I find it interesting that you find Comcast to be benign kind of bully. But that is not the truth. They have already impeded internet speed on several occasions. In 2006 the FCC found them using hardware called Sandvine that sent forged TCP RST packets to interrupt multiple protocols that were used on P2P networks. It resulted in preventing downloads from most Comcast users. It also effectively throttled VOIP.
At FCC hearings there is evidence that they paid seat fillers to keep critics from getting into meetings.
They are first order bullies who have tons of lobbyists pushing the politicians to let them take over the internet.
The VOIP is a good example.
Comcast has a VOIP service, what guarantees are there comcast won’t give competing VOIP traffic like Skype high latency? Gonzomax showed an example where they did just that.
Our internet service in America is down about 20th for speed in the world. Oligarchies don’t have to innovate and provide greater service, All they have to do is buy up their competition. Then they get the government to allow them to make the rules and they will loot away merrily. Since we live in America, we don’t see how much better the internet can be. They have no incentive to make big investments in the best systems available. Just keep the lights on and collect billions.
On average. Have you noticed that America is a big place? If you look cities with the highest speed in the world, however, the US has several in the top 10. That’s because our infrastructure is mixed…we have a lot of older infrastructure running to a lot of rural areas, and in some places next to nothing at all, while in other places we have high speed fiber backbones that are running directly to individual buildings…and everything in between those extremes. Other countries have a more uniform infrastructure because, in most of the cases that I know of (South Korea and Japan being two I can think of off the top of my head) they have very dense populations (using that term in a different way than I would to describe certain posters I know), and much newer infrastructure.
And if frogs had wings they wouldn’t have to bump their asses on the ground when they hopped.
I live in America, and my internet speed rivals the best in any part of the world I’ve ever been too…and I’ve been to more places in the world than you’ve obviously been to in America.
Why have they brought out high speed DSL then? Why have they introduced new technologies to try and squeeze the maximum out of the existing technologies? Why have they invested billions in infrastructure upgrades?
Well, because reality is different than your fantasy world, that’s why. The reason they haven’t made our infrastructure uniform and high speed to every bumfuck village and town across America isn’t about ‘oligarchies’ keeping down the little man and screwing over the people, it’s because it would cost trillions to upgrade our existing infrastructure on the scales necessary to put something like that in place. The US, with it’s disperse population isn’t suited to putting in the same kind of infrastructure that they have in South Korea, where people are concentrated in the cities, and in large apartment complexes within those cities.
I realize you don’t get any of this, because you don’t even have a basic grasp of what the real issues or problems are, nor do you have even a tenuous grasp of the technologies involved. The reality is much more complex than your cartoon world view allows for, sadly.
-XT
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10317118-38.html Here is a chart showing we are no. 27 in the world. Just because you break out the knee pads when someone says something about American business ,does not mean others can not see how corrupting a few corporations controlling important parts of the economy can be. A few corporations control 90 percent of the communications industry. Many think that is a problem. It certainly has ended competition, innovation and investment.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2007-06-25-net-speeds_N.htm Here is a USA Today article saying our relatively low speed internet impacts our ability to draw business and jobs. So it hurts us in the competition for global industry. Is that real enough to you?
You didn’t read either your own cite or my post. Just spewed your standard line of horseshit and batshit. From your own cite:
South Korea, the country with the top average, is at 12Mbph, btw, and they get that because 100Mbps is available (it’s pretty expensive) in parts of the country. They also get there because they have a highly dense population who are concentrated in their large cities.
There is no doubt that the lack of broadband competition is a factor in why our internet isn’t on par with the South Korean’s. They have a LOT more competitors (they also have a larger buy in from the government towards their infrastructure). But the other side of the coin is that the US isn’t South Korea or Japan, or most of the other small countries on that list. We are a continental power, with citizens who don’t necessarily live cheek by jowl in our cities. For much the same reason we don’t have the mass transit system in Japan and South Korea we don’t have the high speed internet to more people that would bring up our averages.
The other factor is history…we were what you might call ‘early adopters’, having invented the internet here and all. Many (most really) of the countries on the list of having higher average speeds weren’t…they have invested heavily in 2nd or 3rd (or more) generation technology initially, instead of building their infrastructure on zeroth generation technology and then incrementally upgrading as they go along. That gives them another large advantage, one that we could only ‘fix’ by expending hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars to bring up our average. We’d have to get high speed capabilities (20Mbps or better) into every little rural town and village, every farm, every backwater, etc. Ain’t…gonna…happen. The government doesn’t have the money for it, and business isn’t going to expend the money one things that aren’t going to make them money, or are going to have an ROI of decades or more, which putting high speed internet to every rural area in the US would certain take.
Instead, they are focusing on building new infrastructure in certain areas (such as the densely populated cities on the East Coast where, stunningly, our average bandwidth is more in line with much of the rest of the world), because that is where the money is. South Korea et al are doing the same thing…the only difference is that in South Korea they have a more densely packed population and it’s more highly concentrated.
One of my jobs is evaluating the possibility of broadband service here in New Mexico in the county I work for. We have a lot of rural areas that have either no internet access at all, or very limited access. The county has it’s own (very bad) broadband system consisting of high speed microwave links (all older, out of warranty equipment, poorly maintained, poorly tuned, and poorly thought through or designed). One of the things that the county folks want to know is if we can expand the system to service new areas. Now, this isn’t an evil corporate system here…it’s own by the good guys, a.k.a. The Government (we are here to help you). And what me and my team are telling them is, sure, we can expand the system, and we can provide data, voice and video (as well as emergency radio) services to every small village, farming town and Indian pueblo out there. (large satisfied smiles from the government chiefs). The thing is, it’s going to cost something like $100 million dollars (sudden frowns and looks of anguish)…minimum.
And that figure is to basically rebuild the backbone along sane lines, build out the core infrastructure, put a monitoring and help desk system in place, shore up our endpoint distribution, and bring on 2-3 new towns. And we aren’t exactly a BIG county.
Of course, there is zero way our county can get $100 million (or even $10 million…hell, probably not even $1 million) to do this project. Now, if the REAL good guys (the FEDERAL Government) wants to pony up the cash, we could probably do something, but so far they have been disinclined to do anything of the sort. Short of that, we won’t be getting high speed service (or even low speed service) to any of those places. It’s not commercially or economically viable for anyone to invest that kind of money for, perhaps, 2000 or so ‘customers’. Your ROI would be measured in centuries, which is why there isn’t any broadband or high speed services in those places.
-XT
This needs to be repeated. When I was college, the campus had a fat OC3 pipe connected right to the countywide backbone. Dial-up was still the norm back then (early 2000s), so the students and faculty were getting speeds that were unheard of (or impossible) in 99% of the country.
The US average is just that, an average. Extrapolating it out to the way the majority of the population lives is ignoring how averages work.
Verizon-Google: There's a Hard Rain Coming | HuffPost Impact It is a business proposition that will change the rules down the line. This is Grayson’s take on the problem.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/08/20/fcc-commissioners-copps-clyburn-strongly-support-open-internet/ here are 2 FCC commissioners saying it would end the internet as we know it. Seems a lot of insiders fear that allowing corporations to cut deals to determine what the internet should be like, would result in them favoring the providers over the users. Makes perfect sense. They always do. I
Why isn’t the infrastructure of internet distribution closely controlled and/or owned by local governments? I thought that’s the way utilities were suppose to work.
The water company can’t charge different rates to customers for different purity levels of water.
The power company can’t charge a premium for a special “Kilowatt Klub” where for a mere $49.99 a month they’ll guarantee availability of electric supply to your home 24/7, otherwise, you take your chances on brownouts ever other day. (“If I were you sir, I’d take advantage of the DELUXE Kilowatt Klub, which includes standard voltage of 100 to 130v at all hours, PLUS free repair service on weekdays for only $9.99 a week plus administrative fees! Especially since your son *is *on dialysis!”)
If all radio and TV had been transmitted through cables/fiber/wires etc. instead of over the airwaves when those technologies came into their own, wouldn’t the government have seen and acted on the obvious importance of regulating such an exclusive and unique means of transmitting information?
I think they would have, but that’s not the way those technologies originated. With the internet, however, we are fast approaching the time when virtually all information–whether video, audio, “print” (as in newspapers, books, documents, mail, etc.) are transmitted through conduits owed and controlled by private ISPs.
Doesn’t it then become the duty of the government, to ensure fair access to all? Shouldn’t the government, if not own, at lease tightly control and regulate the usage of the pipelines delivering (in the near future) virtually all forms of data/media/information?
NOTE: Of course I don’t mean the government should control the content, just ensure the ability of all citizens to have fair access to… well… any and all of the information that has ever existed in the history of the world.
If not, it would be like the government allowing corporations to establish private and exclusive lending libraries where you could only get access to the good stuff if you paid a premium.
“Danielle Steele? Sure! That’ll just set you back 25 cents a day. Oh, you say it’s Shakespeare you want? Ahhh… well let me introduce you to our special Platinum Borrowers Program. Only $199 a month!!!”
You do know that private libraries exist right? And some public libraries do charge patrons a fee to jump the hold line to get popular stuff like the latest Danielle Steel first.