|
computer parts posted:You don't pay per person covered, you pay per unit of area. That's some really basic poo poo. And the US has X times the area, Y times the population, and Z times the GDP of Sweden. What's your point?
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
computer parts posted:You don't pay per person covered, you pay per unit of area. That's some really basic poo poo. Yes, and Sweden needs more units per person, since it has more area to cover per person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Benito Hitlerstalin posted:Yes, I know, and Sweden has more area to cover per person. Ergo it becomes comparatively more expensive and/or difficult. Being few people in total doesn't alleviate this loving problem. It's not a loving plus. On the contrary it exacerbates it, since the comparatively higher costs have to be absorbed by fewer people. Per person doesn't matter here. We have to carry much more people who are much more spread out geographically, hence our rural internet is worse. If you're really ignorant enough to not understand why having to wire a rural area a substantial amount of the size of all of loving Europe is an issue, what can I even say to that? I just checked by the way, the rural land area of the United States covers 3.6 million square miles, that is 92% of the land area of all of Europe. With just 63 million people spread across that. Ardennes posted:Is the size different in that aspect going to mean such a divergence? If so, isn't that a pretty big critique of Suburbia since it is primarily to blame for the issue? If you want to say a lack of planning and dense cities are the reason, fine but that doesn't actual dismiss the issue. What's the issue? Tell me, what's the situation in the areas around Frankfurt that due to German city practices aren't incorporated to the city? Benito Hitlerstalin posted:Yes, and Sweden needs more units per person, since it has more area to cover per person. Except it has a substantially smaller area, which is always cheaper to cover in depth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Articles on this subject usually talk about averages because that's the sane thing to do. If internet access in the 82% of the U.S. that is urbanized were as good as internet access in any other country we'd be in the top 10 on average instead of 30th or whatever the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Per person doesn't matter here. We have to carry much more people who are much more spread out geographically, hence our rural internet is worse. If you're really ignorant enough to not understand why having to wire a rural area a substantial amount of the size of all of loving Europe is an issue, what can I even say to that? I'm not saying it isn't, though, am I? I'm contesting the fact that you think having a small population somehow negates or alleviates the challenges posed by a geographically extensive and sparsely populated area. It doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The nice things you think those countries have are only in a few select places. I live in Seattle which is admittedly a small city but it's also home to Microsoft and Amazon and has a bunch of money. There's some affordable high speed internet in a few areas but for the most part it's overpriced lovely Comcast. The city is full of nerds, isn't that reason to build infrastructure? But otoh, if I were Comcast, why would I want to improve any infrastructure in this area whatsoever when customers are already paying? Building and getting approval for fiber is difficult, yet isn't that exactly what other cities around the world had to do too?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Xandu posted:You're right, particularly about his position on net neutrality, but there's a reason people bring it up. The ideal person to work in a regulatory position is not someone who has spent a large part of their career working as a lobbyist (although I'm more bothered that he only got the position because he raised 500k for Obama). Much of that might have been working on behalf of the cell phone industry, but it still betrays a certain mindset in my opinion. John Adams represented redcoats in court. Just saying, representation is not agreement. At worst, you tend to represent those you agree with (though again, Adams) and most of the time the major downside is that you're going to take the calls of the people you used to work with. Wheeler represented the cable industry when its big concerns were getting access to utility poles on equal terms and making stealing cable illegal. The cable industry he represented had around 30 million subscribers country-wide. The idea that any lingering influence from back then is influencing him now is ridiculous. Then he represented the wireless industry when it was still fragmented and trying to both stabilize on new interoperable standards and compete with wired phones. He oversaw a rapid expansion period where they went from 15 million subscribers to 200 million subscribers in the process. Again, the idea that the interests of VZW and AT&T now mirror those of CTIA back then is wrong. He was involved in tech startups for the decade prior to his appointment. He publicly advocated for the use of merger conditions to impose additional restrictions on the AT&T/T-Mobile merge. Basically his entire career he's been representing people whose interest is in obtaining or maintaining access to networks that existing players would prefer to keep them out of. But no, his words and actions carry no weight compared to his involvement with cable (three decades ago) and wireless (a decade ago) industry groups. (The fact that he got it in part because of fundraising? Yeah, that's a legit criticism.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:What's the issue? Tell me, what's the situation in the areas around Frankfurt that due to German city practices aren't incorporated to the city? Frankfurt doesn't have nearly the same degree of American style suburbs, or if you want a closer comparison, neither does Berlin. That said, I don't know if it makes a difference but certainly it is much better to at least compare cities than say well should rural Utah and Berlin have the same access or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I just checked by the way, the rural land area of the United States covers 3.6 million square miles, that is 92% of the land area of all of Europe. With just 63 million people spread across that. Of which 47% is uninhabited, while apart from some areas of northern Scandinavia and Russia Europe is totally inhabited. Looking at urban and rural population densities is absolutely a valid way to compare the costs of wiring up last-mile stuff in different areas. It doesn't matter how much wire/fiber they have to run in absolute terms, or the number of people it supports. What matters is how much infrastructure relative to the number of people paying to support that infrastructure, and population density is the obvious way to capture that. There could be differences in wiring up the backbone/trunk-type stuff, since the population centers may be more geographically dispersed or something. Places like Russia would also deal with that however. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Articles on this subject usually talk about averages because that's the sane thing to do. If internet access in the 82% of the U.S. that is urbanized were as good as internet access in any other country we'd be in the top 10 on average instead of 30th or whatever the gently caress. Averages of what exactly? 30th on what accurate lists? And it shouldn't be a surprise that the largest developed country on the planet can't sustain the best access across the whole country. Especially since we're a country that built out vast amounts of the infrastructure 20 or more years ago, in ways that are not as well suited to upgrading as building from scratch or starting later would be. Benito Hitlerstalin posted:I'm not saying it isn't, though, am I? I'm contesting the fact that you think having a small population somehow negates or alleviates the challenges posed by a geographically extensive and sparsely populated area. You're contesting something where you're straight up wrong dude. Having a small population means you can cover everyone faster, it's that simple. There's still plenty of people in Sweden who don't have any internet access at all, let alone fast access, after all, and it's seriously in the top 3 countries globally. Paul MaudDib posted:Of which 47% is uninhabited, while apart from some areas of northern Scandinavia and Russia Europe is totally inhabited. Yes, which is why there's a lot more access in Europe. We still have to get access lines across the uninhabited areas in the first place, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Of which 47% is uninhabited, while apart from some areas of Sweden and Russia Europe is totally inhabited. Anyone have any anecdotal evidence of the price of broadband in Alaska for example? Edit: 7 Mbits a second for 99$ from Alaska Communications, http://www.alaskacommunications.com/Personal/Home-Internet.aspx. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Anyone have any anecdotal evidence of the price of broadband in Alaska for example? First result for "Anchorage Alaska Internet": 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:First result for "Anchorage Alaska Internet": Yeah, I wonder why there is such a gap between Alaska Communications and GCI, rural versus urban access? That or it is the ye olde "for the first 3-6 months" switcheroo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Averages of what exactly? 30th on what accurate lists? And it shouldn't be a surprise that the largest developed country on the planet can't sustain the best access across the whole country. Especially since we're a country that built out vast amounts of the infrastructure 20 or more years ago, in ways that are not as well suited to upgrading as building from scratch or starting later would be. quote:You're contesting something where you're straight up wrong dude. Having a small population means you can cover everyone faster, it's that simple. quote:There's still plenty of people in Sweden who don't have any internet access at all, let alone fast access, after all, and it's seriously in the top 3 countries globally. Which costs next to nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You're contesting something where you're straight up wrong dude. Having a small population means you can cover everyone faster, it's that simple. How so? Is there some artificial limit to how many crews slinging wire you can have or what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, I wonder why there is such a gap between Alaska Communications and GCI, rural versus urban access? GCI is your standard cable modem setup, Alaska Communications is a DSL provider.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Anyone have any anecdotal evidence of the price of broadband in Alaska for example? It's pretty expensive, only a few of the areas have wireline access to the rest of the world, much of the rest has to rely on expensive satellite backhaul from a local cable or DSL network to the outside world. In Anchorage for example, you can get normal cable without having to have satellite backhaul, but the plans start at $40 a month for 10/1 service and a 10 GB transfer cap. Interior/Northern Alaska ends up with DSL backed by satellite, and you start off at $30 a month for 512 kilobit down/128 kilobit up and 5 GB of transfer per month - and if you're willing to shell out $300 per month you can get a whole 6 meg down' 2 up and 100 GB transfer. spoon0042 posted:Read it again. If our urban areas had comparable access to other countries then rural areas could still be on dialup without pulling down the average that much. Averages, how do they work. Our urban areas do just fine though in the first place? Despite what you seem to think we don't conscript random people to build internets, so the larger population doesn't fix the distance issues. It in no way costs next to nothing to build a ton more infrastructure, if it did private companies would have actually done it to grab the profits just sitting on the ground. Benito Hitlerstalin posted:How so? Is there some artificial limit to how many crews slinging wire you can have or what? The fact that noone's paying for it? The fact that noone's even seriously proposed it? The fact there isn't just a bunch of equipment and tools sitting around for random people to show up and build with? And then that noone's putting out the money to keep up maintenance and ongoing upgrades were they to be built? Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:NYC Time Warner: For comparison, here's what we get in Romania from RDS, the biggest ISP in the country with 55% market share: 1000/100 - $18 500/100 - $15 100/30 - $12 50/30 - $9 Those 4 plans are the only ones available to residential customers (there are no slower ones) and are available in all urban Romania and parts of the rural areas. There are no caps, no installation fee or any other extra fees. Also if you're uploading to someone who has the same ISP, the upload speeds tend to be close or equal to the download ones (which is quite helpful considering that copyright infringement is a national sport over here  )There's no reason I can see why densely populated areas in the US like NY-NJ or LA-SF etc wouldn't also have speeds like those available for everybody, even if at a price adjusted for income.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
It would be impossible to link the eastern and western coasts with a railway, the distance is too great and the population too dispersed. - fishmech, 1840
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
3peat posted:
Because we did not start from no infrastructure several years ago, the way Romania largely did. Once you have major amounts of infrastructure in place, it becomes increasingly difficult to replace it. Hell, NYC had problems throught he middle of the 20th century attempting to increase regular phone capacity fast enough with the already crowded utility pathways available. spoon0042 posted:It would be impossible to link the eastern and western coasts with a railway, the distance is too great and the population too dispersed. No, more like it would be impossible to link everyone in the country with railways. Which as it turns out it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No, more like it would be impossible to link everyone in the country with railways. Which as it turns out it is. Leave Hawaii out of this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
3peat posted:For comparison, here's what we get in Romania from RDS, the biggest ISP in the country with 55% market share: The average disposable income of someone in NY is about 9x higher than the average disposable income of someone in Bucharest, so actually those prices seem pretty reasonable to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
3peat posted:There's no reason I can see why densely populated areas in the US like NY-NJ or LA-SF etc wouldn't also have speeds like those available for everybody, even if at a price adjusted for income. Why do a lot of cities in Europe have roads that are too narrow for cars? Because they were designed before the invention of the automobile and it's too expensive to fix it. You can see this yourself in literally any city-builder game too - try making a city in Tropico and then realize that you need to change something major in the middle of town, and see how much it costs/how long it takes you to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Are there any quantifiable arguments for how much density (or lack thereof) increases telco costs, or do we just have to assume that telcos offer perfect pricing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No, more like it would be impossible to link everyone in the country with railways. Which as it turns out it is. Fine. Replace it with "Interstate Highway System" and "1940".
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Why do a lot of cities in Europe have roads that are too narrow for cars? Because they were designed before the invention of the automobile and it's too expensive to fix it. Wow, they must have had to destroy half their cities to lay wire then, why can't we do it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
A map of areas in the US where download speeds of 50 megabit or higher are available, incidentally: spoon0042 posted:Fine. Replace it with "Interstate Highway System" and "1940". The Interstate Highway System explicitly avoids the vast majority of the country, and is forbidden for providing roadside access to business/residences. You just keep coming up with things that aren't even close to working.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Like Fishmech, you're technically right - it's on The Top of the Second page. No need to be a dick, and because I am nice, I will link directly to the post that (I found) starts the actual germane discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:A map of areas in the US where download speeds of 50 megabit or higher are available, incidentally: I'm just going with your argument that it could never have been built because of density and land area. So the definition of "service" is slightly different, good job figuring that out!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Wow, they must have had to destroy half their cities to lay wire then, why can't we do it? Here's something related: A lot of "higher end" hotels started providing brodabnad internet to the rooms in the late 90s. Given the tech of the time, many of them decided to do things like host an in-hotel DSLAM so they could just run DSL lines into each room with a modem terminating the connection in there for the user. This worked great at the time, and the hotel didn't have that fast of a connection either. Others ran a single 10 megabit ethernet LAN with cabling only really suitable for 10 megabit speeds - this again worked ok for the time. But now years later those systems are very slow yet won't be replaced for quite some time due to the costs of rerunning a modern setup. However, many cheaper hotels simply didn't have any internet service until much later, and when the time came to install it they'd either simply run better Ethernet networking systems, or pretty decent enterprise WiFI systems with much better in room performance. spoon0042 posted:I'm just going with your argument that it could never have been built because of density and land area. So the definition of "service" is slightly different, good job figuring that out! That's not my argument, no wonder you get a friction burn when you're tying to gently caress a strawman for the past hour. Let's make an analogy though! The interstate system is the internet backbone. It's fast but there's a restricted set of places to get on. And if you're out in Buttzville, OK, your access to the interstate is most of the way going to be along a dusty two lane road before you can reach the interstate. And man, if you're on the farm that's 5 miles outside of Buttzville? Well you're easily going to be stuck with a half washed out gravel road to get to the paved two lane in the first place. On the other hand, if you're in Towson, MD, there's a 4 lane arterial going right to the nearest interstate, with a very short two lane stretch to the arterial. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Let's make an analogy though! The interstate system is the internet backbone. It's fast but there's a restricted set of places to get on. And if you're out in Buttzville, OK, your access to the interstate is most of the way going to be along a dusty two lane road before you can reach the interstate. On the other hand, if you're in Towson, MD, there's a 4 lane arterial going right to the nearest interstate, with a very short two lane stretch to the arterial. On the other hand 4% of the roads carry 40% of the traffic and 90% of the population lives within 5 miles of the NHS. There's no excuse for this country to be lagging in internet infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:A map of areas in the US where download speeds of 50 megabit or higher are available, incidentally: http://www.localgovinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2014-04-21_Broadband_Presentation.pdf Specifically these two slides:   From the sound of this, it appears that the US is perfectly competitive with the higher end broadband, it's just that on the lower end, we struggle. In particular, look at Denmark for comparison - They rank 8th for >4Mbit/s penetration at 81% (the US not being on the table at all), yet they are 10th in the >10Mbit/s penetration at 28%. This is below even the US which is at 34%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:On the other hand 4% of the roads carry 40% of the traffic and 90% of the population lives within 5 miles of the NHS. There's no excuse for this country to be lagging in internet infrastructure. We aren't lagging in infrastructure in the first place though. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:We aren't lagging in infrastructure in the first place though. Right, you keep going back and forth between "there's no problem" and "we can't compete because reasons".
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Right, you keep going back and forth between "there's no problem" and "we can't compete because reasons". I never said we can't compete. That's entirely out of your little strawman party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Right, you keep going back and forth between "there's no problem" and "we can't compete because reasons". In respect to your comparison, it isn't the interstate that we are having issue with. We need to tear up the local roads and streets. Outside of your comparison, that's something we need to actually do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I never said we can't compete. That's entirely out of your little strawman party. That was the implication of your whole "we can't have nice infrastructure because we have dense urban cities that are hard to develop, unlike those backwards Euros" posts, along with that other guy. Nintendo Kid posted:Because we did not start from no infrastructure several years ago, the way Romania largely did. Once you have major amounts of infrastructure in place, it becomes increasingly difficult to replace it. Hell, NYC had problems throught he middle of the 20th century attempting to increase regular phone capacity fast enough with the already crowded utility pathways available. Nintendo Kid posted:Here's something related: A lot of "higher end" hotels started providing brodabnad internet to the rooms in the late 90s. Given the tech of the time, many of them decided to do things like host an in-hotel DSLAM so they could just run DSL lines into each room with a modem terminating the connection in there for the user. This worked great at the time, and the hotel didn't have that fast of a connection either. Others ran a single 10 megabit ethernet LAN with cabling only really suitable for 10 megabit speeds - this again worked ok for the time. computer parts posted:Why do a lot of cities in Europe have roads that are too narrow for cars? Because they were designed before the invention of the automobile and it's too expensive to fix it. I guess the US wasn't very developed circa 1990, who knew?  Really though that table only goes to >10 Mbps and the thing is urban areas in other countries tend to be a lot faster, >=100 is pretty common in urban-ish areas and >=1000 isn't unheard-of. So even our urban areas lag pretty hard in comparison. I wonder what that chart would look like at >=100 and >=1000 instead of circa-2000 service speeds. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:That was the implication of your whole "we can't have nice infrastructure because we have dense urban cities that are hard to develop, unlike those backwards Euros" posts, along with that other guy. But we are doing the upgrades, it's just apparently going too slow for some whiners. Many people just assume everything's exactly the same as 4-5 years ago when making these complaints, even.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But we are doing the upgrades, it's just apparently going too slow for some whiners. Many people just assume everything's exactly the same as 4-5 years ago when making these complaints, even. Yeah, based on the charts I found it sounds like the US is very competitive for new-ish speeds (ie, cable level speeds instead of DSL), it's just that there's a lot of really slow connections to bring down the average.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah, based on the charts I found it sounds like the US is very competitive for new-ish speeds (ie, cable level speeds instead of DSL), it's just that there's a lot of really slow connections to bring down the average. Yes, the roll out of DOCSIS 3.0 equipment in combination with cable companies abolishing analog cable and thus freeing up more bandwidth on their networks has allowed for sometimes drastic increases in available speeds. DSL meanwhile is still pretty crappy, and due to distance limitations it's also rarely present in new build-out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:33
|
|