It is tough for WISPs to compete on latency. Not to say there's no value in it or that it couldn't be improved, but right now, aside from the political/regulatory issues, fiber is the best way to build an awesome network for customers.
If you want to work on software at a company that is deploying fiber in multiple cities, we're hiring.
Proof: finance industry's wide use of microwave towers.
There was another set of articles describing microwave towers in Europe, quite fascinating.
Not sure if this was the one: https://sniperinmahwah.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/hft-in-my-ba...
For long paths where you need very low latency, microwave is the way to go. This is why the finance industry uses it.
But this article is about more consumer-level internet access, which is why I mentioned WISPs. A WISP will carry your data wirelessly from your building to a nearby point of presence, where it will then be carried over the normal (fiber-based) internet. For the short distance between your building and the POP, my understanding is fiber will provide much more consistent bandwidth and latency.
If you can't stream Netflix when it's raining heavily outside, that's a big problem.
At least, one hopes that their trading strategy is based on a combination of financial fundamentals and a technological speed boost; if the speed boost is the only thing they've got going for them then that doesn't speak very well of their business.
I agree that in the financial use-case, the trade-offs are different, and perhaps you can just turn off your wireless link and just fall back to normal fiber when it's raining.
To address your last point, under my limited understanding of high-frequency trading, the edge is in predicting small fluctuations in price, and acting first. For that kind of trading if you incur unpredictable latency, you'd expect to lose money on more trades, since your orders come in after the latency arbitrage has been removed.
You still need to be able to (somewhat) accurately predict those price movements, but that prediction is meaningless if you can't also execute quickly. So the speed boost is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for executing many HFT strategies.
It's the same problem satellite TV customers have dealt with for years.
If they can get the latency they're talking about (that Wikipedia page says 7ms, which I assume is round-trip to the satellite), that would be pretty good. If you're on fiber, you should have sub-millisecond latency to the point of presence. Then the question becomes: which is the shorter path, the satellite-to-satellite path or the transit/dark fiber your fiber ISP is using?
I'm not sure how the math works out, but I'd assume for shorter paths (say, your closest AWS region) fiber is going to come out on top, whereas for trans-continental traffic the satellites could be really competitive.
For example, I am getting 6ms total round-trip-time from NYC to AWS in Virginia.
Basically, authoritarianism rears its ugly head in the US once again, across corporate, national, state, and local levels. The same general kind of gaming of the system which resulted in interstates dividing white from non-white neighborhoods is now maintaining the media status quo. On one side, it's the corporatism and Crony Capitalism the left traditionally complains about, now wielded by the Far Left as a non-governmental form of censorship. On the other side, it's legal and regulatory blocking of progress to maintain the status quo for old media and to use as leverage against the tech giants.
This is potentially deadly for US society. Until we once again have a healthy 5th estate which can reach the whole of society, the Fox-Newsification and the Gawker-ization of our news media is basically destroying what little actual discourse we have left.
What is my tribe accused of this time?
My peeps are trying to expand broadband, so I guess none of us got the memo.
Kicking out groups that don't hew to the party-line on YouTube. Not only the genuinely far-right, but also moderates, mainstream Republicans, and various sub-cultural enthusiasts.
As I referenced above, old-media interests and local interests oppose the expansion of broadband (as well as broadly defined Net Neutrality) in order to preserve an old-media status quo. Google Fiber, had it been successful, would have been a competitive force against this, destroying the barriers which keep Cable and old-media from being completely washed away. If "your peeps" had succeeded, I suspect "Adpocalypse" wouldn't have happened. YouTube and the like would have done something about ISIS videos, stopped around there, then told the mainstream corporate ad-money to just deal with the rest or go screw. As it is, the status-quo corporate money is being used as leverage against new media through YouTube.
Was the Far Left for or against Google Fiber?
More residential broadband (last mile) competition would have saved online advertising?
For. However they are against actual Free Speech unmolested by censorship from corporate giants, and they would not have such power on their side, had Google Fiber succeeded.
It would have let Tech kill off old media, or at least kill it off sooner, which would have changed the market power of old media's ad money.
> as well as broadly defined Net Neutrality
I don't really see how enforcing the decoupling of ISPs from other sectors hurts competition in the ISP space, but I'm interested in what am I missing, so if you could write out the argument in detail, that'd be great, thanks!
> As it is, the status-quo corporate money is being used as leverage against new media through YouTube.
Could you help with understanding this, maybe by providing some examples?
Authoritarians are now (disingenuously) using Libertarian arguments to justify corporatist non-state censorship.
I don't really see how enforcing the decoupling of ISPs from other sectors hurts competition in the ISP space
Does such a decoupling (in truth and in actual effect) necessarily follow from the former Net Neutrality regime under Obama, or from the elimination of that under Trump? I don't think such a decoupling in truth and in actual effect really follows from either.
Watch the video. Part and parcel of the thing which "Adpocalypse" is a part of, is a push from the Far-Left to re-label just about every political view to the right of Bernie Sanders to mainstream Republicans.
Also, Tim Pool, who became famous for covering Occupy, covers this general process in depth:
"Politico reports that 15 of the 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold a hearing on the Comcast deal on March 26th, have taken some form of contribution from Comcast."
"...Comcast has canvassed the two congressional panels that chiefly regulate cable, broadband and other telecom issues, donating to practically every lawmaker there — including Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)."
While Republicans have passed some egregious regulations of late, if you believe that money buys influence and favors - it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that representatives from both parties are responsible for the incredible lack of competition in broadband.
This is a prime example of the re-labeling of everything to the right of Bernie Sanders.
Here is another example of the re-labeling of everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders! Sorry, but I distinctly remember that the Democrats were the Left and the Republicans were the Right. You seem to be clearly interested in a dramatic shift to the Left. Thanks for being open about it.
(For what you are saying to make sense, you'd have to have Bernie Sanders smack dab in the center. Sorry, but what weird alternative universe do you live in?)
Perhaps this is true for "mainstream" politics for most of the past 100 years. I'm not so sure it applies to political activism on campus (i.e. Evergreen), the Alt-Right, Antifa, explicitly White Supremacist fringes, Redneck Revolution, &c.
It is bizarre to argue about left and right when it takes a microscope to differentiate the two.
Agreed, but as I point out above, the small difference between the traditional Democrat and Republican parties isn't the issue in 2018.
If you don't like "leftward shifts", when did you decide to vote Democrat?
As a child of immigrants, I was basically raised to vote Democrat. I showed up for the first primaries for Obama, noting the ham-fisted attempt of the local democratic secretary to get us all to incorrectly fill in the forms to disenfranchise us. I remember distinctly when basically no one would ever use the term "White Supremacist" north of the Mason Dixon line without being considered a conspiracy nutcase. I remember when the dismantling of due process and the wholesale labeling of the rural population as "deplorables" would've been considered stupidity from the mouth of a Democratic candidate. I remember when "safe spaces" on campus would've been immediately rejected as infantile nonsense by Democrats.
I remember when the kind of toxicity, fact-free imputation, and leaning on emotional images in we see in today's politics would have been called out by Democrats as an intellectually dishonest mode of operation. Not to say that politics were free of such nonsense and pollution, but back then, it was widely recognized as nonsense and pollution and not thought of as an intellectually and morally worthy activity.
The issue being discussed in this sub-thread is regulatory capture. It is disingenuous to blame that on unregulated capitalism, when in fact it is an issue of excess regulation.
Except this is a GOP agenda or predominantly Red/GOP local governments in the South and Midwest would be resisting it. They are the ones perpetuating it and at the State level they are preempting local ISPs in a variety of ways.
You are just accusing anything involving regulations as "Leftist" without acknowledging it is the standard banners of your own party that enable it.
I am not a Republican. I've always voted Democrat.
When your expectations are 180-deg out of whack, it's time to re-visit your world view and assumptions.
Meaningless gestures don't gain meaning just because we wish it were so.
That's not a good inference. Before I answer, let me ask you: Do you think the election of Trump is at all significant?
The subject of discussion was my political affiliation, not whether my votes were significant. So your sentence is a bit of a non-sequitur.
The significance of Trump's election, if any can be said to exist, is that from now on all of our chief executives will be reality TV stars. Is that progress?
You think you're being clever, asking all these questions before making any firm statement. The downvoters seem to have seen through the mask?
JFK was the first candidate to embrace Television. Perhaps Trump, being a part of the same lurid show, is the first candidate to realize how hollowed-out the media based on that technology has become.
Is that progress?
It's the classic creative destruction in the media.
You think you're being clever, asking all these questions before making any firm statement.
One of the best ways to judge someone is to see how they make decisions and predictions, and to observe on what information those are based upon.
The downvoters seem to have seen through the mask?
It's not possible to make judgements as above from the downvotes. It seems you should have noted that.
The Far-Left is the group which currently has enough power to attempt the silencing of others to the detriment of free speech, and get away with it on a widespread basis. It does so on a daily basis, with the help of corporate power.
The GOP does that as well and pretending its only one side is absurd on many levels.
Election shenanigans, not Free Speech per se.
and passing anti-speech laws at the state level exactly?
Those should also be fought, no matter who is doing it.
The lion's share of the mainstream media is biased to the left, and even at first many in the mainstream media gave a free pass to even to Antifa. It's well known that the GOP has an advantage in local politics. No one is pretending this isn't the case. However, the widespread conceit that the mainstream news is anywhere near unbiased still needs debunking. Badly. As in, society's survival is at stake levels of badly.
No, it's not. The lions share of media workers may have left-of-center leanings, but media firms aren't coops, so that doesn't actually matter; old media corporations are not owned and run by leftists, or even left-of-center-ists.
The mainstream media may be getting increasingly distant from the Republican Party by standing still (or, at least, moving to the right more slowly), politically, while the Republican Party continues the sprint to the far right that it's been doing since the moment the Democratic Party, led—dragged, really—by Bill Clinton, itself shifted right to form the center-right neoliberal consensus of the early 1990s.
(I call this response an “Overton Slingshot”, because while the tactical move to the right by Dems may have had short term electoral benefits for those left of center in getting slightly less conservative Democrats elected over Republicans—though whether it had any tactical value is itself highly debatable—it definitely was a long term disaster for them in the way it shifted the Overton Window.)
An analysis of the product indicates a clear bias. The left-leaning biased organizations far outnumber the right-biased ones.
since the moment the Democratic Party, led—dragged, really—by Bill Clinton, itself shifted right to form the center-right neoliberal consensus of the early 1990s.
In most western democracies, it's the center which needs to be allied with the administration in order to govern.
The shift isn't to the right. The failed embracing of Identity Politics and Intersectionality by Hillary was the final stage of a massive shift of the Democratic party in the center under Bill Clinton far to the left. Much of that was overseen by Obama.
Throwing out due process and freedom of speech -- individual rights -- is about as radical-left as you can get. In years past, such specific shifts would have been widely recognized as basically going as far left as Mao. It's basically throwing out the fundamental ideological basis of the United States. Now people are trying to convince people that this is "normal" and wanting such foundational individual rights is "shifting far right." Sorry, but anyone who remembers 10 years ago with a clear head can recognize this as a retcon of US history.
When your positions are so extreme the lion share of the population votes against them, its not hard to find boogeymen.
refusing to run special elections illegally
> “Governor Scott Walker’s refusal to hold special elections is an affront to representative democracy,” Holder said in a statement. “Forcing citizens to go more than a year without representation in the general Assembly is a plain violation of their rights, and we’re hopeful the court will act quickly to order the governor to hold elections.”
"The Legislature will be adjourned for 2018 before these seats could be filled in special elections."
Are you disputing the accuracy of that?
Also, you wrote "illegally"... and nothing in that article indicates illegality.
Instead, perhaps it was an attempt by Google to change the industry by 1) scaring the incumbents into improving, and 2) expanding consumers' Overton windows regarding what they could/should expect.
Google presumably wants to ensure its services can be delivered to consumers, so this would seem towards that end. As another commenter notes, Google also has deep pockets. Creating & operating a whole company as a PR 'stunt' doesn't seem beyond the realms of reasonable probability.
PS: I think a similar argument can be made for Tesla. I don't think it is a given that Musk intends for Tesla's success to be an economic one.
Edit: made last sentence less strong.
I won't comment on any possible changes in the last couple years or why they may have happened, except to say that to the best of my knowledge, at no point was the sentiment, "We've shifted the industry enough that we can stop pretending to want to succeed."
Incumbents tried their hardest to prevent Google from hanging new wires. Many of the laws in-place today make it difficult for new companies to hang wires, which I believe was a reaction from the telegraph days.
Also, pointing to a couple of lawsuits ignores the fact that Google got huge concessions everywhere else. It got waivers from build-out requirements (obligations to cover whole cities, instead of "fiberhoods" with sufficient demand), fast-track permitting, free use of municipal land for fiber huts, etc: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-kansas-city-....
I think Google rightfully gets the benefit of goodwill that say AT&T does not. But it's a real triumph of narrative over facts to suggest that Google Fiber didn't have the red carpet rolled out for it in nearly every Fiber city.
(Incidentally, a team of four guys with heavy equipment have spent the last three hours trenching fiber 50 feet through my tiny yard. That's the second visit, and there will be one more, and that's not counting running the fiber down the main road which required months of permitting and surveying. I strongly suspect that's why Google pulled out of Fiber.)
Exactly -- AT&T thinks it's their infrastructure, but it's not. It's ours.
 The same is true for power lines. They're mostly privately owned. The power utilities are subject to various regulations (rate regulation, etc.) but the wires were built with private money and are private property. In contrast, most water/sewer lines are owned by the municipality, and paid for by the public through taxes and hook-up fees for new construction.
This is not and has not ever been true.
Here  is an open auction with ~$2 billion in federal aid attached - "a total of $1.98 billion for 10 years." This was last updated just over a week ago. I would dig further back for other subsidies, but it is not necessary. Through tax breaks and subsidies we (the government, tax payers, etc) have certainly aided infrastructure build out for telecom cos.
There was some tax dollar funded subsidies in the ARRA, but it's a vanishingly small fraction of the trillion+ dollars invested in telecom infrastructure in the last few decades.
Is this one of the taxes that they just throw straight onto my monthly bill?
Two, AT&T is paying the tax, but the government is mostly kicking the subsidies back to small rural telcos and coops. Telcos with more urban footprints, like AT&T, subsidize telcos in high cost rural areas.
So calling CAF a subsidy to AT&T really makes no sense. It’s like saying Apple would love the government to slap a 5% tax on iPhones and kick the money to providers of low cost phones. Even if Apple could increase prices to compensate, and get some of those subsidies for the iPhone SE, it’d still be worse off than without the “subsidy.”
The FCC doesn’t disclose USF contributions by company, but you can guess: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A3.p.... Total reported telecom revenue is about $300 billion per year during that period. AT&T averaged $120 billion per year in revenue during that period (about 40% of the industry). (This is probably an overestimate because AT&T’s revenue includes non-telecom revenue.)
During that period, USF revenues were $7-8 billion per year. 40% of that is like $3 billion. Even if I’m wrong about AT&T’s revenue share by a factor of 4 AT&T still pays in much more than it gets out.
Also, it's likely eminent domain attempts for Google's benefit would run afoul of the law. I don't think the government can eminent domain something for the benefit of another corporation.
Do you live northwest of Austin, where 18 inches below the surface there is about two feet of solid limestone?
I'm all for having a set of processes and procedures in place, especially for an entity as large as ATT, but even by the standards of telecos their internal workings are a Franz Kafka nightmare.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was a huge factor. Everyone likes to blame regulation for fibre failures, but the "last mile" of fiber to the premise, like many wired broadband technologies before it, is often a nightmare.
Reminds me of this story, where one Norwegian ISP started asking customers to dig their own trench:
^ entirely predictable
Google won't save us any more than Musk will. It's billionaires launching cars into space and fighting for personal wealth at the detriment of the rest of the society.
Can you help me understand the ire over that launch?
It's standard that new rockets are tested with a dummy payload to avoid destroying something valuable. Typically that's steel plates, but the Falcon Heavy was going to go up with a useless payload regardless. Saturn I-IV did the same, and V only had a payload because it was a module test and a launch test rolled into one.
I suppose the Tesla took up some extra man-hours fitting the car for launch, and the rocket wasn't aimed somewhere it would be destroyed (though I can't tell whether they usually are).
But seeing this spun as "SpaceX won't save us, they're just shooting cars into space!" is baffling to me; it was some personal wealth spent on adding spectacle to a totally normal rocket launch.
Now who would not want a new private American company to succeed in revitalizing the industry and increasing competition. Hmm, I can think of a few.
It used to be "NASA is a bloated waste of tax payer money let private Enterprise in."
And now the same people who said that, have been convinced that private industry is stealing.
This part doesn't match my experience?
"NASA is a waste" is, broadly, a conservative/Republican stance. Almost everyone I've seen outraged about the Tesla launch was noticeably left of the average Democrat. I don't think a narrative of "they hated the public version, now they hate the private version" holds up for the people I've seen.
Granted, there's a second group on the left who hated NASA before and SpaceX now. But that narrative is usually "space exploration is a waste when people are going hungry", with not much concern about public/private status.
It's definitely now also a Far Left talking point. Larry Wilmore basically went back to the old 60's, "Why is there poverty, and we're putting men on the moon?" There's a scene somewhere where he's telling Bill Nye to STFU about his Science. This brings to mind Phillip DeFranco's t-shirt about substituting feelings for facts.
I would entertain an argument that Google Fiber hasn't actually helped society very much but I have a hard time buying that it's been harmful... At worst, it's driven the other players in the regions it's in to offer more bandwidth for less money. At best, it headed off rising a trend of ISPs deceiving the public about what was possible in an effort to suppress speeds and tightly meter bandwidth...
All of that money came from somewhere. Do you wonder why most of your local retailers went out of business, and you can't visit a local bookstore or camera shop anymore? It's related to why Jeff Bezos has so much money that he has nothing better to do than shoot stuff into space. Preferably, he will shoot bigger stuff farther than Elon Musk, Richard Branson, or Paul Allen.
It could also be used somewhere else. Is shooting suicidal volunteers at Mars really the best use of billions of dollars?
Solving difficult engineering problems is usually good for the world.
Adam Smith directly says vanity is what took down feudalism. We surely dont want our billionaires to not even spend the money they have!
Printing money and setting it on fire would employ printers and firefighters. I'm not sure Billionaire Space Wars are a net harm to society, but they're pretty silly.
Apparently, "Don't be Evil" doesn't cover internal company politics.
I remember at a previous job, there was this hefty trans-atlantic data link the company was leasing. All the VPs coveted it, so the political machinations basically resulted in no-one using it, ever, all the while we were paying not-insignificant funds for it.
You conveniently ignored Musk almost went bankrupt after 3 failures initially at space x.
I don't doubt you, but I would definitely expect that sort of messaging even if the true primary goal for GF was to be disruptive, as opposed to profitable.
FWIW, if I were aware of other plausible explanations for the way Fiber has progressed, Occam's Razor would compel me to believe those explanations versus defaulting to cynicism.
Google makes no money if they can't show ads to people, and at the time Comcast and friends controlled Google's access to a majority of US audiences that Google's customers (advertisers) wanted their ads in front of. Advertising in the US was more than half of Google's revenue then. Comcast had the only network nationally capable of reliably delivering video and video ads, which was prioritized for growth within Google around then.
I think there was a real fear within Google about the leverage Comcast and other national ISP's had over them. TLS wasn't common, and advertisers weren't nearly as interested in mobile audiences in 2010: wireless data use was a fraction of what it is now. A well-capitalized Comcast without the regulatory restrictions of AT&T or Verizon could create existential trouble for Google if they really wanted to. Google Fiber could have been Google's way of showing they'd be willing to play hardball if it came to that. Any positive PR that came from it was a great bonus, but they almost certainly never made money from Google Fiber.
I'm really, really hoping that changes drastically in the next decade. It would be really nice if Google started making the majority of their money from compute cloud offerings (a little out there, but that sector is growing much faster than their general business). I think it's essential if Google's ever going to gain some independence from the perverse incentives they've set themselves up for, and I think that's essential for Google (and society in general) as we move forward.
I'm not sure what to do with Facebook. I don't see people paying for that. Then again, with the amount of time people spend glued to Facebook, they could probably make a tidy business offloading general computing tasks to their users through JS. The concept has been brought up before, generally in the discussion of blockchain mining through websites, but at Facebook's scale and usage it's an entirely different story. I imagine Facebook could have the largest weather supercomputer in the world (by many factors) next week if they really wanted to.
I wonder if Facebook has a department whose job it is to look into developing more parallelizable algorithms for common workloads...
I think it is though, but probably not in the automotive industry; ATM it still has a lead, just like Apple had for a while on the smartphone market, but I think it'll be passed left and right by the competition.
But by then, Tesla won't be (primarily) a car company anymore, but a battery company, a solar power company (= energy company), and a company with the largest recharge station network in the country. Selling energy and charge stations will be the next generation's oil industry, and Tesla's taking charge there.
I’ve been a happy Verizon FIOS customer for 12 years. For $140 per month I have TV with every pay channel, landline phone and gigabit Internet. The gigabit is relatively recent but I get full gigabit speeds for up and down and it is amazing. I think you’re right that I don’t believe Verizon would’ve offered this at this price without the threat of Google and other competitors.
the trick seems to be to cancel and sign up again for the new user deals.
I believe gigabit is $70 a month stand alone from Verizon.
I strongly suspect 5G is instead causing renewed interest in fiber deployment. Comcast wants to get in on a cellular/wifi hybrid service, and for that it needs backhaul.
What did Musk tell investors?
For example: For some people being 'a liar' is one of the worst things imaginable, but to others it is perfectly fine. The former judge the latter as being immoral monsters, the latter think the former are rather sweet (and are perhaps also glad the former exist?).
Regarding deception of one's self: some people feel there is an absolute truth that can be known, whereas others may choose their reality and belief systems to fit their needs in any given moment.
I'm describing opposite ends of two spectrums here, rather than categories.
I think people make assumptions about where Musk is on those spectrums.
New nit: two spectra.
This doesn't mean that Tesla didn't need to be an economic success. It does mean that economic success wasn't the only criterion, or as highly ranked as it is for a non-impact company with non-impact investors.
I think the last one is a particularly good business because even though the US military has understood that cost reduction is job #1 for the use of space, the conventional cost plus model of developing rockets and then building and launch them can put stuff in orbit but cannot do cost reduction.
I wonder if a lot of that ended up being used for GCP datacenter connections?
Same goes for public service, profit-focused corporations can't provide the same quality of service.
France ranks near the very bottom in Europe in percentages above 10mbps, 15mbps, and 25mbps. In the developed world, France is behind - typically far behind - nearly every nation, including Russia (a far poorer country). France's broadband situation is an embarrassment, nothing has fundamentally changed in that picture for the past decade.
And they are slooow as shit too.
Now that's interesting. Do you have some stats on CPU efficiency and overhead?
And I recommend mosh ( https://github.com/rinne/mosh - the SSH Agent forwarding fork/branch ) to hide the latency as much as possible.
This is just categorically false. Where I live our state owned telco is horrible and you have to jump through hoops to cancel your account with them. People have to keep paying them for literally months (sometimes more than 6) after they cancel their service with them to cancel as they just do not process cancellations and then sue you if you do not pay up.
Our fiber revolution was driven not by the state, but by private profit-focused corporations. In fact the state telco now also has fiber - but it costs about twice the price and then you still have to deal with a provider which is sub standard and makes it near impossible for you to cancel their service. I pay about $10 USD more a month for 100mbit/100mbit up/down FTTH than I payed for 4mbit/512k ADSL up/down from state telco.
With just about every other "utility" or "public service" the story is the same here. Police is shit so I have to pay for security if you don't want to get armed robbed raped or murdered, schools are shit so you have to pay for private schools if you want your child to be able to read and write. Electricity supply is shit - every year we have load shedding and prices keep going up while govt is lining their pockets and then looking for ways to further fuck rate payers while getting kickbacks from Russia. And now because the govt has made everything worse for years there is talk about nationalizing industries to fuel populism amongst the almost 30% (official) unemployed and many poor people as our economy has been shrinking for years (and of course this is capitalism's fault now - because private industry makes govt look bad in comparison).
It is theoretically possible to have decent services where there is no competition and govt monopoly - but it is not the norm and I would say in most cases it does not work out this way.
And yes the problem is exceptionally high levels of corruption - but if the Govt does not have a self granted monopoly on providing services this provides some measure of containment for corruption and also means that you don't have to pay for everything twice as I have to do now.
And sure - I would like to have a non corrupt govt - but that won't happen ever. So people who make this blatantly false statement that Govt services will always be superior from private services is just giving fuel to the cash grab perpetrated by the Govt of my country.
So yeah, thanks, I guess - thanks for giving the govt of my country excuses for looting even more money - like they needed any to begin with.
Um..not sure how validating your evidence is irrelevant. Or even wanting to know more about it.
And to the other poster's point, personal experience impacts interpretations a lot (in both directions). I myself consider the govt inefficient but reliable when compared to private companies. I'm not a libertarian because I trust the govt, but because I trust companies less. I've spoken with people from countries with lots of govt corruption and they find the idea of a reliable govt to be a joke. We each have a lifetime of experience to support our positions.
Does that explain why France is so dramatically far behind the US on Internet speeds, and has been for the last 20 years? Ideally the US goes out of its way to not follow France's path on telecom.
As of Q1 2017:
US average speeds: 18.7 mbps
France average speeds: 10.8 mbps
To put France's figure into perspective, they rank toward the bottom in Europe, behind Russia, Hungary, Lithuania and Poland. They're #27 out of 31 nations ranked in Europe.
France also ranks near the bottom in Europe in % above 10 mbps, at just 31%. The US is at 67%.
And again France ranks near the bottom in Europe in % above 15 mbps, at just 18%. The US is at 48%.
The US is #10 globally when it comes to % over 25 mbps, with 21%. That category saw a one year increase of 65%..
The US ranks in the top 15 globally for highest percentage at 10 mbps, 15 mbps and 25 mbps.
France should be copying the US based on their persistently atrocious broadband figures. And that's with the US approach being subpar.
And keep in mind that in France currently "fiber" means "at least FFTN", much of rural france won't see FTTH for a long time.
France claiming 100% fiber by 2022? They are dreaming, or perhaps even delusional. No way they can get FTTH by 2022. There are some places that don’t have any connectivity and you have to use Satelite.
They’re going to fix that in 4 years?
In practical terms, this means that DSL has already reached its practical limit with speeds around 30-50 Mbps, whereas Cable Internet still has room to grow around 2-4 Gbps, depending on how many TV channels the operator is ready to sacrifice to Internet traffic.
Of course, this doesn't address congestion / oversubscription issues around cable, but assuming a competently managed network, FTTN with coax as the last mile is still a very good choice in 2018.
The successor, G.fast, will nominally do a gig, but about 500 Mbps over short loops.
I wouldn't go quite that far e.g. let's say you're my parents in a village of 300 (and as many cows) with the DSLAM >5km away, the best DSL you can get is 1024k on a good day (and on average closer to 512k with pings in the half-second range), my understanding is that for them the FTTN node would be roughly at the center of each village.
All of a sudden, unless the village is huge there's <2km between any home and the node and you can expect 15~20Mbps over the entire village.
The kind of engineering to distribute such a large network seems to mirror the issues with the nationwide power grid that was proposed to allow for consistent solar energy. The USA is just a very, very big place with populations, even urban, that sprawl and are not condensed like in London, Paris, Munich or other countries in the fiber fight.
> I'm not saying that a similar model wouldn't be easy to implement in the boroughs of New York, Boston, SV, Austin, etc.
Oh please, the village I'm talking about is not a borough of a major metropolis, it's a small rural village, the closest thing which could be construed as a city has a population of under 50k and is 20km away.
Boston and Austin have metro populations in the millions, there's barely 6 cities in all of France which reach that.
> you still have 20% of Americans living in not-urban environments
Oh good point, let's check the percentage of rural population in france. Hey look, it's 20%. Wow, probably an outlier, let's check Germany. Oh, 24%. Maybe Spain? 20% again.
And these are highly urbanised countries mind, Ireland and Portugal are sitting at 36% rural population.
> The USA is just a very, very big place with populations, even urban, that sprawl and are not condensed like in London, Paris, Munich or other countries in the fiber fight.
None of London, Paris or Munich are countries, they're major/capital cities inside countries which have their own non-urban populations.
I still agree with you, though, that America could do something if there was a strong enough will. Even if the cost of fiber is prohibitive, it seems like there are wireless technologies out there that would be better than the zilch broadband 23 million Americans currently have. (https://www.npr.org/2018/03/03/590546371/rural-communities-t...)
Consider this, the state of Texas alone is bigger than all of France, and while it has several huge cities in it, it still has less than half the population of France. Montana is more than half the land area of France, and only has 1 million people living in it.
It would be a lot easier to just give up on the 1% that are truly scattered to the winds with little homesteads in the middle of no-where. But hopefully we can get some really good low earth orbit satellite internet and not have to worry about all this.
The NBN failed largely because of a government ideology that neutered it from FTTH to FTTN, if that.
Australia is fairly equivalent to the US for many areas with the exception of the (relatively) uninhabited interior.
If you combined a list of US and Australian cities by population, the top five Australian cities would be in the top 10:
New York (8.5M), Sydney (5.0M), Melbourne (4.7M), LA (3.9M), Chicago (2.7M), Brisbane (2.3M), Houston (2.2M), Perth (2.0M), Philadelphia (1.6M), Adelaide (1.5M).
The notion of Australia as quaint rural villages is used as an excuse by defenders of the status quo. The US is just so unique, "Oh, it's bigger", "more dense", "cities are different here", etc., et al.
(1) New York - 20.2M
(2) Los Angeles - 13.3M
(3) Chicago - 9.5M
(4) Dallas - 7.2M
(5) Houston - 6.8M
(6) Washington, DC - 6.1M
(7) Philadelphia - 6.1M
(8) Miami - 6.1M
(9) Atlanta - 5.8M
(10) Boston - 4.8M
Only Sydney would make the top 10, coming in just above Boston.
Both the US and Australia have cities / metro areas that are significant in population as well as huge low-density areas, but the US metro areas are definitely larger. This makes sense given an overall population of 323M vs 24M.
For example, the Seattle MSA extends as far north as Burlington, Mt Vernon, as far east as almost Lake Chelan, and as far south as Packwood near White Pass.
No one would credibly claim that White Pass was a part of Seattle, any more than Lake Chelan.
Whereas Melbourne absolutely would consider Boronia on the east a suburb, Campbellfield on the north, and Frankson in the south all suburbs.
I do get what you are saying, and of course with that population number it is so, but I don't think that there's really a great correlation (mainly as a result of Census in the US using a non-standard definition of the internation "metropolitan area" to basically... "anywhere else".
That being said, when you look at "as a percentage of the population", Sydney and Melbourne at ~20%, the others at ~10%, there's also not the argument of "hey, these US cities are far more dense and complex than Australia's", when the complexity is far more often a result of _artificial barriers and restrictions in the market_ than anything logistical.
Thanks French government, you suck. I pay confiscatory taxes — including incredibly high taxes on my internet and phone service and what do I get for it? Abysmal speeds. Given the geographic size of France — it should be covered in fiber already, but my area is projected at 3 years out.
They won’t have 100% fiber by 2022. It’s impossible given the French propensity to make the simple complex, and the inexpensive, expensive. If Orange is a representation of the power of French innovation, then I fear for the future. That’s a company that has separate sign in systems based on the type of account you have and a system that takes 2 weeks to update when payments are made by credit card. Orange represents the single worst experience I have ever had as a customer — that includes my time living in the US and dealing with companies such as Time Warner. The French electric service, EDF, is a close second.
You want to talk about government and successful internet infrastructure initiatives — have a look at South Korea.
But France? Innovative? It’s all for show. It still is a pain in the ass to accomplish anything in that country. Europe uses IBANs almost universally, for example, yet French utilities still insist on the RIB. The insurance company I have can’t do prelevements with my German IBAN. It’s ridiculous.
Just because a government spends money on something doesn’t mean that government is any good at what they’re spending money on.
Your conversions might be mistaken.
For example, at my place of work, on ADSL2:
Down Stream : 6696Kbps / Up Stream : 736Kbps
So slightly worse than you. Converting directly to kilobytes, we've got 837 KB/sec down and 92 KB/sec up. Shave off around 20% to get real-world speed, because those are sync rates, not actual throughput.
Unless you actually have 8/0.8 MBytes down/up, equivalent to 64/6.4 Mbps down/up, which is quite decent! (Still maybe not quite €100 good).
Thanks to this map it was easy to select the right place to move to, and we are currently in the process of moving... to an home equipped with FFTH!
Interesting model: the price is the same for everyone, while bandwidth is the maximum they can offer in your location. Excellent support. I bought a TP-LINK MC220L + patch cables from them, and hooked up an edgerouter lite for PPPoE & VLAN tagging. Already had a wifi router (google wifi), which sadly can't do VLAN tagging. Haven't noticed any issues with the double NATing.
Once you deliver the fiber, the marginal cost of increasing port speed is a rounding error as you do routine infrastructure refresh.
Where I work, we’re increasing many wan links to 10Gb because the cost is marginal at scale. In some cases, it can save money versus an older slower tech!
There's just no way you can draw a conclusion like this. I would be equally right in say that public corporations never have an incentive to improve services due to lack of a market or competition (see mass transit).
The rollout of a nationalised national broadband/fibre network in Australia has been an interesting one for a number of reasons. We've actually seen private companies roll out their own networks to compete with both the public provider AND other private companies.
Ultimately, the quality of these services is going to depend on a whole lot more than "public vs private"
It is not the absolute size that matters, it is density and clustering degrees. And there are some sparsely populated countries in Europe that manage to build infrastructure just fine.
USA: 35.0/km² (90.6/sq mi)
Norway: 15.8/km² (40.9/sq mi)
Before he disrupted those two markets, it was just as bad as the US. Remember the "Forfait RSA" the government crowed about having negotiated for the poorest citizens? 40mn and 40SMS for 10 euros per month...
Silicon Valley has been a playground for venture capitalists and their beneficiaries but I would wager that their influence, while wildly public and social, is only important inside it's bubble, and much of that influence has been frivolous, bought or self inflated. Does anyone really need Facebook or Twitter, or Hootsuite or Gmail? They have only existed for circa ten years each.
So I don't believe it's the beacon of social benefit or industrial power. It is certainly a beacon of wild capitalism, excitement and glamour. Whether that's a good thing or not is hotly debated, but a world without SV unicorns would move on just fine.
Anyway, going on this tangent, Europe is different. We've had our share of global domination already (which was expensive and unsustainable in the long run), as well as our share of innovation-by-any-means-necessary (which resulted, among other things, in pollution and WWI). We've decided we don't really need either to live a good life. We can still easily buy whatever innovation you come up with if it proves to be safe and useful. We're happy to leave beta-testing to others.
It's true that Europe does "disruptive" startups less, because people don't like being disrupted as much, but it's not true that France is a land of tech-illiterate peasants. It's just that the tech is done in large, somewhat lumbering but nonetheless profitable, megacorps.
Orange, Vivendi, Airbus, Bull, ST, and so on.
Europe, if one can even process such a mix of cultures as a single entity, seems to abhor spectacle.
Facebook is really just money, and money doesn't have a location. In terms of offices and employments and locations and blah Facebooks is as big as a middling supermarket chain.
Which isn't to say that money is bad or irrelevant or anything. Just that it isn't local in a meaningful way. Facebook is local to wherever that ugly office building is in much the same way that half the world's aircraft are Irish.
It worked in the markets Google rolled out in...and that was it. These companies stubbornly refused to preempt Googles expansion anywhere.
Maybe they called Googles bluff, maybe they were never nimble enough to even think about getting ahead of Google let alone execute it, and maybe Google was just never that serious in the first place.
I think it genuinely was received as the Cool New Thing for a while. Then the cities applied to be Google fiber cities. Then fiber rolled out to some cities. At some point competitors responded by upgrading their service. And then with some retrospection, we collectively looked back at that series of events and said "ah, this must have been Google's plan all along."
I honestly don't doubt that Google's initial plan was insanely ambitious. And that what transpired, while falling far short of the original vision, nevertheless did advance their interests. But my recollection of the events as they unfolded in real time wasn't that this was their plan from the start, or that people felt that way, until a few news cycles passed and it was clear that it spurred other internet providers to action.
But I do agree with you that it definitely did become the prevailing wisdom, eventually.
Actually we finally got NBN on my street and I am syncing at 75mbit (paying for 100) and frankly I am over the moon. The fastest I have had previous, after living all over AU, was 14mbit down, and I was the envy of my friends for that roaring waterfall of data.
Everyone else I know is on around 8mbit even in 2018.
The cause is not NIMBYism, or any other negative traits you might try to tag on to people from the Bay, but rather, the existing telecom companies and their attempts to protect their pseudo-monopoly.
People at work were all excited when the announcement for our major metropolitan area was announced until the areas were given and it was like, what is the point if your in such limited areas?
I know more outside of my metro Atlanta area with fiber than within. that to me is just backwards but I will take it. I like my hick neighborhood and with fiber I can work from home a lot more
"Cash is a call option with no expiration date"
Since they have come to town, ATT has installed their own fiber network in our neighborhood and Comcast has increased their speeds. I consider our local area disrupted. And I feel no matter what happens with GF, we’ll have faster internet from now on.
BTW: cut the cord. GF 1Gb plan with DirecTV Now and YouTube TV.
If one of them dials down their service levels, users will just swap to the other. They would have to be concerted in their service downgrades if they didn't want to lose customers.
Apart from mailing out the modem to me, my wireless ISP has basically zero marginal installation cost for adding me as a customer, assuming their closest towers have sufficient capacity (they vetted my address first before selling me the wireless modem). And I know for a fact that they're capping my modem's speed in software as my 4G smartphone's connection is much faster. This is why the NBN's CEO said wireless networks are its biggest threat.
However I did get fiber from ATT for 100 meg symmetrical for 50 bucks a month. And unlike comcast it really delivers 100 megabits per second. I could have gotten the full gig fiber for 70 a month. But it did not seem worth it.
When Comcast offered 1000Mbps* service for $70/mo with a three year contract, I gave up. Interestingly, this offer only seems to have been available in likely GF service areas and was a pretty transparent attempt to tie up potential GF customers with a nice early termination fee.
* download. Upload is 40Mbps.
I have gigabit through Centurylink at a reasonable price. Thx Google!
I assume they mean "disenchanted" -- this sentence makes no sense as written.