed network, if it were to reach rural areas, would be incredibly massive, as far as investment goes. As a taxpayer, I can't really support it as things are currently. Now, if we were to stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars bombing, occupying, and rebuilding other countries... perhaps that could be a source of funding. Certainly a better and more humane use of that money anyway, at the very least. I've said for a very long time now, that we could solve hunger, poverty, illiteracy and ignorance, if only we'd put the effort and budget in, rather than using it to kill, destroy, and terrorize other countries. I'd rather a country wide accessible internet than how things currently are, as far as how our country spends its taxpayer money. Considering how much money the telecom industry funnels into the pockets of our representatives, I can't see them authorizing something like this anyway. Neat idea, but unlikely to happen, for the very reason you point out. The trouble with the idea of a vote by the people, is that we don't get that option. On a local and sometimes state level, we the people can vote on particular legislation. Federal matters, however, are another matter. I WISH we had the opportunity to vote directly on stuff like this... We in the US are not a democracy however, we've always been a representative republic. If we had a universally informed populace, this would be a good thing, as it once was, in the early days of our country. Anymore though... I wish we had the occasional democratic vote. At the very least, a state by state survey would be nice. Hah, our representatives don't ask us though, they won't bother to own up to anything unless you call them out on their vote after the fact. Now, to address your second major point, AT&T's "internet bill of rights," I like the idea, and I support them on it. I don't know that I've heard their name among the ISP's that have violated neutrality rules and ideals, so perhaps that is more than just rhetoric, perhaps they're telling the truth about their practices. If so, BRAVO to them! I like your list of proper legislation, but I am a bit puzzled by your first item, that ISP's are allowed to earn profit and grow. For all their bellyaching over this legislation that puts a leash around them, and understandably so, they're literally raking in the net profits. We're talking billions here, not an insignificant number. I don't think any of the major ISP's have ever had a net loss in any year, ever. I could be mistaken, but I'd believe it's a safe bet to think they're always making money. Unless you are referring to smaller startups and the like?

Suppose I could understand the technical limitations of satellite, but cable, dsl, fiber, no reason for caps there. If anything, if you, as an ISP, limit my bandwidth, I'm likely to find a new provider if possible. It's just like text messaging to me, I know damn well the networks can handle the traffic, but to have "limited" plans where I'm charged by unit of data sent on the network? This isn't the 90's anymore... An analogous comparison for this forum would be the system of "lives" in video games. It's a relic from the arcade days, where the motivation for the designers was money. It's just bad design these days, same as data caps are a silly idea when storage space and network speeds have outpaced user needs. I get how DNS attacks work, and frankly, I find those silly as well. If your idea of a good time in life is to disrupt other's lives, then you really should find a productive hobby, ya know?

I understand that the more people on a network, the slower it goes, but what physically is capping data? My computer doesn't run any slower if it's constantly running at full capacity to download, if torrenting? If all of a sudden, I have transferred 50gb that month, oops, internet is full, shut down my connection..? Really? Oreos? Money, is the only reason I can see behind data caps, nothing technical. As is, they feel entirely arbitrary and artificial. Not sure I understand your "total simultaneous connections" comment though, is that where you have more than one internet line plugged into the same house?

It would seem that I misspoke, and that perhaps the grass isn't much greener up there. I've always found data caps to be a ridiculous notion. If I want to stream high bandwidth content all day every day, is there some technical reason that I should have to pay more? An adequate infrastructure would be able to handle all that traffic and then some. Given that the number of people on the internet has substantially increased since the spread of phone users, yet the experience isn't much different from before, I can't see any technical hurdle? I might be led to believe that things are kept artificially slow... oh wait. Kinda another one of those neutrality principles that is on the table haha. You touched on an important point, that telecoms don't often compete. THAT, and frankly, that alone, is what keeps innovation and investment stagnant, not some regulation. It's a point of basic economics, if you have competition, you have to be on top of your game. If you don't have competition, you have no incentive to make or sell a better product or service. Sure, there's only so much juice to squeeze, but if you're the only game in town, the lemons tend to be even more sour.

Data, I see your business case, but what I'm most concerned with is the potential for abuse. We've already seen throttling, blocking, and other restrictions in the telecom industries. I'd be happy to pay a bit more for a service anywhere near as fast as you guys get. For reference, the best I can get is 12mbps down / 0.9 up. That costs me $70 / month. Logistically speaking, if I want high quality entertainment, I'm literally forced to "find some other means" as you put it. If ISP's are common carriers in Canada, then you have a leg up on us in the US. There are no such restrictions preventing customer abuse currently in place here. If regulation wasn't necessary, that would be fantastic. If the ISP's cared about customer service before profit, that would be fantastic. However, ethics often get thrown out the window when money is the primary driving factor, as it is in most businesses.

Please tell me you have that backed up on a floppy? Either that or you have one abnormally long lived hard disk... Either way, kudos!

That was a long winded can of worms bud. I see your point though, you're no more likely to get HBO Go than I am to sign up for cable.

Capitalism was perhaps the wrong word on my part. More protectionism, I would think. A truly free market would allow just that, for foreign companies to trade in your marketplace. I see it in other industries as well, but the telecom industry is well known for doing everything they can to NOT compete with other telecoms, especially in the US. Makes me wonder where the market would go if your suggestion of cutting the cord took more of a hold oop north? On the FM antenna explanation, appreciate that. I haven't thought about using a roof antenna in, well, a very long time. Not that it isn't useful for some, but I haven't had TV hooked up since I first moved out of my parents house in 2004, I think it was. Might have had it in our second apartment, but I dunno for sure, it's been a couple days haha. Weird as this might sound, I think ads are why I don't like TV. I don't mind the shows, but the ads really take me out of the experience, and not for the better. I rather enjoy modern TV, and being able to watch it uninterrupted is MUCH preferable if you're able. Frankly, if you pay for TV, why do you have to watch the ads too?

Gotta love capitalism for the crap like this that happens sometimes... As far as the house goes, we're the original owners. I just wasn't clear enough on our needs when the wiring was being done. Not a huge deal, I just can't think of any reason to have coax in the house. I'll never have cable, and what's this about using it as an FM antenna? As in, radio signals? Might be nice, if the radio around here was decent... sadly that's not really the case. There's a good reason I rely on the internet for entertainment. Will cross that road when the time comes. Had no idea that anything beyond Cat6 was a thing... been a long time since I did any sort of networking.

That was one of the strangest things to me, when our house was built. I have a bundle of coax cables left un-terminated in the basement next to the electrical box, probably 15 lines in all. I have absolutely no use for coax line in our house... I had explained how I wanted internet in all the rooms to be able to be plugged into directly, but I really don't think the contractor quite understood what I meant... obviously. On the plus side, the coax will make a nice pull cord to run cat5 lines someday. You're probably not that far off, population density, compared to where I live. Lowest population in all the US (at least the lower 48, not sure about Alaska these days?), yet I'm in I believe the 7th largest state, by area. Still... internet speeds kinda suck. I don't think it's helping, that a large number of folks are online now, that weren't ten years ago. More traffic on the same infrastructure, slows everybody down. Yet one more reason I'm not really a fan of modern phones. You guys are definitely getting screwed on the HBO side of things. Small wonder that such business practices might encourage piracy. Is Amazon Prime an option for getting HBO up there? Or is that not allowed due to Bell's contract / rights holdings?

Thanks for that link, I read another article on that site worth a read if anyone is interested in this sort of thing: https://www.lifewire.com/hi-res-audio-4134630 I think what made me aware of it the most was music during the end credits of movies on blu-ray discs. It just sounds so much more full than any CD I've heard. Makes some sense though, if I recall, blu-ray is 48 or 96-bit, versus CD at 16-bit. I may have numbers incorrect, but I know the audio portion of a blu-ray is quite sizable.

No worries at all bud, I can see the potential for humor. It's like kids these days discovering "new" bands that we've been listening to for years. I'm of the cassette generation, records were still available, but dying off in favor of portability. I have only had the Klipsh setup for a few years now, so with the equipment I had before, I was never really able to appreciate quality sounding files. Spent the better part of 2006 onward listening to a vast mp3 collection, and the only car I had with a nice sound system fell in the mp3 era for me. So, for me personally at least, it was more about the discovery of music on a greater magnitude, than it was about the quality of the sound. Now that I've heard good sounding music again, with the richness of fidelity... I'm hooked. I'd have a set of Klipshorns for the basement, and a dedicated listening room, if I had unlimited access to master recordings. All this talk of format fidelity raises a question though... is there anything that sounds better than a cd, apart from a record? That may be personal preference, the analog vs digital debate, but are cd's still king of sound quality?

I was always a pretty big fan of the editorial personalities that made up my favorite magazines. Ad humor was fun. Original art was always a treat too. I dunno why, but magazines got me excited about the hobby. Anymore, it's "out of sight, out of mind" for me, since the internet can be a massive overload of content. Magazines broke it down into digestible chunks, at least for me. I definitely see your point though.

Oh I'm not debating the usefulness of the internet, it is just disappointing that gaming magazines largely went away, while just about every other hobby has a magazine still in publication. For example, I still have subscriptions to four different car magazines, yet at the same time, the influence of the internet on the car world is undeniably huge. There aren't five, or ten car magazines, there are literally dozens. I wonder how much the ability to do things purely digitally in a given hobby has an effect on this? I mean, I can play racing games, or watch racing on video, but I can't download a car, I have to actually touch it to interact with it. Gaming these days, can be entirely ones and zeros, apart from the interface of the player. Hmm...

I didn't used to really appreciate flac files over the mp3, but with the speakers I have in the living room, I can hear the difference. Mp3 just sounds kinda... flat... compared to the flac of the same song.

Still jealous of the speeds you mention. For reference, I'm on a 12mbit down, < 1mbit up. Realistically I can see upwards of 25mbit down if using torrents, but the upload speed is still lame. Starting to think the US is rather behind the curve on internet infrastructure... Looking at your list there, it's unsurprising that that basic package is the price it is... like you say, nothing of value, at least that I would know of. To make an obvious connection though, any state-funded news is going to be propaganda, literally anywhere in the world. There's a reason behind the intent of our freedom of the press in the US, not to drag the thread into that realm. Crap like that doesn't even deserve a channel. So, if you want to watch HBO, you have to watch it live, or record it? I'm a pretty big fan of HBO Go, except for their "save to my list" option having a habit of deleting things that you have saved to watch, even when they're still available to watch.

I never really understood the technical theory behind audio compression. I understand the benefits of smaller file sizes, but how do you compress audio and not lose quality at the same time? Perhaps this is a topic for another discussion, but it interests me all the same. I guess ideal file choice would also depend on the playback equipment too. I've noticed that songs I know very well sound different, and I pick up on different tones and characteristics of the song, depending on what I'm listening to. Cheap car speakers, expensive car speakers, default i-device headphones, quality over the ear headphones, portable audio systems, the cheap theater system in the garage, the Klipsch stuff in the living room... you get the point. So many ways to hear a song, it's so much fun discovering new things about old songs that you've been hearing for years.

While on the one hand, I'm still disappointed with the downfall of gaming mags in the US, largely due to the internet, we probably wouldn't know anything about one another or be able to have a common hobby like Retromags if not for said internet. Darned catch-22's.

I was just curious to see what your perspectives were, absolutely no judgement here. For all the more I watch, getting cable or satellite would be absolutely pointless. Now, if I could pick the perhaps 3 channels that air shows we watch, and record to watch at my leisure, I might be interested. Honestly though, apart from the anime here and there, everything we watch is on Netflix or HBO. Not really a sports fan here, apart from occasionally hockey, and F1, so no need for some fancy package deal like Data was describing. E-day, I'm rather jealous of your internet man... our best option is still significantly slower than your former option. I may as well go make a sandwich if I want to upload anything.