dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
962
share rss forum feed

CycloneGT2

join:2001-11-15
Boyds, MD

Not apples here.

I like how they compare the US internationally to a lot of smaller countries. Its a lot easier for a small country to get 100% wired up for fiber than it is for a nation as vast as the USA. If they were to compare South Korea or Holland to say just New Jersey, how would that compare?

I have a hard time feeling that the USA is broadband crippled when I have access to FiOS, Cable Modems, DSL, and several Wireless technologies here in Maryland. If I head out a little further into the rural areas, I may just be limited to wireless or satellite, but I could still get online.

I just find it amusing that everyone complains about how ISPs aren't willing to spend $10k to trench fiber to someone's home in the sticks so that they can provide $40/mo internet service. Of course the way that technology has been evolving this would could be obsolete in a a decade anyway and would take over 20 years to just recover the cost.

The rural areas are only going to be covered by a next generation wireless technology. Any efforts to bring a "wired" solution to the rural community will only be eclipsed by that wireless tech once it becomes available.



kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

3 edits

3 recommendations

said by CycloneGT2:

I like how they compare the US internationally to a lot of smaller countries. Its a lot easier for a small country to get 100% wired up for fiber than it is for a nation as vast as the USA. If they were to compare South Korea or Holland to say just New Jersey, how would that compare?
Can we stop with this BULL***T about "VAST COUNTRY" and other nonsensical, irrelevant crap, spread by industry corporatist shills?

New York City is NOT a vast area and it's the BIGGEST market yet our speeds ARE SLOWER THAN ANY EU city's.

Moreover according to the latest Census Burequ data OVER 80% OF AMERICANS LIVE IN LARGE METROPOLITAN AREAS - this immediately kills the BS fake arguments about "vast countries" and similar lies.

quote:
I have a hard time feeling that the USA is broadband crippled when I have access to FiOS, Cable Modems, DSL, and several Wireless technologies here in Maryland. If I head out a little further into the rural areas, I may just be limited to wireless or satellite, but I could still get online.

But that's just because you can't see further than your backyard and probably have no clue about what's going on abroad.

THe fact that you are satisfied with your speeds does NOT change the fact that we are waaay behind the Western world, period.

quote:
I just find it amusing that everyone complains about how ISPs aren't willing to spend $10k to trench fiber to someone's home in the sticks so that they can provide $40/mo internet service. Of course the way that technology has been evolving this would could be obsolete in a a decade anyway and would take over 20 years to just recover the cost.
Of course, these numbers are complete BS again: sticking with the most expensive of all (your example, FIOS) the numbers show it only costs $1,200 per subscriber - considering the AVERAGE 1000-1500% BANDWIDTH MARKUP that's rather a 2-year return, I bet.

Let me guess: you pulled these number out of your bottom part, right?

The rural areas are only going to be covered by a next generation wireless technology. Any efforts to bring a "wired" solution to the rural community will only be eclipsed by that wireless tech once it becomes available.
What an ignorant nonsense. Break down the greedy monopolies, the grasp of profit-only crooked corprations on the markets and there you go, you get broadband everywhere.

BTW for pointing out the cluelessness even further - you couldn't be more wrong about rurals and wireless: [b]countries with vast rural areas have FAR BETTER broadband, BUILT ON FTTH - look at Norway or Swedenfor example.


Homework for you (it's from last May but still relevant): Cold, dark countries whipping US in broadband usage @ Ars

--
said by bicker:

Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.

devnuller

join:2006-06-10
Cambridge, MA
reply to CycloneGT2

said by CycloneGT2:

I just find it amusing that everyone complains about how ISPs aren't willing to spend $10k to trench fiber to someone's home in the sticks so that they can provide $40/mo internet service.
Depending on who you talk to, you will get two of the reasons below around this debate:

• Greedy Corporations
• Corrupt Politicians
• Entitled Population

All of which are partially true IMHO.


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:2
reply to CycloneGT2

said by CycloneGT2:

I like how they compare the US internationally to a lot of smaller countries. Its a lot easier for a small country to get 100% wired up for fiber than it is for a nation as vast as the USA. If they were to compare South Korea or Holland to say just New Jersey, how would that compare?
On the other hand, if you would compare the entire EU to the United States, I'm afraid that the EU would still beat us in connectivity.

Granted, the EU has been expanded with some countries that aren't connected as well (Romania, Bulgaria, etc) but if you leave the post-2007 expansion out of it, the "old" EU still has well over 350 million residents, and overall is better connected for a cheaper price.

I think the biggest difference is that ISP's in the EU are heavily regulated, whereas in the US they are not.


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

2 edits

1 recommendation

said by maartena:

said by CycloneGT2:

I like how they compare the US internationally to a lot of smaller countries. Its a lot easier for a small country to get 100% wired up for fiber than it is for a nation as vast as the USA. If they were to compare South Korea or Holland to say just New Jersey, how would that compare?
On the other hand, if you would compare the entire EU to the United States, I'm afraid that the EU would still beat us in connectivity.

Granted, the EU has been expanded with some countries that aren't connected as well (Romania, Bulgaria, etc) but if you leave the post-2007 expansion out of it, the "old" EU still has well over 350 million residents, and overall is better connected for a cheaper price.
Actually you'd be foolish to leave the new countries out of it or at least some of them: Hungary's or Czech's infrastructure is top-notch when it comes to broadband, especially mobile broadband (for example HSDPA, which is still only exists in printed AT&T marketing crap, is long available in every city in Hungary, with multi-megabit speeds.)
It's not an accident that latest 4G LTE tests were conducted by Verizon were mostly held in Budapest, Madrid and Düsseldorf.
My bro back in Budapest upgraded his DSL to an open ended (15Mb/s was guaranteed, up to 20Mbit depending on his distance) ADSL2+ connection in 2006 and that's when it was launched across the entire market, not some early deployment.

Ironically these countries' advantage was their former disadvantage: with the large influx of Western capital in the early 90s their archaic 80s infrastructure (phone and data networks) were quickly replaced with the latest technologies in the 90s so they are reaping their rewards of their long 'tech-starved' decades now...

BTW by today the Hungarian telecom giant - owned by Deutsche Telekom, of course, who else? - pretty much swallowed most of the surrounding countries' telecoms (much like MOL, the Hungarian oil company did with surrounding oil/gas companies and refineries etc.)

I think the biggest difference is that ISP's in the EU are heavily regulated, whereas in the US they are not.
Correct. However apparently they work better than our corrupt, crooked, quasi-monopoly-based "market" which these rotten monopolies dare to call "free market" with straight face...
--
said by bicker:

Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.


jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
00000
kudos:1

2 recommendations

reply to kamm

said by kamm:

said by CycloneGT2:

I like how they compare the US internationally to a lot of smaller countries. Its a lot easier for a small country to get 100% wired up for fiber than it is for a nation as vast as the USA. If they were to compare South Korea or Holland to say just New Jersey, how would that compare?
Can we stop with this BULL***T about "VAST COUNTRY" and other nonsensical, irrelevant crap, spread by industry corporatist shills?

New York City is NOT a vast area and it's the BIGGEST market yet our speeds ARE SLOWER THAN ANY EU city's.

Moreover according to the latest Census Burequ data OVER 80% OF AMERICANS LIVE IN LARGE METROPOLITAN AREAS - this immediately kills the BS fake arguments about "vast countries" and similar lies.

quote:
I have a hard time feeling that the USA is broadband crippled when I have access to FiOS, Cable Modems, DSL, and several Wireless technologies here in Maryland. If I head out a little further into the rural areas, I may just be limited to wireless or satellite, but I could still get online.

But that's just because you can't see further than your backyard and probably have no clue about what's going on abroad.

THe fact that you are satisfied with your speeds does NOT change the fact that we are waaay behind the Western world, period.

quote:
I just find it amusing that everyone complains about how ISPs aren't willing to spend $10k to trench fiber to someone's home in the sticks so that they can provide $40/mo internet service. Of course the way that technology has been evolving this would could be obsolete in a a decade anyway and would take over 20 years to just recover the cost.
Of course, these numbers are complete BS again: sticking with the most expensive of all (your example, FIOS) the numbers show it only costs $1,200 per subscriber - considering the AVERAGE 1000-1500% BANDWIDTH MARKUP that's rather a 2-year return, I bet.

Let me guess: you pulled these number out of your bottom part, right?

The rural areas are only going to be covered by a next generation wireless technology. Any efforts to bring a "wired" solution to the rural community will only be eclipsed by that wireless tech once it becomes available.
What an ignorant nonsense. Break down the greedy monopolies, the grasp of profit-only crooked corprations on the markets and there you go, you get broadband everywhere.

BTW for pointing out the cluelessness even further - you couldn't be more wrong about rurals and wireless: [b]countries with vast rural areas have FAR BETTER broadband, BUILT ON FTTH - look at Norway or Swedenfor example.


Homework for you (it's from last May but still relevant): Cold, dark countries whipping US in broadband usage @ Ars

Some don't want to admit that the united states is behind the rest of the world. American get fed by the mouth about how their country is the greatest and others are behind us in technology

Americans don't realize that they are getting poorer while only few are getting richer. What good does it do us if bill gates is the only privilege few with 1gpbs connection while most of us crawl on crappy dsl and cable internet

If you say that few are more rich then the rest of the world in America then that is true but like most 3rd world country the American are no better off

Americans are completely brainwashed from birth LOL

They believe anything and are easily deceived by ancient copper thats has been here for over a century

The greedy corporation are lazy and they too represent lazy American.

We like to have faster connection but we like to get it through dsl or cable but distance is always an issue and copper has many problem too like limited bandwidth, slow no matter what you do with it or how much you try to squeeze into it using faster hardware.

Its too hard to change to fiber optic connection, too much work!

probboy

join:2008-01-10
Natick, MA
reply to kamm

said by kamm:

Of course, these numbers are complete BS again: sticking with the most expensive of all (your example, FIOS) the numbers show it only costs $1,200 per subscriber - considering the AVERAGE 1000-1500% BANDWIDTH MARKUP that's rather a 2-year return, I bet.
You do realize that the $1,200/sub number is from their current deployments, right? FiOS has been primarily deployed to suburban and urban locations--those numbers increase greatly when you start talking about rural areas.


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

2 edits

said by probboy:

said by kamm:

Of course, these numbers are complete BS again: sticking with the most expensive of all (your example, FIOS) the numbers show it only costs $1,200 per subscriber - considering the AVERAGE 1000-1500% BANDWIDTH MARKUP that's rather a 2-year return, I bet.
You do realize that the $1,200/sub number is from their current deployments, right? FiOS has been primarily deployed to suburban and urban locations--those numbers increase greatly when you start talking about rural areas.
It's across the board: 23B didived by 19M subs, without NYC - in other words rural deployments are easily covered by large metropolitan areas.

And yes, this is the answer to rural deployments - not slow-@ss little ISPs with jacked-up price as they try to recover their costs over 10 years.
WISPs' only shot to keep FTTH-based big guys honest - that's important, of course, no question about it (WISP's cost is well below $100 per sub, hehe.).
--
said by bicker:

Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.

probboy

join:2008-01-10
Natick, MA

OK, using publicly available information, with a citation, please tell me one rural area where Verizon sells FiOS. By rural, I mean a place where we are talking single digit numbers of houses per mile of road (I'm using the east coast definition of rural--I'm sure some of our friends out west would think that's downright urban )--places that ever cable doesn't service because it isn't economically feasible.

I'll wait...

...give up? That's because they haven't deployed FiOS anywhere remotely considered rural--and they never will (witness the sale of Verizon's VT/NH/ME business to FairPoint).



kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

said by probboy:

OK, using publicly available information, with a citation, please tell me one rural area where Verizon sells FiOS. By rural, I mean a place where we are talking single digit numbers of houses per mile of road (I'm using the east coast definition of rural--I'm sure some of our friends out west would think that's downright urban )--places that ever cable doesn't service because it isn't economically feasible.

I'll wait...

...give up? That's because they haven't deployed FiOS anywhere remotely considered rural--and they never will (witness the sale of Verizon's VT/NH/ME business to FairPoint).
I don't really see what are you challenging... did you understand my point actually?
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]

Desdinova
Premium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
reply to CycloneGT2

"I have a hard time feeling that the USA is broadband crippled when I have access to FiOS, Cable Modems, DSL, and several Wireless technologies here in Maryland. If I head out a little further into the rural areas, I may just be limited to wireless or satellite, but I could still get online."

Then you are statistically right up there with that one person who wins Powerball and doesn't understand why others didn't win also...

I live in the heart of Montgomery Village and I can get Comcast, satellite with hideous latency or dial-up (though I haven't looked too deeply into Xohm). Fios won't be anywhere near my area for at least a year and a half and no DSL provider will hook me up because I'm just a hair too far from the CO.



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

reply to CycloneGT2

said by CycloneGT2:

I like how they compare the US internationally to a lot of smaller countries. Its a lot easier for a small country to get 100% wired up for fiber than it is for a nation as vast as the USA. If they were to compare South Korea or Holland to say just New Jersey, how would that compare?
Ok Japan is the size of Montana and MUCH larger than RI which has TWICE the poulation density of Japan. yet somehow RI average speed is 7 Mbps compared to Japan's what 100 Mbps? Enough with the excuses.

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to probboy

Apple Valley, CA
Beaumont, CA
Hemet, CA

Not rural by your definition, but they are considered small and a bit out of the way...


CycloneGT2

join:2001-11-15
Boyds, MD
reply to kamm

If I had known that you were going to get so emotional I would have brought some Kleenex and perhaps some pampers to keep you dry.

You might get some millage with like minded tools when you rant about "greedy monopolies" and "crooked corporations", but in the end no one is going to dump billions of dollars on rural broadband with a wired technology because they know that they would lose their shirts doing so.

Perhaps you can form a Saintly non-profit Broadband company to bring Fiber to the un-served masses. I would however expect the likes of you to consider the "rural population" to be idiot, racist, redneck, red-staters who aren't worth the effort.

Expand your moderator at work