Ah yes. It's no good having giga bits per second from your ISP if the pipes to the country can't cope. Somewhat a different topic.
Leads to the weird situation though that I might have faster access to Parallax in the USA from Europe than that farmer in Iowa.
Considering that 97% of my internet use is international, I can't quite see that the topic is different. I suppose I should just accept that I am terminally unique. But the biggest blessing of the internet is the ability to have global access for next to nothing.
...be careful believing news reports about a place you haven't been.
Quite so, But in the BBC I trust. So you do agree there is a zombie apocalypse going on in America then:)
Loopy,
Yes, the issue of international connection is not totally off topic. It's just that we have networks and then we have networks of networks, hence "internet". No body controls all of it. So you ISP might do a great job locally and sell you a fast connection but when it comes to connecting you to that server in Mozambique there is not a lot they can do about it.
Jazzed,
Love the Postman Pat train wreck. Perhaps I worry too much.
Heater, be careful believing news reports about a place you haven't been. The news media has a vested interest in pushing the panic button because it moves their product. If you came to southern New England you would find roads in good shape and a top notch fiber optic network in spite of reports of a zombie apocalypse in the nation as a whole.
After living in the US for 28 years, I would say that Heater pretty much hit the nail on the head and I could take it much further. I wasn't influenced by the ridiculous news media, especially the likes of FOX's Bill "the sun comes up, the sun goes down, the tide goes in, the tide goes out, and nobody knows why!" O'Reilly. LOL!
I was in my late 40s before I got my college degree. I tended to Smile off professors that had a particular axe to grind and kept putting unrelated stuff in their lectures. One professor was mouthing a report that the US had higher cancer rates than third world countries. I guaranteed my self a grade no higher than a C when I pointed out the number of diseases people in the third world died of before they were old enough to have cancer in most instances. - All this having been said the US is falling way behind in the education of our children. - It seems to me that it now takes two years of college to get a high school education.
. So you ISP might do a great job locally and sell you a fast connection but when it comes to connecting you to that server in Mozambique there is not a lot they can do about it.
^ THIS ^
There are many pinch points for data to deal with .... I know to the SONNET Loop here is full speed with my Fiber
. but Like Heater said . if the server you are on is on a 10Base switch and the server has 10 sites on it .. you are gonna see some pinch .
Part of the problem here in the U.S. is the fact that in theory, monopolies are forbidden, However, in practice, nothing could be farther from the truth. I've lived in several states and visited even more, and almost every single place I've lived, and many places I've visited all have a single phone company to handle local service, thereby giving you no choice at all if you wanted phone service. Luckily, internet providers don't seem to have this problem. Everywhere I've lived, there has been multiple isps to choose from, and I even provided services myself for a while. That tells me that it's considerably to get into internet service providing than it is to get into phone services, although when I lived in Delaware for atime, I was an authorized reseller of the local phone lines there too, but that just meant we bought service from the actual provider at wholesale rates, then resold them to our customers. That's the only time I'd actually had a choice in who to use for local phone service, and (as it turned out) that wasn't for long, after a couple years, the company selling us their infrastructure use bailed on us, and there was much nashing of teeth, and many threats of law suits, and even an attempt at a class action suit. I don't know how it all worked out financially, but I do know, that afterwords, it was back to a single choice if you wanted local phone service. These days, local phones aren't as necessary as they used to be, what with cell services, and internet phone services cropping up everywhere, but the point still remains that internet is relatively easy to get into, while other utility services such as electric, phone, and water are nearly impossible. So, I'd say that at least partly, the whole private enterprise thing is working for internet services, which is what generally folks are griping about, while other services are being neglected on a grand scale, and nobody seems to care. Decent internet speeds are available almost anywhere, though admittedly, there are places where dial-up is still the main internet access method, and it seems that most folks these days forget that when designing their fancy web sites with megs and megs of graphics just to load the front page. I guess the whole point of this ramble is that while the us doesn't have highspeed everywhere just yet, it's getting there a lot faster than most other utility type services are progressing, and I think that's a good thing. (for internet access anyway) Not so much for the other stuff.
\
Well said.
Various Internet methods of connection have been in play for over 30 years...it is who controls your physical hookup that determines how fast you go on the Web.
That "who" has been dragging their feet for decades in upgrading your infrastructure..until they are forced to by market forces or by government they simply won't
The current state of US internet was determined by the telecommunication laws that were passed a decade ago (under an unnamed Administration) allowing for monopolistic controls on preventing competition...note how quickly cell American phone usage has grown while prices (like those of Internet connections) have stayed at extremely high levels..meanwhile other countries have seen similar growth with dropping prices..doesn't competition lower prices..apparently not in the good old USA.
So why should any United States citizen care if Americans don't have good Internet access?
Well because it already has and will continue to affect your wallet and future earning potential.
The Internet and ready access to it has already proven to be THE economic catalysis of this century that libraries, phones and electricity were in the past.
The more Americans that cannot or have limited access to the Internet result in the limiting economic growth of themselves, their children and their Country.
The backsliding has and is continuing...while many Americans are in denial.
When Johnny can't access the Internet, he is being set up for a menial job for life.
Last month I had to call Comcast and tell them to slow it down. Seems like my existing "special deal" had expired and they (without asking me of course) bumped me up to their fastest service automatically (only $70 a month !!!). Sorry, no thanks. I had to tell the Comcast person I spoke to that I specifically did not want any special "limited time only" rate, so that I wouldn't get any surprises in my bill in the future. Just give me whatever is the cheapest on-going rate.
Small telecoms seem to either have fiber to the home, or have it in fairly short range planning.
Large ones(investor owned) use copper typically.
Why???
I currently have a verizon 4g connection, with a 5g plan. Its similar to telling someone to fill a 5 gallon bucket with a firehose and don't spill any water. Around 3 hours of full speed download would have me over. I worry that if something goes wrong, I could have a monster bill. Alternatives include satellite, which has another set of problems. I am looking at renting a spot and repeating internet from another wireless isp in the area. My office is in a location it can't reach otherwise.
Around 3 hours of full speed download would have me over.
This is something I don't begin to understand.
I could have my 10Mbs second running at full speed twenty four hours per day every day for the 5 Euros per month I pay for it.
Perhaps eventually someone might complain but the point is I pay for the bandwidth not the bytes. There is no cap.
Same is true for my telephones 3G connection (Unless I go "roaming" abroad that is)
We have not had such caps around here for ten yeas or more.
It is understandable that wireless is going to be expensive, at roughly $1m a tower, they have to recoup it somehow. However... Because they can... and..
All these people addicted to internet/smartphones at their fingertips..
Last month I had to call Comcast and tell them to slow it down. Seems like my existing "special deal" had expired and they (without asking me of course) bumped me up to their fastest service automatically (only $70 a month !!!). Sorry, no thanks. I had to tell the Comcast person I spoke to that I specifically did not want any special "limited time only" rate, so that I wouldn't get any surprises in my bill in the future. Just give me whatever is the cheapest on-going rate.
The same has happened to me several times..got to watch them closely.
I think the article should have been titled..." Why the US isn’t the world leader in speedy AFFORDABLE internet access "
I recall some survey that showed that ~40% of those who have access to boardband refuse to have it because of its excessive cost...and I suspect that is the REAL problem in this country...AFFORDABLE broadband connectivity.
The caps are also a way for the media giants to carve out turf. Ideally, they want to favor their content offerings, fracture the Internet into various slices much like we see done with subscription TV programming, and lock people in at the ISP level for max return on their investment.
That investment isn't a network. To them, it's all about the people using it. This is phone carrier thinking as opposed to the kind of thinking done by people who built the Internet they want to break in the first place. The carriers are all seeing lots of dollars flow and they simply want more. One way they can get more is to artificially limit bits, and so there is reason one for the caps. Another way they can get it is to break net neutrality, thus favoring people who pay them, and that's a reinforcing reason for the caps. Suddenly, preferred content doesn't count toward your cap, but if you go giving "those other guys" attention, you pay for that, because it's not the best for us kind of thing.
And that's an old fight, started when the first mega ISP's took shape. From then on, they have been all about maximizing their customers revenue to them, wanting a cut of everything if they can get it.
Not sure how that will all shake out. Net neutrality should have been solidified in policy long before now, but it's not yet. Finally caps can make some media companies happy and others not so happy.
Limiting torrents makes the old school media giants really happy. Limiting netflix makes broadcasters happy too. About the only people who aren't happy are ordinary people who simply pay more for artificial value.
Right now, there are soft caps too. If you buy the bundle, pay for the peak rates, they often don't care what you do, but if you don't get a phone and TV subscription, suddenly it's important what you do.
Re: Comcast, et al.
Here is what I have done for years. I no longer subscribe to anything, finally able to get a reasonable $50 / month Internet only fiber setup! (about time) But when I did subscribe, I made calendar notices for everything. If they wanted to toss me a "promo" rate, or some other freemium kind of thing, I would always ask to either remove it right then, or if not possible or practical, set a calendar notice for the week when it ends and put the thing that's gotta get sorted out into that notice. When it pops up, end the deal, whatever it is.
On a little different schedule, promo pricing for 6 months, a year, whatever is nice. You can continue with that pricing by calling them regularly to say you've been eying the other guys promo and switching isn't that hard, and their picture quality and DVR offering is better, etc...
They will nearly always look at that as an opportunity. If you want, you can get a better DVR or something, or you can hold firm and let them continue with the promo rate.
Doing that dance is good for $600 a year or so, depending on what you've got. It really sucks to have to nag them, but it works. Sort of like coupons. Sucks to collect and keep track of the things, but the savings are nice, so we trade work for dollars it seems.
Now I'm over the air only for TV, and I just buy or stream everything else. I find it's a whole lot cheaper to stay a little behind. Let it get aired, then pick it up on physical media deep discount, or buy a digital stream, etc... Spend the time doing fun stuff, cut your TV viewing down to the nubs and binge when a season of something gets completed. I like to do a couple of days and just watch them all unfold, then I'm good for a year or so, until it all comes around again. Given many programs are 40 minutes with 20 minutes of ADS, doing this makes a ton of sense just on time savings alone.
From a network engineering standpoint this article is ridiculous.
Part of the reason I don't trust any news outlet. There has not been a technical issue that I'm knowledgeable about that I have ever heard a media outlet get correct. It simply has not happened yet.
The caps are also a way for the media giants to carve out turf. Ideally, they want to favor their content offerings, fracture the Internet into various slices much like we see done with subscription TV programming, and lock people in at the ISP level for max return on their investment.
That investment isn't a network. To them, it's all about the people using it. This is phone carrier thinking as opposed to the kind of thinking done by people who built the Internet they want to break in the first place. The carriers are all seeing lots of dollars flow and they simply want more. One way they can get more is to artificially limit bits, and so there is reason one for the caps. Another way they can get it is to break net neutrality, thus favoring people who pay them, and that's a reinforcing reason for the caps. Suddenly, preferred content doesn't count toward your cap, but if you go giving "those other guys" attention, you pay for that, because it's not the best for us kind of thing.
And that's an old fight, started when the first mega ISP's took shape. From then on, they have been all about maximizing their customers revenue to them, wanting a cut of everything if they can get it.
Not sure how that will all shake out. Net neutrality should have been solidified in policy long before now, but it's not yet. Finally caps can make some media companies happy and others not so happy.
Limiting torrents makes the old school media giants really happy. Limiting netflix makes broadcasters happy too. About the only people who aren't happy are ordinary people who simply pay more for artificial value.
Right now, there are soft caps too. If you buy the bundle, pay for the peak rates, they often don't care what you do, but if you don't get a phone and TV subscription, suddenly it's important what you do.
Re: Comcast, et al.
Here is what I have done for years. I no longer subscribe to anything, finally able to get a reasonable $50 / month Internet only fiber setup! (about time) But when I did subscribe, I made calendar notices for everything. If they wanted to toss me a "promo" rate, or some other freemium kind of thing, I would always ask to either remove it right then, or if not possible or practical, set a calendar notice for the week when it ends and put the thing that's gotta get sorted out into that notice. When it pops up, end the deal, whatever it is.
On a little different schedule, promo pricing for 6 months, a year, whatever is nice. You can continue with that pricing by calling them regularly to say you've been eying the other guys promo and switching isn't that hard, and their picture quality and DVR offering is better, etc...
They will nearly always look at that as an opportunity. If you want, you can get a better DVR or something, or you can hold firm and let them continue with the promo rate.
Doing that dance is good for $600 a year or so, depending on what you've got. It really sucks to have to nag them, but it works. Sort of like coupons. Sucks to collect and keep track of the things, but the savings are nice, so we trade work for dollars it seems.
Now I'm over the air only for TV, and I just buy or stream everything else. I find it's a whole lot cheaper to stay a little behind. Let it get aired, then pick it up on physical media deep discount, or buy a digital stream, etc... Spend the time doing fun stuff, cut your TV viewing down to the nubs and binge when a season of something gets completed. I like to do a couple of days and just watch them all unfold, then I'm good for a year or so, until it all comes around again. Given many programs are 40 minutes with 20 minutes of ADS, doing this makes a ton of sense just on time savings alone.
Your approach (that I do favor) only works IF you have a broadband connection.
The advent of streaming video from the likes of Netflix is the catalysis that will break the stranglehold on bandwidth in this country.
And in the end I expect Government mandates will force broadband connections to every American.
Meanwhile the rest of the world will enjoy an economic advantage that our backwards system is giving them.
Part of the reason I don't trust any news outlet. There has not been a technical issue that I'm knowledgeable about that I have ever heard a media outlet get correct. It simply has not happened yet.
"Part of the reason I don't trust any news outlet"
"Any" is a tough word.
You have to get your information from somewhere.
Those outlets that have staff with a science/engineering background do have a credible track record.
Those who specialize in blonds have less than a credible record.
Any news organization needs to fact check...I have seen some very credible news organizations gut their fact checking staff for labor savings and live to regret it.
Comments
Considering that 97% of my internet use is international, I can't quite see that the topic is different. I suppose I should just accept that I am terminally unique. But the biggest blessing of the internet is the ability to have global access for next to nothing.
Loopy,
Yes, the issue of international connection is not totally off topic. It's just that we have networks and then we have networks of networks, hence "internet". No body controls all of it. So you ISP might do a great job locally and sell you a fast connection but when it comes to connecting you to that server in Mozambique there is not a lot they can do about it.
Jazzed,
Love the Postman Pat train wreck. Perhaps I worry too much.
After living in the US for 28 years, I would say that Heater pretty much hit the nail on the head and I could take it much further. I wasn't influenced by the ridiculous news media, especially the likes of FOX's Bill "the sun comes up, the sun goes down, the tide goes in, the tide goes out, and nobody knows why!" O'Reilly. LOL!
^ THIS ^
There are many pinch points for data to deal with .... I know to the SONNET Loop here is full speed with my Fiber
. but Like Heater said . if the server you are on is on a 10Base switch and the server has 10 sites on it .. you are gonna see some pinch .
Well said.
Various Internet methods of connection have been in play for over 30 years...it is who controls your physical hookup that determines how fast you go on the Web.
That "who" has been dragging their feet for decades in upgrading your infrastructure..until they are forced to by market forces or by government they simply won't
The current state of US internet was determined by the telecommunication laws that were passed a decade ago (under an unnamed Administration) allowing for monopolistic controls on preventing competition...note how quickly cell American phone usage has grown while prices (like those of Internet connections) have stayed at extremely high levels..meanwhile other countries have seen similar growth with dropping prices..doesn't competition lower prices..apparently not in the good old USA.
So why should any United States citizen care if Americans don't have good Internet access?
Well because it already has and will continue to affect your wallet and future earning potential.
The Internet and ready access to it has already proven to be THE economic catalysis of this century that libraries, phones and electricity were in the past.
The more Americans that cannot or have limited access to the Internet result in the limiting economic growth of themselves, their children and their Country.
The backsliding has and is continuing...while many Americans are in denial.
When Johnny can't access the Internet, he is being set up for a menial job for life.
Large ones(investor owned) use copper typically.
Why???
I currently have a verizon 4g connection, with a 5g plan. Its similar to telling someone to fill a 5 gallon bucket with a firehose and don't spill any water. Around 3 hours of full speed download would have me over. I worry that if something goes wrong, I could have a monster bill. Alternatives include satellite, which has another set of problems. I am looking at renting a spot and repeating internet from another wireless isp in the area. My office is in a location it can't reach otherwise.
I could have my 10Mbs second running at full speed twenty four hours per day every day for the 5 Euros per month I pay for it.
Perhaps eventually someone might complain but the point is I pay for the bandwidth not the bytes. There is no cap.
Same is true for my telephones 3G connection (Unless I go "roaming" abroad that is)
We have not had such caps around here for ten yeas or more.
All these people addicted to internet/smartphones at their fingertips..
People like me with very limited options.
The same has happened to me several times..got to watch them closely.
I think the article should have been titled..." Why the US isn’t the world leader in speedy AFFORDABLE internet access "
I recall some survey that showed that ~40% of those who have access to boardband refuse to have it because of its excessive cost...and I suspect that is the REAL problem in this country...AFFORDABLE broadband connectivity.
That investment isn't a network. To them, it's all about the people using it. This is phone carrier thinking as opposed to the kind of thinking done by people who built the Internet they want to break in the first place. The carriers are all seeing lots of dollars flow and they simply want more. One way they can get more is to artificially limit bits, and so there is reason one for the caps. Another way they can get it is to break net neutrality, thus favoring people who pay them, and that's a reinforcing reason for the caps. Suddenly, preferred content doesn't count toward your cap, but if you go giving "those other guys" attention, you pay for that, because it's not the best for us kind of thing.
And that's an old fight, started when the first mega ISP's took shape. From then on, they have been all about maximizing their customers revenue to them, wanting a cut of everything if they can get it.
Not sure how that will all shake out. Net neutrality should have been solidified in policy long before now, but it's not yet. Finally caps can make some media companies happy and others not so happy.
Limiting torrents makes the old school media giants really happy. Limiting netflix makes broadcasters happy too. About the only people who aren't happy are ordinary people who simply pay more for artificial value.
Right now, there are soft caps too. If you buy the bundle, pay for the peak rates, they often don't care what you do, but if you don't get a phone and TV subscription, suddenly it's important what you do.
Re: Comcast, et al.
Here is what I have done for years. I no longer subscribe to anything, finally able to get a reasonable $50 / month Internet only fiber setup! (about time) But when I did subscribe, I made calendar notices for everything. If they wanted to toss me a "promo" rate, or some other freemium kind of thing, I would always ask to either remove it right then, or if not possible or practical, set a calendar notice for the week when it ends and put the thing that's gotta get sorted out into that notice. When it pops up, end the deal, whatever it is.
On a little different schedule, promo pricing for 6 months, a year, whatever is nice. You can continue with that pricing by calling them regularly to say you've been eying the other guys promo and switching isn't that hard, and their picture quality and DVR offering is better, etc...
They will nearly always look at that as an opportunity. If you want, you can get a better DVR or something, or you can hold firm and let them continue with the promo rate.
Doing that dance is good for $600 a year or so, depending on what you've got. It really sucks to have to nag them, but it works. Sort of like coupons. Sucks to collect and keep track of the things, but the savings are nice, so we trade work for dollars it seems.
Now I'm over the air only for TV, and I just buy or stream everything else. I find it's a whole lot cheaper to stay a little behind. Let it get aired, then pick it up on physical media deep discount, or buy a digital stream, etc... Spend the time doing fun stuff, cut your TV viewing down to the nubs and binge when a season of something gets completed. I like to do a couple of days and just watch them all unfold, then I'm good for a year or so, until it all comes around again. Given many programs are 40 minutes with 20 minutes of ADS, doing this makes a ton of sense just on time savings alone.
Part of the reason I don't trust any news outlet. There has not been a technical issue that I'm knowledgeable about that I have ever heard a media outlet get correct. It simply has not happened yet.
Your approach (that I do favor) only works IF you have a broadband connection.
The advent of streaming video from the likes of Netflix is the catalysis that will break the stranglehold on bandwidth in this country.
And in the end I expect Government mandates will force broadband connections to every American.
Meanwhile the rest of the world will enjoy an economic advantage that our backwards system is giving them.
Do you trust Fox?
They seem to get it wrong every time.
PBS seems to be quite good on technical stuff.
"Part of the reason I don't trust any news outlet"
http://bgr.com/2013/10/23/ncta-ceo-powell-home-broadband-caps/
"Any" is a tough word.
You have to get your information from somewhere.
Those outlets that have staff with a science/engineering background do have a credible track record.
Those who specialize in blonds have less than a credible record.
Any news organization needs to fact check...I have seen some very credible news organizations gut their fact checking staff for labor savings and live to regret it.
Why? Lot of reasons. Location. Country size. Competition between ISP's.