Interesting graphs and charts department

[xoxoxoBruce]

Disgraceful. And there's a ton of people in the US that can't get broadband, which is more disgraceful.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

. And there's a ton of people in the US that can't get broadband, which is more disgraceful.

Another symptom of what Michael Powel did in the FCC. By changing the rules (because rules were created by Clinton), he successfully bankrupted all competition (PSI, Covad, etc). "Best" internet should only have two providers in each region. Companies such as Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner then decided where they would and would not provide broadband. Since no competition exists.

Dish is one alternative. But even that will be consumed by the big duopolies. BTW Michael Powel is now a highly paid lobbyist for those companies.

Due to an intentionally created monopoly after 2001, we all now have slow and getting even slower internet. We pay $30 or $45 per month for 20 Mb. Koreans routinely pay $20 for 100 Mb. And Korean businesses are not blackmailed to pay for special service because their 'Comcasts' do not have software to even intentionally subvert Skype packets and skew NetFlicks service. Because their providers did not throttle BitTorrent to increase profits.

[glatt]

This is my phone's speed tests at work and at home. Work is fast. Home is slow. We get the slower cheaper data package at home, but it's really not that cheap. Pisses me off.


Actually, they list these in kbps units. That can't be right, can it? My old 56k modem from 15 years ago was 56k, which is short for 56 kbps, right? How can I be slower now?

[Undertoad]

An entire HD movie from Netflix streams at 5 Mb/s so I am not sure what you gentlefolk need so goddamn fast

[Gravdigr]

We'd prolly be happy with "so goddamn cheap", but, we'd like "so goddamn fast".

We'd love both.

[Gravdigr]

And:

Why are we so far behind the countries we're so far ahead of?

In general, not just wires and tubes.

[Undertoad]

I'm sure part of it is how we're spread out, part is when our tech revolution occurred (do we require hardwired copper phones or can we just build past that).

But a big lot of it is just marketing because there are precious few people that actually need more than 10 Mb/s. The bits arrive there at the same time; you can't buy more bandwidth and make the Cellar faster, or even make Youtube stop buffering.

People think they want Google Fiber (1000 Mb/s) when they can't even get a 20th that number out of any devices connected over their WiFi. Now, Google Fiber tries to help speed up the other side of their network, so this is one case where an internet provider may "feel" faster. But it's not the big number they push up front that makes it so.

Latency, or the ping number you get from speedtest.net and elsewhere, is a bigger factor in how "snappy" the web seems, and how quickly requests for stuff turn around. But it's on the order of tenths of a second, so this is not what's making some webpages load all slowly. (That is more poorly scripted pages, on slow servers, allowing ads to interfere with the experience, with memory-hog browsers taking up all the memory on slower desktops, as technology changes, and so forth.)

I spose if you have a household of both gamers and media watchers, you may actually require 20Mb/s from time to time. Of if you torrent a lot.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

We'd prolly be happy with "so goddamn cheap", but, we'd like "so goddamn fast".

We'd love both.

And smooth, without hiccups.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'm sure part of it is how we're spread out, part is when our tech revolution occurred (do we require hardwired copper phones or can we just build past that).

But a big lot of it is just marketing because there are precious few people that actually need more than 10 Mb/s. The bits arrive there at the same time; you can't buy more bandwidth and make the Cellar faster, or even make Youtube stop buffering.

People think they want Google Fiber (1000 Mb/s) when they can't even get a 20th that number out of any devices connected over their WiFi. Now, Google Fiber tries to help speed up the other side of their network, so this is one case where an internet provider may "feel" faster. But it's not the big number they push up front that makes it so.

Latency, or the ping number you get from speedtest.net and elsewhere, is a bigger factor in how "snappy" the web seems, and how quickly requests for stuff turn around. But it's on the order of tenths of a second, so this is not what's making some webpages load all slowly. (That is more poorly scripted pages, on slow servers, allowing ads to interfere with the experience, with memory-hog browsers taking up all the memory on slower desktops, as technology changes, and so forth.)

I spose if you have a household of both gamers and media watchers, you may actually require 20Mb/s from time to time. Of if you torrent a lot.

So....

Why do others countries bother having high speeds? Have they overcome the problems you describe? How can we overcome those problems?

Is some of the issue that most countries, and Europe in its entirety IIRC, have a single protocol for devices?

[Undertoad]

Problems? O you mean

That is more poorly scripted pages, on slow servers, allowing ads to interfere with the experience, with memory-hog browsers taking up all the memory on slower desktops, as technology changes, and so forth.

Upgrade your computer sparky!

And use AdBlock.

[Griff]

Germany seems to do a lot of things right outside of taking peoples homes away...

[Undertoad]

Why do others countries bother having high speeds?

They're subject to the same marketing and misunderstanding of the net as we are. While at the same time, being much more densely populated means they can swap all their copper for fiber at low cost. Once you have fiber the whole way, there are fewer limitations on what you can do.

At some point it is not much more expensive to provide 1000 Mb/s than it is to provide 20 Mb/s. Once you run fiber for the entire connection, it's just physics, you suddenly have a tremendous amount of bandwidth. So the initial run is very expensive but suddenly the bandwidth is cheap.

OK BUT let's imagine that BANDWIDTH, 1000Mb/s or 20Mb/s, is like the number of lanes in a highway to downtown.

If you have a lot of land, you can build a 100 lane highway. That's wonderful and all but if you only have 8 cars per day that want to get downtown, it won't be any faster with a 100 lane highway than with a 2 lane.

The speed limit will be much more important. I would say speed limit = latency, but the metaphor soon starts to break down. Everything is actually going at the speed of light. I must stop now because if the metaphor gets worse it may cause harm to the whole thread.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I must stop now because if the metaphor gets worse it may cause harm to the whole thread.

Yeah, but then I could draw a chart of the thread crashing and burning after that metaphor, and that would bring it back on track again. In fact, I'd have to get all meta, and include that rebound in the chart.

[monster]

The higher your GPA, the more your earning potential..... But mostly it helps to be male.

from Time http://time.com/110443/grades-gender-pay-gap/

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

But a big lot of it is just marketing because there are precious few people that actually need more than 10 Mb/s.

Same reason justified 2400 and 1.4K baud modems. Nobody needed DSL (1400K and 3000K) in 1990 because advance technology 2.4K modems were fast enough.

Silicon Valley suffered a 1990s downturn, in part, because technologies developed for DSL speeds (ie 1 Gig computer) had no market. Due to fear of technology (ie packet switching) in the last mile, innovation and economic growth was stifled. Microsoft even had to sue Qwest who refused to provide anything other than obsolete circuit switched technology.

Same was learned from pollution control. When the American auto industry stifled innovation, then other countries developed those products that would reap major profits and jobs. American cars then contributed to Bosch's profits because Bosch developed oxygen sensors that Americans knew were unnecessary. "I don't need no stinkin oxygen sensor. My car starts just fine." I don't need no fast internet because products that could use it do not exist.

Same reasoning is why other technologies (ie smart phones, PC and laptops, VCRs, light bulbs, disk drives, semiconductor memory, quantum dots, transistor radios, lithium batteries) moved overseas.

DSL (Broadband) was demonstrated when the IBM PC was introduced. Broadband technology is that old. New products and innovations were denied for almost 20 years because telcos (last mile providers) refused to innovate using the same reasoning that says we don't need 100 Mb. We did not need 1000K modems because we had 1.2K modems. Lessons to be learned from history.

Expect innovative products from Korea because their residential internet has been 100 Mb for only $20. Five times faster for one half the price. Some here are still on 33K modems due to fear of innovation inspired by costs controls, lack of competition, and Michael Powel's rhetoric. Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T, etc also want to destroy net neutrality for increased profits. Encouraged by rules that also stifle innovation.

Geography is a troglodyte myth. "Death of distance" has long proven that communication costs increase almost zero with distance. Without competition, cable and fiber companies have stopped expanding their networks. They have gone into a 'maximize profits' mode; common to monopolies and duopolies. For example, the most urbanized states in America are NJ and lower NY. Verizon refused to installed fiber or copper wires into Mantalokin NJ and Fire Island NY after damage from near zero hurricane Sandy. With a new American internet advocated by Michael Powel, residents must spend more money on a slower wireless service that does not support some communication functions. Why can Verizon not afford to install service in the most urban state in America - where distances are shortest? Geography is irrelevant.

Laws that created 'last mile' duopolies mean American internet has fallen to about 20 in the world - and dropping. Many know 8 Mb will always be fast enough for the same reason 2.4K modems were fast enough. Comcast, Verizon, et al love that myth.

Amazing that so many have no idea what, how, and why innovation is created and is so necessary. 20Mb internet means more jobs, wealth, productivity, products, profits, and markets go to our foreign competition. America was once a world leader in internet. Since Michael Powel, America is slowly conceding another industry due to companies that want to make profits; the product be damned.