dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
22
share rss forum feed


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com

1 edit
reply to netddos

Re: A sad reality

said by netddos:

It's very sad that one of the world's most technical country in the world cannot enact on a broadband infrastructure plan which can outdo Korea or Japan's....all because of 3 conglomerates (ATT Verizon Comcast)...

What have our country become? Congress has lost its function and heeds their head down to mega companies for filthy money....
Comparing a US infrastructure plan (3.79 million square miles) to Japan (145,840 square miles) and Korea (120,540 square miles) is flawed. Its not just the conglomerates either.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by Nightfall:

Comparing a US infrastructure plan (3.79 million square miles) to Japan (145,840 square miles) and Korea (120,540 square miles) is flawed. Its not just the conglomerates either.
there fixed it for ya....
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps


Ryokucha

join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL
reply to Nightfall

In one way I agree with you, it is hard to compare the US to a country like Japan or Korea in which all their population is condensed into big metro areas.

The part I disagree with is, if you compare our metro areas to theirs we still fail.

While the US may never be able to fully connect every inch of those 3.79 million square miles with what smaller countries are able to do, we should at least be able to surpass their metro areas. But we don't even come close in that department either.

Why can't we, because of very old outdated carrier rules, and huge conglomerates as netddos said.



jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
reply to Nightfall

said by Nightfall:

Comparing a US infrastructure plan (3.79 square miles) to Japan (145,840 square miles) and Korea (120,540 square miles) is flawed.
Basing your argument solely on square mile comparison is more than flawed.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Engineer * MPLS, Minnesota, USA *


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com

2 edits
reply to Ryokucha

said by Ryokucha:

In one way I agree with you, it is hard to compare the US to a country like Japan or Korea in which all their population is condensed into big metro areas.

The part I disagree with is, if you compare our metro areas to theirs we still fail.

While the US may never be able to fully connect every inch of those 3.79 million square miles with what smaller countries are able to do, we should at least be able to surpass their metro areas. But we don't even come close in that department either.

Why can't we, because of very old outdated carrier rules, and huge conglomerates as netddos said.
The government also funds a lot of the deployment of their infrastructure. They also maintain it as well. The government here isn't involved in our broadband. Thats the main difference. This broadband plan won't change that. We have companies that are looking out more for their bottom line and financial health. This is why the broadband deployment is so slow here. No one wants to deploy broadband to farming communities and take a huge loss on it.

I highly doubt the users here would want the government to be in charge of broadband either. Being as that we are all into privacy and such.

You are 100% correct that its all conglomerates looking out for their own financial hides. If the government was willing to take a loss and deploy aggressively here, we would be wired by now. Instead, AT&T and Comcast won't take huge losses.

Case in point, my grandmother lived in a farming community and couldn't get cable. The cost to run cable from the street where it was to her house was $20,000. They ran it to her house eventually, but that was only because they saw a benefit to running it. They surveyed everyone on the street and found more people wanted it. Then the cost was justified and they ran it.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to jhboricua

said by jhboricua:

said by Nightfall:

Comparing a US infrastructure plan (3.79 square miles) to Japan (145,840 square miles) and Korea (120,540 square miles) is flawed.
Basing your argument solely on square mile comparison is more than flawed.
Way to cut out another part of my quote, say its flawed, and then not bring anything to the discussion.

Oh wait, I think this is what you were waiting for....

You win sir. Congrats.

Move along now.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to Nightfall

I'm tired of the "It's the geography" excuse. It doesn't hold water.

Sure, for rural areas, it might be a valid point, but there are many places in the USA where population densities would support the same networks Korea and Japan has--- IF there was open access and more competition and less roadblocks and incumbent market protecting. Line sharing was enforced there and worked. It wasn't here, and failed. And so the result.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini



Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com

1 edit

said by KrK:

I'm tired of the "It's the geography" excuse. It doesn't hold water.

Sure, for rural areas, it might be a valid point, but there are many places in the USA where population densities would support the same networks Korea and Japan has--- IF there was open access and more competition and less roadblocks and incumbent market protecting. Line sharing was enforced there and worked. It wasn't here, and failed. And so the result.
Open access? It exists already.
Less roadblocks? Exists already
Incumbent market protecting? Its a lot more rare than you think.

The widespread deployment of broadband won't happen in this country unless one of two things happen.

1. The government takes over and deploys it like they did in Japan and Korea. They also run the broadband infrastructure as well, which I am sure will bring many people to smile here (/sarcasm).

2. The conglomerates like AT&T and Comcast stop worrying about the cost and just start deploying to everyone. They will of course take a huge hit financially, and the stockholders will hate them for it, but they will make it.

Neither of these things are likely to happen anytime soon.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

said by Nightfall:

Open access? It exists already.
Ha. Seriously. Ha.
1. The government takes over and deploys it like they did in Japan and Korea. They also run the broadband infrastructure as well, which I am sure will bring many people to smile here (/sarcasm).
Japan and Korean Government's didn't "take over" and deploy it. Actually the Governments had been getting out of ownership of Telecom, like Nippon, which had been Government owned until 1985. What actually happened is they allowed what we call line sharing: Other companies could start up and access the existing telecommunications network to sell service to consumers.

The Governments made competition and more open access the priority, and enforced it.

2. The conglomerates like AT&T and Comcast stop worrying about the cost and just start deploying to everyone. They will of course take a huge hit financially, and the stockholders will hate them for it, but they will make it.
This is where competition would be a good thing. If the incumbents had to allow access to consumer's homes they've be driven by competition to build out better faster networks to compete. They all would. We'd get more speed, less restrictions, and price competition.
Neither of these things are likely to happen anytime soon.
Well here's where I'd have to agree. If ever, it seems.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com

said by KrK:

said by Nightfall:

Open access? It exists already.
Ha. Seriously. Ha.
1. The government takes over and deploys it like they did in Japan and Korea. They also run the broadband infrastructure as well, which I am sure will bring many people to smile here (/sarcasm).
Japan and Korean Government's didn't "take over" and deploy it. Actually the Governments had been getting out of ownership of Telecom, like Nippon, which had been Government owned until 1985. What actually happened is they allowed what we call line sharing: Other companies could start up and access the existing telecommunications network to sell service to consumers.

The Governments made competition and more open access the priority, and enforced it.

2. The conglomerates like AT&T and Comcast stop worrying about the cost and just start deploying to everyone. They will of course take a huge hit financially, and the stockholders will hate them for it, but they will make it.
This is where competition would be a good thing. If the incumbents had to allow access to consumer's homes they've be driven by competition to build out better faster networks to compete. They all would. We'd get more speed, less restrictions, and price competition.
Neither of these things are likely to happen anytime soon.
Well here's where I'd have to agree. If ever, it seems.
Heck, open access is available now. Let me put it this way. The days of proprietary agreements are done. Today, in most major cities, any company can come in and lay the foundation for broadband. I think that you should say "Ha! Right" to my statement of less roadblocks because if there is any problem with the system, its the roadblocks getting in. Those can take months to hurdle.

The government still started the broadband deployment in Japan and Korea. They are trying to get out now that the foundation has been laid because of various reasons. You are right about one thing though, the government made competition and open access a priority, but not before they laid the backbone.

Competition won't matter when it comes to deployment. A rural area is a rural area. No company is going to take a loss to deploy broadband to reach 10 houses in a farming community where only 2-3 will subscribe. Now in a major city I do agree that competition would be a good thing. This kind of thing is slowly becoming a reality with Uverse and FIOS. In time, there will be many competing broadband companies in major cities. The rural areas will take time to get that level of competition. Most likely, a single company will deploy to certain rural areas and get stuck with the loss.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
reply to Nightfall

said by Nightfall:

Way to cut out another part of my quote, say its flawed, and then not bring anything to the discussion.

Oh wait, I think this is what you were waiting for....

You win sir. Congrats.

Move along now.
Because the part I left off brought up so much to the discussion...
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Engineer * MPLS, Minnesota, USA *


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com

said by jhboricua:

said by Nightfall:

Way to cut out another part of my quote, say its flawed, and then not bring anything to the discussion.

Oh wait, I think this is what you were waiting for....

You win sir. Congrats.

Move along now.
Because the part I left off brought up so much to the discussion...
Well, at least you noticed one thing. Still waiting on the other.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

reply to Nightfall

I think you and I are referring to something different when we same "open access."

When I say it, I mean like this: Access to the consumer's residence via the existing grid. (For a fair price.)
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


sonicmerlin

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

said by Nightfall:

said by Ryokucha:

In one way I agree with you, it is hard to compare the US to a country like Japan or Korea in which all their population is condensed into big metro areas.

The part I disagree with is, if you compare our metro areas to theirs we still fail.

While the US may never be able to fully connect every inch of those 3.79 million square miles with what smaller countries are able to do, we should at least be able to surpass their metro areas. But we don't even come close in that department either.

Why can't we, because of very old outdated carrier rules, and huge conglomerates as netddos said.
The government also funds a lot of the deployment of their infrastructure. They also maintain it as well. The government here isn't involved in our broadband. Thats the main difference. This broadband plan won't change that. We have companies that are looking out more for their bottom line and financial health. This is why the broadband deployment is so slow here. No one wants to deploy broadband to farming communities and take a huge loss on it.

I highly doubt the users here would want the government to be in charge of broadband either. Being as that we are all into privacy and such.

You are 100% correct that its all conglomerates looking out for their own financial hides. If the government was willing to take a loss and deploy aggressively here, we would be wired by now. Instead, AT&T and Comcast won't take huge losses.

Case in point, my grandmother lived in a farming community and couldn't get cable. The cost to run cable from the street where it was to her house was $20,000. They ran it to her house eventually, but that was only because they saw a benefit to running it. They surveyed everyone on the street and found more people wanted it. Then the cost was justified and they ran it.
The government doesn't fund deployment of broadband here in Japan. You just made that up.

In fact the government has very aggressive regulation to ensure competition in the market and recently tax incentives to encourage fiber deployments.

But if you look at amount of money the US government spends per person vs. Japan, it's not even close.

sonicmerlin

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

said by Nightfall:

said by jhboricua:

said by Nightfall:

Comparing a US infrastructure plan (3.79 square miles) to Japan (145,840 square miles) and Korea (120,540 square miles) is flawed.
Basing your argument solely on square mile comparison is more than flawed.
Way to cut out another part of my quote, say its flawed, and then not bring anything to the discussion.

Oh wait, I think this is what you were waiting for....

You win sir. Congrats.

Move along now.
As if your argument hasn't already been debunked hundreds of times before.

sonicmerlin

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

said by Nightfall:

said by KrK:

said by Nightfall:

Open access? It exists already.
Ha. Seriously. Ha.
1. The government takes over and deploys it like they did in Japan and Korea. They also run the broadband infrastructure as well, which I am sure will bring many people to smile here (/sarcasm).
Japan and Korean Government's didn't "take over" and deploy it. Actually the Governments had been getting out of ownership of Telecom, like Nippon, which had been Government owned until 1985. What actually happened is they allowed what we call line sharing: Other companies could start up and access the existing telecommunications network to sell service to consumers.

The Governments made competition and more open access the priority, and enforced it.

2. The conglomerates like AT&T and Comcast stop worrying about the cost and just start deploying to everyone. They will of course take a huge hit financially, and the stockholders will hate them for it, but they will make it.
This is where competition would be a good thing. If the incumbents had to allow access to consumer's homes they've be driven by competition to build out better faster networks to compete. They all would. We'd get more speed, less restrictions, and price competition.
Neither of these things are likely to happen anytime soon.
Well here's where I'd have to agree. If ever, it seems.
Heck, open access is available now. Let me put it this way. The days of proprietary agreements are done. Today, in most major cities, any company can come in and lay the foundation for broadband. I think that you should say "Ha! Right" to my statement of less roadblocks because if there is any problem with the system, its the roadblocks getting in. Those can take months to hurdle.

The government still started the broadband deployment in Japan and Korea. They are trying to get out now that the foundation has been laid because of various reasons. You are right about one thing though, the government made competition and open access a priority, but not before they laid the backbone.

Competition won't matter when it comes to deployment. A rural area is a rural area. No company is going to take a loss to deploy broadband to reach 10 houses in a farming community where only 2-3 will subscribe. Now in a major city I do agree that competition would be a good thing. This kind of thing is slowly becoming a reality with Uverse and FIOS. In time, there will be many competing broadband companies in major cities. The rural areas will take time to get that level of competition. Most likely, a single company will deploy to certain rural areas and get stuck with the loss.
You don't know anything about broadband deployment in Japan. The fact that you don't even know what "open access" is just destroys your credibility. Please talk less and read more.


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to sonicmerlin

said by sonicmerlin:

said by Nightfall:

said by Ryokucha:

In one way I agree with you, it is hard to compare the US to a country like Japan or Korea in which all their population is condensed into big metro areas.

The part I disagree with is, if you compare our metro areas to theirs we still fail.

While the US may never be able to fully connect every inch of those 3.79 million square miles with what smaller countries are able to do, we should at least be able to surpass their metro areas. But we don't even come close in that department either.

Why can't we, because of very old outdated carrier rules, and huge conglomerates as netddos said.
The government also funds a lot of the deployment of their infrastructure. They also maintain it as well. The government here isn't involved in our broadband. Thats the main difference. This broadband plan won't change that. We have companies that are looking out more for their bottom line and financial health. This is why the broadband deployment is so slow here. No one wants to deploy broadband to farming communities and take a huge loss on it.

I highly doubt the users here would want the government to be in charge of broadband either. Being as that we are all into privacy and such.

You are 100% correct that its all conglomerates looking out for their own financial hides. If the government was willing to take a loss and deploy aggressively here, we would be wired by now. Instead, AT&T and Comcast won't take huge losses.

Case in point, my grandmother lived in a farming community and couldn't get cable. The cost to run cable from the street where it was to her house was $20,000. They ran it to her house eventually, but that was only because they saw a benefit to running it. They surveyed everyone on the street and found more people wanted it. Then the cost was justified and they ran it.
The government doesn't fund deployment of broadband here in Japan. You just made that up.

In fact the government has very aggressive regulation to ensure competition in the market and recently tax incentives to encourage fiber deployments.

But if you look at amount of money the US government spends per person vs. Japan, it's not even close.
»bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/1···e-fiber/

The government still put millions of dollars towards broadband deployment. You can say they didn't fund broadband directly, and thats fine. I will admit that they didn't pay the companies directly which I was under the impression that they did. A little research and I found that Japan put $77 million dollars into broadband deployment in the forms of loans and tax cuts. If that isn't helping broadband deployment, then I don't know what is.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net