dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
29
share rss forum feed
« Pass
This is a sub-selection from This is actually really interesting

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to baineschile

Re: This is actually really interesting

said by baineschile:

It would be REALLY interesting if this route was taken in the US. In all fairness though, Finland has 2% of the amount of people, and they are generally in more concentrated areas, so wiring issues and network congestion (yes, its real) isnt as much of a hurdle. The sheer volume of the US as far as geography and popluation makes the project exponentially harder.

If we did the same route in the US, it would essentially have to be backed by taxpayer dollars, but would they only let one incumbant per area?
Finland is the most sparsely populated country in the European Union. Your FUD is pathetic. This plan will provide broadband to nearly everyone in the country, not just those in the more densely populated portions in the south. The fact their economy is orders of magnitudes smaller than ours makes it even *more difficult* for them to conduct such a massive project.

And we don't even have a project to wire up our densely populated cities and suburbs, let alone the East Coast of the US.

quote:
I cant ever see the government going to private companies and saying "you have to spend a lot of capital wiring an area that you have deemed not profitable (or else is would have been wired already), or upgrade your equipment to increase speeds, plus we are going to allow 4 or 5 other ISPs in there to compete?"
Or maybe they'll do exactly what Australia's government and Google are planning to do? Build out an open infrastructure and let numerous ISPs compete over the services provided using that infrastructure. *GASP* did I just crack open your false dichotomy? Oh I'm sorry.

quote:
I am pro-consumer, but I always like to take the stance of "well, if I was ATT/Comcast/Timewarner how would this affect my company". Government force shouldnt be allowed.

You are most definitely not pro-consumer. For as long as I've been on this site, the majority of your views have been anti-consumer, pro-corporation, and completely unjustifiable when taking logic into account.

Government force is used to prevent mobs from taking pitchforks to the ISPs they hate. It's used to force people to let ISPs use "rights of ways" to lay their lines, to use public utility poles, to use public spectrum. The very idea that government force shouldn't be used to provide people with a service in an industry that is already massively subsidized by the government is bizarre and utterly disingenuous.


baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

3 edits

said by sonicmerlin:

Finland is the most sparsely populated country in the European Union. Your FUD is pathetic. This plan will provide broadband to nearly everyone in the country, not just those in the more densely populated portions in the south. The fact their economy is orders of magnitudes smaller than ours makes it even *more difficult* for them to conduct such a massive project.
Finland has 5.2 million people. Over a million live in the Helsinki area (about 20 square miles). Thats about 20% of the population. Can you name a city in the US that has 20% of the population?

Now, Finland is a reasonable large landmass, which accounts for your view of it being "sparsely" populated. But, population, for the most part, is concentric there.

The most sparsely populated state is Alaska, but 80% of the population live in the Juneau or Anchorage area. It just happens to be a very large state otherwise.

As for as your Australia/Google arguement, guess how that is being funded....you got it, taxpayer dollar! Some of it is subsidized by Google, but they get advertising rights along all pipes. I think its a great idea, but did you really think that neither doing it for the dollar. You cower behind government regulation, and call it consumer protection, but they are in the for the money just as any private corporation would be. It may not be ideal, but I dont stray from the truth for the sake of arguement.

Last I looked, the incumbants pay PEG and regulatory fees to the state and federal level, not the other way around.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

1 edit

quote:
Finland has 5.2 million people. Over a million live in the Helsinki area (about 20 square miles). Thats about 20% of the population. Can you name a city in the US that has 20% of the population?
What the *heck* are you talking about? Who in their right mind uses percentage of population as a metric of economic feasibility? What kind of stupid FUD is this?

quote:
Now, Finland is a reasonable large landmass, which accounts for your view of it being "sparsely" populated. But, population, for the most part, is concentric there.
The government's plan is to provide EVERYONE with 100 mbps by 2015. That requires fiber to every single household, regardless of where they live.

As for the "concentric" of people, the 1 million+ live in the Greater Helsinki Area, not the metropolitan area itself. The density of population in that area is still far less than most US states, and if you look at just the metropolitan area most major US cities have much higher population densities. So basically you're full of it.

quote:
Last I looked, the incumbants pay PEG and regulatory fees to the state and federal level, not the other way around.
How much money do you think ISPs would have to pay if they had to negotiate settlement fees with every landowner to use their property for line placement? That alone is an incredible subsidy. What about the government's enforcement of public spectrum allocation? Do you think wireless companies could by itself prevent people from illegally interfering in their licensed airwaves?

In addition, numerous states have outright bans on the buildout of municipal networks, while numerous others have extremely difficult to overcome regulatory hurdles. You don't think this provides ISPs with monetary advantages?

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

You should stop using the term FUD in your posts as you've reached too far to apply the term in both your posts making you look silly.

Just because you don't agree with his post doesn't mean it's FUD.



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to baineschile

said by baineschile:

Finland has 5.2 million people. Over a million live in the Helsinki area (about 20 square miles). Thats about 20% of the population. Can you name a city in the US that has 20% of the population?
yeah but the article didn't say only 20% will get 100 Mbps by 2015 it said 100%.

Rhode Island has over 1000 people per sq mile compared to Finland's 40. So why doesn't Rhode Island have 100 Mbps? why doesn't RI have 100% broadband availlability? Finland by the way is only slightly smaller than Montana. There are 38 states with higher population densities than Finland.


baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
reply to sonicmerlin

You havent addressed the most important questions I allured to though. Do you have a choice when it comes to electricity, gas, or water?



zitch

join:2002-07-08
Lafayette, LA

1 recommendation

How can you make it possible to have a choice when it comes to electricity, gas, or water? Or are you suggesting we should just have multiple pipes/electrical lines running everywhere just so people have "choice"?

There's a good reason these are considered utilities and are run by regulated monopolies in an area. But we only have a physical limitation when it comes to broadband access. It is very possible to have multiple ISPs serve a neighborhood, even if there's only one physical line going to each house.

Let's put it this way: Do you have a choice of who builds and maintains the roads to your home? At the same time, are you limited to which company you can purchase vehicles to drive on this road?

Basically, treat the physical lines to each home as a utility; either the municipality or a regulated monopoly company will build and maintain these lines. Heck, treat the whole system as a giant local network, if you must. Then let users pick whatever company to be their "gateway" to the Internet. You monopolize the physical aspects of broadband access out of necessity, yet still allow consumer choice and fair competition for internet access. This is not possible to do with the current utilites (electricity, water, and gas).



Frank
is chilling
Premium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere
reply to baineschile

said by baineschile:

said by sonicmerlin:

Finland is the most sparsely populated country in the European Union. Your FUD is pathetic. This plan will provide broadband to nearly everyone in the country, not just those in the more densely populated portions in the south. The fact their economy is orders of magnitudes smaller than ours makes it even *more difficult* for them to conduct such a massive project.
Finland has 5.2 million people. Over a million live in the Helsinki area (about 20 square miles). Thats about 20% of the population. Can you name a city in the US that has 20% of the population?

Now, Finland is a reasonable large landmass, which accounts for your view of it being "sparsely" populated. But, population, for the most part, is concentric there.

The most sparsely populated state is Alaska, but 80% of the population live in the Juneau or Anchorage area. It just happens to be a very large state otherwise.

As for as your Australia/Google arguement, guess how that is being funded....you got it, taxpayer dollar! Some of it is subsidized by Google, but they get advertising rights along all pipes. I think its a great idea, but did you really think that neither doing it for the dollar. You cower behind government regulation, and call it consumer protection, but they are in the for the money just as any private corporation would be. It may not be ideal, but I dont stray from the truth for the sake of arguement.

Last I looked, the incumbants pay PEG and regulatory fees to the state and federal level, not the other way around.
the united states has a higher population density than finland so your point is invalid.
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to zitch

said by zitch:

Basically, treat the physical lines to each home as a utility; either the municipality or a regulated monopoly company will build and maintain these lines. Heck, treat the whole system as a giant local network, if you must. Then let users pick whatever company to be their "gateway" to the Internet.
I agree. We need a different model, where the "last mile" of infrastructure is treated like water, sewer, gas, electric. A city service, taxpayer-subsidized co-op, private company (like most gas and electric companies). Any of which governed by the state's corporation commission as a public utility to regulate expenses and rates.

Residents could then interconnect to a multitude of competing ISPs offering anything from bare-bones connectivity to teevee and telephone.

That still doesn't address how wireless service providers should be better regulated to operate in the public interest. They obtain a monopoly on finite public resources (airwaves). There's no way to demarcate access to that public resource like a city's "last mile." I think wireless providers should be treated as a public utility.


birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:9
reply to 88615298

There are still a few places in RI where some form of broadband is not readily available. FiOS isn't everywhere, DSL coverage is limited by distance, but cable goes most places. Granted, we don't have ubiquitous 100Mbps, but it's safe to say most people in RI can get broadband. Not counting satellite as broadband.



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by birdfeedr:

There are still a few places in RI where some form of broadband is not readily available. FiOS isn't everywhere, DSL coverage is limited by distance, but cable goes most places. Granted, we don't have ubiquitous 100Mbps, but it's safe to say most people in RI can get broadband. Not counting satellite as broadband.

Why not? it meets the 1Mbps download requirement.


birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:9

said by tshirt:

said by birdfeedr:

Not counting satellite as broadband.

Why not? it meets the 1Mbps download requirement.
Broadband definition is very loose with no real consensus in industry or government as to what is or isn't broadband. It's still a moving target depending on who's talking.

Cost and technical limitations put satellite internet into the category of last ditch methods. There's a reason it isn't more widely adopted.

That said, a friend of mine on Block Island can't get any of the more common providers, and it appears his only option is satellite. Too far for DSL, his house has bad cell phone reception, and the Block Island cable company relinquished its license to operate (a couple of years ago I think), and I don't think they ever expanded beyond 40 channels of SD or into HSI.

Not counting satellite as broadband is a subjective opinion mostly based on the least feasible method I'd use.

So I should modify my statement. It's safe to say most people in RI can get non-satellite broadband.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

I was speaking of finland, where the population in the northern 40 % is under 7 per Sq mi.
This law only guaruntees 1 Mbps ACCESS/availability by 2015, doesn't say it needs to be low latentcy or cheap. (if you live 50 klicks for "1000 miles from nowhere" (Northing finland qualifies) AND you insist on your right of access, then satellites costs /latentcies/ and outages are reasonable. )


Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
reply to baineschile

said by baineschile:

You havent addressed the most important questions I allured to though. Do you have a choice when it comes to electricity, gas, or water?
Many PA residents now have a choice in electricity and natural gas suppliers (but not the owner of the utility wires or gas lines) and there is always bottled water.


Ebolla

join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA
reply to zitch

primary carrier in an area but power/gas being charged by a second company. My electrical bill does NOT go to the provider in the area, so yes this is possible without having tons of lines going everywhere.