dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
28
share rss forum feed

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to CylonRed

Re: I'll beat the 3/768 dead horse

said by CylonRed:

No - they have no problems and they do not limit. I have yet to find anything I can't do on 1.5 meg. Large downloads can be done over night without issue. Streaming has zero issues as well.

I won't and don;t (and neither do my friends) watch tv or movies online but streaming a TV has (the few times I have done it) has never been an issue. We do not watch movies on the PC - we have TV we do that on and prefer to watch on.

I would bet teh majority of folks in the US would use the internet connection to download files - and for that you do nto need a uber fast 50 meg download.
My God, people are not all the same as you. Their preferences and habits are quite often different.

Waiting `all night` for something to complete deters people from using it. Make something easy and accessible, and the people will come.

Your attitude is incredibly narrow.


CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

1 edit

1 recommendation

My god - I never said anything about everybody are all not the same - hence the MAJORITY (ie: Not ALL as you suggest). Most people use the web to surf, read emails, and do some streaming radio\tv 1.5 can EASILY deal with that and 3 meg could still do that easily. Gaming online can be dine with 1.5 meg as well - effortlessly. The MINORITY could use uber fast connections to download movies. It makes ZERO sense to give uber fast connections to the majority when teh price point will be wayyyyy to high for the majority who use it as described above. It makes more common and financial sense to roll out basic service first with plans for advanced services that cost more - but I think the amount of folks doing the faster speed for a lot more money (speed is no where near free) will be the minority.

I do not remember the last time I had to wait all night for anything to download - probably the last item was the full install of Americas Army 3 and that only took 4 or so hours.

I found the reading comprehension to be narrow and incomplete.
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
said by CylonRed:

My god - I never said anything about everybody are all not the same - hence the MAJORITY (ie: Not ALL as you suggest). Most people use the web to surf, read emails, and do some streaming radio\tv 1.5 can EASILY deal with that and 3 meg could still do that easily. Gaming online can be dine with 1.5 meg as well - effortlessly. The MINORITY could use uber fast connections to download movies. It makes ZERO sense to give uber fast connections to the majority when teh price point will be wayyyyy to high for the majority who use it as described above. It makes more common and financial sense to roll out basic service first with plans for advanced services that cost more - but I think the amount of folks doing the faster speed for a lot more money (speed is no where near free) will be the minority.

I do not remember the last time I had to wait all night for anything to download - probably the last item was the full install of Americas Army 3 and that only took 4 or so hours.

I found the reading comprehension to be narrow and incomplete.
Why would the price point be too high? It isn`t at all high in the countries with faster speeds than us. I don`t think you fully comprehend just how much price gouging occurs among US ISPs.

Laying out fiber to the rural area isn`t significantly more expensive than laying out fiber to urban dwellers, in large part because the vast majority of rural houses are situated along a road. So the fiber can be strung along poles all the way to their house, and only has to be buried at the very end.

Rural carriers` estimates for cost per household has been less than $1500. That`s not too much more than Verizon`s estimates of cost per household for their deployment of FIOS.


CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

1 edit
And yet those other countries are easier to lay fiber in because of population densities. When there are hugh population density in large cities it is EASY to get the majority of the population with high speeds as less fiber needs to be run and more people per run = higher percentage of the population that has high speeds. This is NOT the case in the US and the cost WILL be far higher than in other countries to get the same % of people on fiber as in say most of Asia.

Verizon is spending 20+ billion to lay fiber in niche pockets and not even coming CLOSE to laying fiber in all of their markets in cities much less rural markets. To wire 99% of our population - a conservative cost I would give is around a half trillion dollars. In a lot of Asian countries they could probably do it for around half of that and get 99% of their population on fiber. Huge, huge, huge difference in cost.

In the US the companies that lay the fiber have to make money - it is demanded by the shareholders. Therefore - as more rural areas are wired with fiber and more and more fiber is laid down with less and less customers per mile - the cost gets exponentially higher and those have to be paid for by the end user.

It is going to be many years before a rural person can have a 20\10 connection for $40 - this is simply a pipedream and so unrealistic it is not funny.

EDIT - Wiki population density maps:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America - approx 33.x per km2 for NA.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia - most Asian countries that have uber fast connections and a large population with fast internet connections (like Japan): Japan - 331.x per km2, Singapore - 6547.x per km2. South Korea - 490.x per km2. Looking at this info - to me it looks like most Asian countries have large population densities. Much larger than the US which makes it easier and cheaper to get fast internet to large swaths of the population.

From this map »maps.howstuffworks.com/united-st···-map.htm we CAN see that there are a number of large population centers with lots of people. This is the reason why large cities generally get the faster internet speeds. It IS the reason why Verizon wired a swath of the East Coast first. But the issue is the larger area that have low population densities (midwest to Washington State - even Northern CA has low population density) - those will be exponentially more expensive due to less people per line while the cost of the wire and deployment stays the same. In reality the cost would not remain the same but go up as more RTs and repeaters\amps would likely be needed. And I am not taking geography into the mixture yet.

quote:
and the innovator of new IP services.
This can still happen even with what we have today - it will just be very expensive for a good while unless you want to dismantle the economic system and make the US govt an ISP.
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain