dslreports logo
site
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search Topic:
uniqs
667
share rss forum feed


SSidlov
Other Things On My Mind
Premium
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ

Without a high degree of government direct partnership....

In the US, we are proud that capitalism works. Companies do the investment, sometimes with special tax breaks or incentives, but private companies OWN the resulting product. This has been the case for broadband in the US. Private companies own the copper, fiber, and cable; not the US government.

This is not always the case elsewhere in the world. Government built/funded the base infrastructure and leased it back to private businesses so that competition was possible.

Nowhere in the USA does the density of population reach the major Asian countries that everyone likes to point to as having 'fast and cheap' competitive internet services. 70% of our population doesn't live in one city and it's environs (BosNewWash or any segment of it, still isn't as dense as Seoul or Tokyo or Hong Kong). Since our infrastructure is privately developed and held, the companies that are willing to invest wish to produce as soon as possible, profits to justify that investment. They have little interest in expensive deployments in lightly populated areas and are quite willing to skip towns where they feel the income levels are too low but always make sure that urban areas are covered.

Internet infrastructure must be thought of in the same manner as the interstate highways. It's a necessity, vital for our future and the government should partner with companies if necessary to build out the next generation of the networks by collecting small modest fees from all end-users just as they did with the rural phone service tax. However instead of giving away windfalls in money, just for the no-profit areas, they should partake and partner in the profitable areas too. By having an interest in the infrastructure that they can control and resell, the possibility of smaller and specialized service providers can be created by sharing and paying for access to that infrastructure. Absurd fee structures by private companies to stifle competitors won't happen, even if a competitor is partnered with government in any particular segment they won't be able to block competition. Smaller companies leasing from the government's portion would be willing to come forward since they will not have to have vast sums for infrastructure investment -- just enough capitol for a few years leasing as they try to garner customers. The possibility of a 'gaming network ISP' that specialized in low latency high speed consumer equipment rather than generic ISP deployment could be possible. More tiering of services that are geared to niche segments of the population with specialized portals for private and professional use.

It's not socialism but a guarantee that the market IS competitive while making sure that the USA, nationally is prepared and directly invested in what used to be called the 'Internet Super Highway." And making sure that the highway is accessible to everyone.
--
»www.Warpstock.org



mod_wastrel
iamwhatiam

join:2008-03-28
kudos:1

So, basically, taxpayers should actually get what they're paying for... for a change. Unlikely to happen... the lobbyists will never allow it--legislators and government regulators are already too much in their pockets. The Information Super Highway will never be like the U.S. Interstate system: mostly free and accessible to all. (Just look at all of the laws that prevent communities from creating their own municipal networks.)



BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

said by mod_wastrel:

So, basically, taxpayers should actually get what they're paying for... for a change. Unlikely to happen... the lobbyists will never allow it--legislators and government regulators are already too much in their pockets. The Information Super Highway will never be like the U.S. Interstate system: mostly free and accessible to all. (Just look at all of the laws that prevent communities from creating their own municipal networks.)
The taxpayers are also paying for that "free" interstate too. Would a "free' BigMac really be free if I have to pay $2.99 for it?
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition."
Beyond AM. Beyond FM. XM


mod_wastrel
iamwhatiam

join:2008-03-28
kudos:1

I thought that's what I said: built by taxpayer money therefore mostly free (to use because our money paid for it in the first place--still some tolls here and there though) and accessible. Perhaps my syntax wasn't clear enough.


Firefly2003

join:2010-02-14
reply to SSidlov

As a avid online gamer which low latency is the most important to me, your mentioning of a "gaming network ISP" intrigues me but if such a possible service could be available would it be made available to everyone that wants it?

I've been reading on these forums for the last few weeks now and it's been very informative and myself by no right don't know much how this system works but I'm learning.



SSidlov
Other Things On My Mind
Premium
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ

Lets say that a deal could be struck with the major players in the internet based gaming world (so they would be getting a small cut), MS, Sony, WOW, Second Life, etc., to have a very high speed network connect directly to them above and beyond their current infrastructure. The 'ISP' could lease bandwidth in various areas and sell/use/lease higher end custom cable or fiber modems than your typical TWC/Comcast/FIOS customer, all for a price. The modems could be made with either software or hardware based chips to use specific channel frequencies that the ISP contracted for it's use, using multichannel bonding to ensure reasonable levels of service, etc. Like all products the more purchasers you have the less the markup per unit is needed to be to make money, so theoretically the price could be less as more people subscribe. Of course there is no reason that a PS3 or Xbox cable modem couldn't sit between your console and be directly connected to virtual network either using different frequencies than the non-users in the 'hood, and contributing to the local ISP's coffers right now.
--
»www.Warpstock.org



tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

said by SSidlov:

Lets say that a deal could be struck with the major players in the internet based gaming world (so they would be getting a small cut), MS, Sony, WOW, Second Life, etc., to have a very high speed network connect directly to them above and beyond their current infrastructure. The 'ISP' could lease bandwidth in various areas and sell/use/lease higher end custom cable or fiber modems than your typical TWC/Comcast/FIOS customer, all for a price. The modems could be made with either software or hardware based chips to use specific channel frequencies that the ISP contracted for it's use, using multichannel bonding to ensure reasonable levels of service, etc.
what i gather from this is that you are equating latency and bandwidth. the two are not the same, nor are they correlated.
the issue with having a "gaming" tier, is that it does not address the fundamental structure of the internet. for games like "wow", all services are hosted in a datacenter off the att network. your latency to these servers depends on how your isp interconnects to the global network. if you connect through a tier-1 provider (such as verizon, qwest, att) who peer directly with each other, your latency will be much lower than someone on the cox network who has to move from their location, to the nearest level(3) exchange, and then onto the att network. those extra hops cause extra latency.
additionally, for "dynamically hosted" games, like those done with an xbox360 or ps3, the "host" of the game is always changing. while you are all connecting to xbox live, most of the gaming communication is done in fashion similar to voip - once the "registration" is sent to the sip session manager and the "invite" and "ack" sequence occurs between sip-ua's, the rtp packets are passed between endpoints and *not* through the intermediary server. because of this dynamic nature, you'd essentially have to have the fastest routing to anywhere all the time - something that *cannot* happen. there will always be endpoints that are logically "further away" than others and to think otherwise is denying that the internet is an entity that is distributed.
additionally, when you're dealing with xdsl-based services, interleaving becomes an issue. due to the age of the infrastructure, interleaving is turned on to reduce the bit error rate of lines with marginal stats for the profile. if your line tests clean enough, sometimes you can have it removed, a so-called "fastpath" profile, but that takes coaxing, encouragement, and proof to your isp.

Of course there is no reason that a PS3 or Xbox cable modem couldn't sit between your console and be directly connected to virtual network either using different frequencies than the non-users in the 'hood, and contributing to the local ISP's coffers right now.
yes, there is. its because changing a frequency on a cable modem won't do anything to change (a) the speed of light or (b) the number of hops your client device will make to a hosted server.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."


SSidlov
Other Things On My Mind
Premium
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ

With direct government participation there is no reason that Tier 1 services wouldn't be extended further than they are today and cheaper to connect to. More exchange points should be created we shouldn't be subject to congestion at only 70 key points. More backbone and more alternate routing make the system more robust, and less likely to have large failures while ensuring a higher degree of access at all levels.

A 100mb is not a goal, 1GB! »www.japantoday.com/category/tech···e-in-oct

After all why should some town in Montana be a good data storage site because they happen to have Tier 1 access vs a town 100 miles away in Idaho only has Tier 3 service? At that point you're at a economic disadvantage even though your land/power/labor costs may be better.
--
»www.Warpstock.org