Internet Connection Speeds (Was: Articles Worth Reading)

[TiberiusDuval]

Here Internet access is provided mostly by private ISP's, but cable owners are obligated to allow access for competitors. So if for example TeliaSonera owns local cables, it may not prevent Elisa from offering Internet service to customers. And it may not demand outrageous rent rates either. So there is real competition, and it keeps prices quite affordable.

 

[drhowarddrfine]

The only change would be the fiber to the home (dumb pipes) would be controlled by local municipalities instead of the ISPs

That's the part that wouldn't work in the US (I don't recall where you're from). Municipalities provide services but don't own those services. They provide those services by contracting them out to private companies except, usually, in cases like police and fire departments which are civil services.

Now, just to question my own answer, I have read about some small towns that were fed up with their Internet service and built their own system but that is a very small minority and I'm sure there is something substantially different than what we're talking about that allowed them to do that.

 

[Uniballer]

We get 100Mb down and 4Mb up for $55/month at home and business. That's fine but I was doing good when it was only 30Mb. I don't know why a home user needs that much speed. Sometimes they download big files, yes, but that's rare.

The best reason for all that bandwidth is to reduce packet latency so that your file download doesn't squash your VoIP call. I doubt the network infrastructure would be able to support everybody actually USING that much bandwidth at the same time.

 

[wblock@]

Now, just to question my own answer, I have read about some small towns that were fed up with their internet service and built their own system but that is a very small minority and I'm sure there is something substantially different than what we're talking about that allowed them to do that.

As soon as towns start to do that, the cable and phone companies scream about how bad it is and try to force through laws that prevent it. If there is anything that these titans of capitalism hate, it's competition.

 

[protocelt]

That's the part that wouldn't work in the US (I don't recall where you're from). Municipalities provide services but don't own those services. They provide those services by contracting them out to private companies except, usually, in cases like police and fire departments which are civil services.

Right, but what I'm saying is each local city government would lay the fiber to each home throughout the city and then give access to that fiber to ISPs offering service. Each city would then be responsible for maintaining the fiber, but not the service. It's obviously not quite that simple (legal, political, corporate, and infrastructure issues aside), and there are certainly other ways to do it, but that was just the first idea that came to mind. Each ISP would then have to compete on services and price only without being able to block access to competition. Similar to what the utilities are doing now only all ISPs would be renting access to the city's fiber and not a competitor's. I hope I explained that well enough, and I live in the Midwest BTW.

As soon as towns start to do that, the cable and phone companies scream about how bad it is and try to force through laws that prevent it. If there is anything that these titans of capitalism hate, it's competition.

I couldn't have said that better myself.

 

[drhowarddrfine]

The best reason for all that bandwidth is to reduce packet latency so that your file download doesn't squash your VOIP call. I doubt the network infrastructure would be able to support everybody actually USING that much bandwidth at the same time.

Which is my earlier point. That most people don't use all the bandwidth they have but every time I test my downloads I do get 100 Mb/s.

Right, but what I'm saying is each local city government would lay the fiber to each home throughout the city and then give access to that fiber to ISPs offering service. Each city would then be responsible for maintaining the fiber, but not the service.

And I'm saying municipalities in the US can't do that. The government can't compete with private enterprise. The government can't own services sold to others.

Just like the town you live in doesn't own the gas, electric or water lines running throughout the city but those services do run on city property which is rented/leased/whatever to private companies. The government is not set up to provide utility services.

 

[protocelt]

And I'm saying municipalities in the US can't do that. Government can't compete with private enterprise. Government can't own services sold to others.

Just like the town you live in doesn't own the gas, electric or water lines running throughout the city but those services do run on city property which is rented/leased/whatever to private companies. Government is not set up to provide utility services.

I think we're looking at things from two different angles but that's okay . This is exactly what I'm talking about, and exactly what the largest ISPs are trying to prevent from happening elsewhere.

 

[Crivens]

What's really sad is it wasn't just a few million dollars funded through federal taxes for this. So far it's been billions with little to no results to speak of that I can see.

Ohhh, but some inlaw of the minister for communication owns some copper thread factory. You can not be so cruel to cut him from your... ahem - his hard earned money, do you?

And no, this is not a joke. The same with digital ID in your passport. Guess who owns huge parts of the company making the chips...

As soon as towns start to do that, the cable and phone companies scream about how bad it is and try to force through laws that prevent it. If there is anything that these titans of capitalism hate, it's competition.

Such screaming is, IMHO, a sure sign you are doing something right. The same with anti-corruption laws. Simply keep in mind who keeps on voting negative on these.

When looking around, the best solution seems to be that the district/state/whatever is the owner of such infrastructure and rents it out to service providers. This goes for railway, power, water, heating, fiber, ... everything that you do not want to see in the hands of one sociopath with only money in mind.

 

[youngunix]

I don't know what's worse, private companies handling this matter or governments. Well, they each expose different problems and the end, consumers are the ones to suffer.

Google Fiber is hoped to bring better quality/speed at low prices, but that process is very slow.

 

[da1]

Would you be able to resist 100 Mbit/s up/down for 40 euros per month though? With a static IP?

What about 25E (~31$) for 16 Mbit/s down and 5 Mbit/s up?

Ah, not to mention that ~ 65% of the Internet in Germany is filtered . Makes for a lovely combo.

 

[protocelt]

I don't know what's worse, private companies handling this matter or governments. Well, they each expose different problems and the end, consumers are the ones to suffer.
Google Fiber is hoped to bring better quality/speed at low prices, but that process very slow.

IMO, there are only two reasons for the existence of Google Fiber. The first is to nudge some of the larger ISPs into improving their network, and the second (arguably only reason) being research. I don't think Google's fiber roll out has a whole lot of importance, except in the few places it exists, at this point of time.