any more excuses?

[poldy]

For a long time, the US has fared poorly in OECD and other surveys of
broadband infrastructure.

Americans pay among the highest prices for the slowest prices.

There used to be threads here with some rationalizing that the
population density of Asian nations allowed them to roll out faster
infrastructure.

So it wasn't poor policies or regulatory capture, it was geography.

Those excuses don't wash with telecom companies in other countries:

“In the 1960s the world watched NASA send men to the moon and many of us
grew up amazed at the constant advancements of the Americans,” said
Natsuki Kumagai. “Now the Americans watch us.”

“In my travels to the United States, it is very plain they have lost
their way in advancing broadband technology,” said Pyon Seo-Ju.
“Internet access is terribly slow and expensive because American
politicians have sacrificed Americas’s technology leadership to protect
conglomerates and allow them to flourish. Although unfortunate for
America, this has given Korea a chance to promote our own industry and
enhance the success of companies like Samsung that are well-known in the
United States today.”

http://stopthecap.com/2014/10/14/south-korea-prepares-10gbps-broadband-transfer-1gb-file-0-8-seconds/

[Julian Macassey]

Post by poldy
For a long time, the US has fared poorly in OECD and other surveys of
broadband infrastructure.
Americans pay among the highest prices for the slowest prices.
There used to be threads here with some rationalizing that the
population density of Asian nations allowed them to roll out faster
infrastructure.

Using that logic, Sweden should still be on 110 baud.

Post by poldy
So it wasn't poor policies or regulatory capture, it was geography.
“In the 1960s the world watched NASA send men to the moon and many of us
grew up amazed at the constant advancements of the Americans,” said
Natsuki Kumagai. “Now the Americans watch us.”
“In my travels to the United States, it is very plain they have lost
their way in advancing broadband technology,” said Pyon Seo-Ju.
“Internet access is terribly slow and expensive because American
politicians have sacrificed Americas’s technology leadership to protect
conglomerates and allow them to flourish. Although unfortunate for
America, this has given Korea a chance to promote our own industry and
enhance the success of companies like Samsung that are well-known in the
United States today.”
http://stopthecap.com/2014/10/14/south-korea-prepares-10gbps-broadband-transfer-1gb-file-0-8-seconds/

I was doing some work for a Dutch company in the early 1980s,
they were getting PCs and peripherals built in Korea and Taiwan. I
needed to transfer data to our Korean manufacturer. They told me in no
uncertain terms that modems were illegal in Korea, so they couldn't
receive files from me, I would have to DHL floppies to them.

I airfreighted them a modem and told them how to connect it to
a PC running MS-DOS 3.*.

The Koreans have not only caught up, but overtaken the US.

Where is all our high tech networking gear made today? Silicon
Valley? Los Angeles? Yup, we haven't lost the recipe, we gave it away
and have been buying take-out ever since.

[Roy]

Post by Julian Macassey

Post by poldy
For a long time, the US has fared poorly in OECD and other surveys of
broadband infrastructure.
Americans pay among the highest prices for the slowest prices.
There used to be threads here with some rationalizing that the
population density of Asian nations allowed them to roll out faster
infrastructure.

Using that logic, Sweden should still be on 110 baud.

Post by poldy
...

Population density per square km

Sweden: 21.5
US: 34.2
Indonesia: 124
Japan: 337
South Korea: 512
Hong Kong: 6544



Drive from Reno to Salt Lake City on I-80 (500 or so miles). Count the
number of towns with population more than 10,000. You only need one
finger. If you continue to Omaha (more than 900 miles more), I don't
think you need more than two hands.

There is a lot of empty space in the Western US

[poldy]

Post by Roy

Post by Julian Macassey

Post by poldy
For a long time, the US has fared poorly in OECD and other surveys of
broadband infrastructure.
Americans pay among the highest prices for the slowest prices.
There used to be threads here with some rationalizing that the
population density of Asian nations allowed them to roll out faster
infrastructure.

Using that logic, Sweden should still be on 110 baud.

Post by poldy
...

Population density per square km
Sweden: 21.5
US: 34.2
Indonesia: 124
Japan: 337
South Korea: 512
Hong Kong: 6544
Drive from Reno to Salt Lake City on I-80 (500 or so miles). Count the
number of towns with population more than 10,000. You only need one
finger. If you continue to Omaha (more than 900 miles more), I don't
think you need more than two hands.
There is a lot of empty space in the Western US

But you wouldn't need to wire up the empty space, just the populated
areas. Of course you have to have long-haul transport over some of
those empty spaces but I was under the impression that long-haul
infrastructure isn't the problem, it's the last mile.

Or maybe it's like the last few hundred feet.

[n***@sbcglobal.net]

Post by Roy

Post by Julian Macassey

Post by poldy
For a long time, the US has fared poorly in OECD and other surveys of
broadband infrastructure.
Americans pay among the highest prices for the slowest prices.
There used to be threads here with some rationalizing that the
population density of Asian nations allowed them to roll out faster
infrastructure.

Using that logic, Sweden should still be on 110 baud.

Post by poldy
...

Population density per square km
Sweden: 21.5
US: 34.2
Indonesia: 124
Japan: 337
South Korea: 512
Hong Kong: 6544
Drive from Reno to Salt Lake City on I-80 (500 or so miles). Count the
number of towns with population more than 10,000. You only need one
finger. If you continue to Omaha (more than 900 miles more), I don't
think you need more than two hands.
There is a lot of empty space in the Western US

That comparison doesn't count if you look at the population density of US cities and yet how poor broadband service is there. There are other solutions for the rural areas. I see my 300 population hometown now has Century Link. One thing the U-Verse tech told me was that it didn't work in a lot of older apartment buildings due to the phone wiring.

[Julian Macassey]

Post by n***@sbcglobal.net
That comparison doesn't count if you look at the population density
of US cities and yet how poor broadband service is there. There are
other solutions for the rural areas. I see my 300 population
hometown now has Century Link.

In my rural area, I have Century link, and fibre into the
village with underground copper to my house. That gives me better
reliability and connectivity than AT&T twisted pair in San Mateo. The
company that now calls itself AT&T is Southern Bell and they are
greedy, ignorant, toothless Texans.

Post by n***@sbcglobal.net
One thing the U-Verse tech told me was that it didn't work in a lot
of older apartment buildings due to the phone wiring.

Which the greedy, ignorant bastards are never going to upgrade
as long as they can bleed custiomers with shitty service.

The PUC is as we know owned by the utilities.

[n***@sbcglobal.net]

Post by Julian Macassey

Post by n***@sbcglobal.net
That comparison doesn't count if you look at the population density
of US cities and yet how poor broadband service is there. There are
other solutions for the rural areas. I see my 300 population
hometown now has Century Link.

In my rural area, I have Century link, and fibre into the
village with underground copper to my house. That gives me better
reliability and connectivity than AT&T twisted pair in San Mateo. The
company that now calls itself AT&T is Southern Bell and they are
greedy, ignorant, toothless Texans.

Post by n***@sbcglobal.net
One thing the U-Verse tech told me was that it didn't work in a lot
of older apartment buildings due to the phone wiring.

Which the greedy, ignorant bastards are never going to upgrade
as long as they can bleed custiomers with shitty service.
The PUC is as we know owned by the utilities.
--
Cutting Libraries in a recession is like cutting hospitals in a
plague. - Eleanor Crumblehulme

Yeah, Southern Bell also took over PacBell and then became AT&T here. Thing is I'm often dealing with old PacBell employees who can be more reasonable or candid about things maybe than the old employees in your area.

I might switch to Astound if they come down the block. They've been north of the freeway for over a year but talking to one their reps he checked and the work isn't scheduled south of freeway until maybe later this year. Thing is a block over there is an Astound fiber cable but it doesn't service my area just supplies the signal from Pleasant Hill to north of Hwy 4 Martinez.

[Tak Nakamoto]

Someone wrote . One thing the U-Verse tech told me was that it didn't work
in a lot of older apartment buildings due to the phone wiring.

I think that for decades now, "inside wiring" has been the responsibility of
the customer and not the phone company. Of course the phone company will
upgrade your inside wiring at their rates. Apartment building owners are not
generally keen on investing in new phone or cable wiring. So renters are
caught in the middle.

Tak Nakamoto

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by poldy
For a long time, the US has fared poorly in OECD and other surveys of
broadband infrastructure.

Yeah, yeah... I've heard it all too often. The problem is that many
countries are providing spectacular fiber bandwidth, but do not have
the bandwidth on the backhauls to supply to users even a small
percentage of that bandwidth. In South Korea, you can get a 100
Mbit/sec bandwidth connection quite cheap. Good luck actually using
it at 100 Mbits/sec. I'm too busy/lazy/whatever right now to get the
exact numbers, but I've been told that most users in Seoul get maybe
20 Mbits/sec during the day, and 40 Mbits/sec at night. It's much
like designing a freeway to handle 100 mph cars, and then finding you
can't go over 15 mph in bumper to bumper traffic. Or, better yet, my
gigabit ethernet home network, that connects to the internet via
1.5Mbit/sec DSL. As far as the bandwidth surveys are concerned, I
have a gigabit network. Too bad I can only use 1.5Mbit/sec of it.

See a problem with this article?
<http://news.investors.com/technology/093014-719621-united-states-ranks-low-in-internet-speeds.htm>
Hint: They're talking about connection speeds, not throughput speeds.
Connection speeds are useless if you can't use that speed. I can
floor the accelerator of my car and maybe get 100 mph, but not for
very long or very far.

This is more of the same. It's the tabulation of result from the
Ookla speedtest.net results:
<http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/>
South Korea is at 65 Mbits/sec. US is at 35 Mbits/sec. That might
mean that Koreans have a fatter pipe to the nearest server farm, but
can also mean that their networks are lighter used, resulting in less
constipation.

Here's more of the same from Akamai:
<http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/soti-visualizations.html#stoi-map>
For "average connection speed":
South Korea is at 22 Mbit/sec. US is at 11.1 Mbits/sec
For "average peak connection speed":
South Korea is at 75.4 Mbit/sec. US is at 49.5 Mbits/sec
I don't have a clue what that really means, but it does suggest some
rather wide variations in "connection" speeds. Add S. Korea to the
graph at the bottom of the page for more interesting numbers.

List of countries by population density:
<http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density>
South Korea 1261/sq-mile
USA 83/sq-mile
All else being equal, that makes it 15 times as expensive to lay fiber
to everyone in the USA as in South Korea. At about $10,000 per mile
to install overhead fiber, that can really add up.

[poldy]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by poldy
For a long time, the US has fared poorly in OECD and other surveys of
broadband infrastructure.

Yeah, yeah... I've heard it all too often. The problem is that many
countries are providing spectacular fiber bandwidth, but do not have
the bandwidth on the backhauls to supply to users even a small
percentage of that bandwidth. In South Korea, you can get a 100
Mbit/sec bandwidth connection quite cheap. Good luck actually using
it at 100 Mbits/sec. I'm too busy/lazy/whatever right now to get the
exact numbers, but I've been told that most users in Seoul get maybe
20 Mbits/sec during the day, and 40 Mbits/sec at night. It's much
like designing a freeway to handle 100 mph cars, and then finding you
can't go over 15 mph in bumper to bumper traffic. Or, better yet, my
gigabit ethernet home network, that connects to the internet via
1.5Mbit/sec DSL. As far as the bandwidth surveys are concerned, I
have a gigabit network. Too bad I can only use 1.5Mbit/sec of it.
See a problem with this article?
<http://news.investors.com/technology/093014-719621-united-states-ranks-low-in-internet-speeds.htm>
Hint: They're talking about connection speeds, not throughput speeds.
Connection speeds are useless if you can't use that speed. I can
floor the accelerator of my car and maybe get 100 mph, but not for
very long or very far.
This is more of the same. It's the tabulation of result from the
<http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/>
South Korea is at 65 Mbits/sec. US is at 35 Mbits/sec. That might
mean that Koreans have a fatter pipe to the nearest server farm, but
can also mean that their networks are lighter used, resulting in less
constipation.
<http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/soti-visualizations.html#stoi-map>
South Korea is at 22 Mbit/sec. US is at 11.1 Mbits/sec
South Korea is at 75.4 Mbit/sec. US is at 49.5 Mbits/sec
I don't have a clue what that really means, but it does suggest some
rather wide variations in "connection" speeds. Add S. Korea to the
graph at the bottom of the page for more interesting numbers.
<http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density>
South Korea 1261/sq-mile
USA 83/sq-mile
All else being equal, that makes it 15 times as expensive to lay fiber
to everyone in the USA as in South Korea. At about $10,000 per mile
to install overhead fiber, that can really add up.

49 Mbps doesn't seem that common in the US.

The other bit of news this week is that AT&T has rolled out it's Giga
product in some parts of Cupertino but is charging $40 more than in
other markets where it's rolled out the product:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/atts-newest-fiber-customers-to-pay-40-more-than-google-fiber-users/

The difference? Those other markets have Google Fiber whereas Cupertino
does not.


That has nothing to do with population density or telecom infrastructure
costs. That's mainly the result of policies which limit competition.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by poldy
The other bit of news this week is that AT&T has rolled out it's Giga
product in some parts of Cupertino but is charging $40 more than in
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/atts-newest-fiber-customers-to-pay-40-more-than-google-fiber-users/
The difference? Those other markets have Google Fiber whereas Cupertino
does not.

Google isn't grabbing the home users. They're grabbing neighborhood
associations, municipalities, and resellers. The other guys don't
want to miss out on that market. For example, Comcast just sorta
leaked a 2GB service, which is probably science fiction:
<http://www.slashgear.com/comcasts-gigabit-pro-challenges-google-fiber-with-2gbps-speeds-02377094/>
Also interesting, considering the DOCSIS 3.1 at 1Gbit/sec is a few
years off and it looks like they're running copper to the
home/business instead of fiber. What's wrong with this picture. I
guess we'll just have to hire a Korean company to show Comcast how
it's done.

Post by poldy
That has nothing to do with population density or telecom infrastructure
costs. That's mainly the result of policies which limit competition.

Ok, so now what? Nationalize the telecom monopolies and have the
government run them? Oh wait... that's un-American. So, let's
privatize the national internet infrastructure, and have all the stock
owned by the US government, just like the USPS.

[Julian Macassey]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
Ok, so now what? Nationalize the telecom monopolies and have the
government run them? Oh wait... that's un-American.

Which goes against the move since the 1980s of privatising
everything in sight.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
So, let's privatize the national internet infrastructure, and have
all the stock owned by the US government, just like the USPS.

The Swedes used to do this, they may still do. It looks like a
private company, but it is in fact a company 100% owned by the
government.

One case is Svensk Bilprovning (Swedish Car Testing), that
does car safety tests. It used to be 100% owned by the Swedish
government and is now owned by the government, insurance companies and
the "automobile sector".

http://www.svensk-bilprovning.se/

Sweden as some may recall was one of the first countries to
put in good Internet infrastructure. But, they have tended to lead in
telecoms, Long Distance dialing, rural service, etc. Plus of course
the world's first telephone handset, rather than a wall mounted
microphone, or candlestick.

[poldy]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by poldy
The other bit of news this week is that AT&T has rolled out it's Giga
product in some parts of Cupertino but is charging $40 more than in
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/atts-newest-fiber-customers-to-pay-40-more-than-google-fiber-users/
The difference? Those other markets have Google Fiber whereas Cupertino
does not.

Google isn't grabbing the home users. They're grabbing neighborhood
associations, municipalities, and resellers. The other guys don't
want to miss out on that market. For example, Comcast just sorta
<http://www.slashgear.com/comcasts-gigabit-pro-challenges-google-fiber-with-2gbps-speeds-02377094/>
Also interesting, considering the DOCSIS 3.1 at 1Gbit/sec is a few
years off and it looks like they're running copper to the
home/business instead of fiber. What's wrong with this picture. I
guess we'll just have to hire a Korean company to show Comcast how
it's done.

Post by poldy
That has nothing to do with population density or telecom infrastructure
costs. That's mainly the result of policies which limit competition.

Ok, so now what? Nationalize the telecom monopolies and have the
government run them? Oh wait... that's un-American. So, let's
privatize the national internet infrastructure, and have all the stock
owned by the US government, just like the USPS.

There must be measures short of nationalization to improve the
infrastructure. Probably approving all the Comcast mergers isn't going
to help the situation. One company calling all the shots on how the
infrastructure is going to be improved. Is that the American way?

As for the USPS, they're trying to get rid of it so instead of 49 cents
stamps, we call all pay $10-15 to Fedex everything.

[n***@sbcglobal.net]

Post by poldy

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by poldy
For a long time, the US has fared poorly in OECD and other surveys of
broadband infrastructure.

Yeah, yeah... I've heard it all too often. The problem is that many
countries are providing spectacular fiber bandwidth, but do not have
the bandwidth on the backhauls to supply to users even a small
percentage of that bandwidth. In South Korea, you can get a 100
Mbit/sec bandwidth connection quite cheap. Good luck actually using
it at 100 Mbits/sec. I'm too busy/lazy/whatever right now to get the
exact numbers, but I've been told that most users in Seoul get maybe
20 Mbits/sec during the day, and 40 Mbits/sec at night. It's much
like designing a freeway to handle 100 mph cars, and then finding you
can't go over 15 mph in bumper to bumper traffic. Or, better yet, my
gigabit ethernet home network, that connects to the internet via
1.5Mbit/sec DSL. As far as the bandwidth surveys are concerned, I
have a gigabit network. Too bad I can only use 1.5Mbit/sec of it.
See a problem with this article?
<http://news.investors.com/technology/093014-719621-united-states-ranks-low-in-internet-speeds.htm>
Hint: They're talking about connection speeds, not throughput speeds.
Connection speeds are useless if you can't use that speed. I can
floor the accelerator of my car and maybe get 100 mph, but not for
very long or very far.
This is more of the same. It's the tabulation of result from the
<http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/>
South Korea is at 65 Mbits/sec. US is at 35 Mbits/sec. That might
mean that Koreans have a fatter pipe to the nearest server farm, but
can also mean that their networks are lighter used, resulting in less
constipation.
<http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/soti-visualizations.html#stoi-map>
South Korea is at 22 Mbit/sec. US is at 11.1 Mbits/sec
South Korea is at 75.4 Mbit/sec. US is at 49.5 Mbits/sec
I don't have a clue what that really means, but it does suggest some
rather wide variations in "connection" speeds. Add S. Korea to the
graph at the bottom of the page for more interesting numbers.
<http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density>
South Korea 1261/sq-mile
USA 83/sq-mile
All else being equal, that makes it 15 times as expensive to lay fiber
to everyone in the USA as in South Korea. At about $10,000 per mile
to install overhead fiber, that can really add up.

49 Mbps doesn't seem that common in the US.
The other bit of news this week is that AT&T has rolled out it's Giga
product in some parts of Cupertino but is charging $40 more than in
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/atts-newest-fiber-customers-to-pay-40-more-than-google-fiber-users/
The difference? Those other markets have Google Fiber whereas Cupertino
does not.
That has nothing to do with population density or telecom infrastructure
costs. That's mainly the result of policies which limit competition.

And they want to charge you another $30 to have privacy with that service. Of all the gall! I wonder how Randall Stephenson would like a 24/7 Internet channel following him around?