down here the previous govt was going to provide ftth for 50-70billion
then the rich idiots party got into govt and change it to fttn which is basically more horse , its similar to cable...anyone on ur street or suburb connected to that node dictates ur speed during peak/off usage compared to ftth u have a single line to ur house which is better maximum speeds whatever u sign up for
so the govt privatised the telco that owns the infrastructure holding the country to ransom with the biggest monopoly, govt pays the privatised company 50b to access its infrastructure to install backpeddle previous infrastructure...but guess who owns the new and old infrastructure? lmao the same fkn privatised company....
Conservatives everywhere THEIR CITIZENS while enriching/protecting corporations.
And the asshole Repugs here in ST and everywhere keep electing conservatives.
What's been happening in AU under conservatives will happen in USA when the Repugs add control of the Senate and WH to their control of the House and SCOTUS.
BigCorp and their owned politicians keep Americans in a technological backwate
Study: Broadband Still Slower, More Expensive In U.S. Than In Europe, Asia
The Open Technology Ins ute at the New America Foundation conducts a study every year comparing broadband speeds and prices nation- and world-wide. This year’s, which they released this week, is the third annual study.
Last year’s report found that Americans were paying more for broadband access than our counterparts abroad, and getting worse service for it.
This year’s data paint a similar picture. Overall, our national average broadband speeds are still lower, and our prices higher, than what customers in similarly-sized cities in Europe and Asia get.
But in larger cities, where only big in bent ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable operate, the picture is more dire. Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC all tie for 12th place on the list, with fiber connections of 500 Mbps. San Francisco, America’s high-tech hotbed, comes in near the bottom of the list with top speeds of 200 Mbps, just 20% of what consumers in Chattanooga can get.
American users aren’t just seeing slower service, though; even though prices have dropped since last year, we’re still paying significantly more for every gigabyte we get. Gigabit service in Chattanooga and Kansas City runs $70 per month, and in Lafayette it’s about $110. As compared to last year’s $1000 monthly fee, that’s great. But customers in Seoul, Hong Kong, and Tokyo — all cities with a high cost of living — are all paying between $30 and $40 USD for their connections.
Meanwhile, those 500 Mbps connections in New York and L.A. — literally half as fast — will run a subscriber a whopping $300 per month. American consumers are also paying more in other ways, for example, with high monthly modem rental fees.
So what’s keeping American broadband down? There seem to be two key factors: one, broadband is a government-sponsored or -subsidized utility in many other parts of the world.
Public or public/private partnerships for broadband are often very successful in the United States, as Lafayette, Chattanooga, and Kansas City show. But they’re very, very hard to get started. Not only do new ventures face logistical and financial hurdles, but also legal ones. In bent ISPs, especially AT&T, have successfully sponsored or lobbied for state level laws that prohibit the construction or expansion of municipal broadband projects.
The other major factor is related, and it’s compe ion. Or, more specifically, the complete lack of it. In most U.S. cities, customers seeking high-speed internet don’t really have a choice of what provider to go with. For connections faster than 25 Mbps, over 80% of us can go with, at most, one provider.
Big telecom companies are nominally expanding their gigabit fiber networks, but they aren’t there yet and it will be a long, slow slog before they are. And without compe ion, they aren’t really motivated to. In bent ISPs are more likely to pretend everything is great and rigging the rules in their favor than they are actually to spend the time and money it takes to make wide-scale change.
http://consumerist.com/2014/10/31/st...n-europe-asia/
and see above, eg, TX actually has a ing LAW that prevents taxpayer-funded municipal networks (eg, city-owned CPS Energy) from using their fiber networks for residential/commercial Internet access.
and here's all y'alls HATED "cheese eating surrender monkeys" do broadband in a "heavily socialized democracy":
"In metropolitan France, intense compe ion between Internet service providers has led to the introduction of moderately-priced high speed ADSL up to 28 Mbit/s (ATM), VDSL2 up to 100 Mbit/s, and FTTX up to 1 Gbit/s for €29,90 per month. (less than US$40)
They often include other services such as unlimited free VoIP telephone communications to land lines, and digital television."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_France
How many people truly need broadband over like 100mbps at this time, and how much should that be subsidized by the government?
How many people NEEDED, or even wanted, or even imagined, Internet, or cellphones, before they were available?
In another thread, we see SA city govt spending $Bs for the future of SA region's water while raising water rates by 15%+, with one of the main reasons being retaining/attracting businesses and jobs.
Why not spend $Bs for the San Antonio's future of high speed residential/commercial Internet? Information via Internet has progressed to be as "human right-y" as water.
You didn't answer the question.
What is even available that uses a full gigabit of bandwidth?
I think 3mbps for $20 a month really isn't really an impassable barrier.
, a lot of people could just tether their phones to a computer if they feel too oppressed to pay for two ISPs.
my answer was that higher speeds will create "needs" (who "needed" a cellphone? who "needed" internet? before 1990) and opportunities (like getting video content from other that cable TV cartels)
So your answer is no one really needs that kind of bandwidth, especially subsidized by the government.
Here in Austin, I will leave it to the four companies fighting each other to provide broadband here. Maybe the government could build a proper interchange in town for once. I want zero dollars here going to subsidizing broadband.
TX gives about $20B/year to business.
Why not kill the law, (Repugs HATE laws and regulations and govt), preventing municipal fiber nets from residential/commercial access and sending some of that $20B into municipal networks?
Why not put the money into actual infrastructure?
We have four companies competing to provide broadband here, and so will San Antonio.
There doesn't need to be municipal programs in either. I can see that in some areas where the companies wouldn't make any money providing broadband and people have to wait for their dialup porn, not otherwise.
fiber to residences/businesses IS "actual infrastructure"
Yep, and three of the four companies here are doing that. And coax is still capable of delivering comparable speeds -- which I find kind of crazy.
In fact I think government already has a tool to force cable companies into providing faster speeds through their granting of monopolies and regulation thereof. Getting taxpayers to foot the bill for an entire fiber network is pretty dumb when a serviceable network already exists.
electricity buyers in SA have already "footed the bill" for CPS's fiber network.
Too bad. Google, ATT, Grande and TWC are all bringing high speed broadband there next year. You will not be able to complain about a lack of compe ion.
I were a gambler, I'd bet nobody will be offering me gigabit Internet for $50 in 2015, or in 2020.
btw, I live inside 410 and ATT can't deliver VDSL, 5 up / 25 down, even with bonding two lines.
If you can't afford $80, you aren't doing anything that requires gigabit.
So buy from one of their compe ors until they get fiber there.btw, I live inside 410 and ATT can't deliver VDSL, 5 up / 25 down, even with bonding two lines.
Nobody will offer me gigagbit Internet for $80, or $100, in 2015, and very probably not in 2020.
I have grandecom 25/5 now, was looking to save money with ATT. no deal.
You're "nobody needs gigabit" is pure bull . why is it available in other countries and NOT in USA? because the govt allows cartels to screw customers with tiest possible service for highest price.
and btw, same holds true for US vs other countries cellphones speeds and prices.
So what do you personally need gigabit for?
What do the people with gigabit already use it for?
I've cancelled my grandedom internet cable and now use a 14.4 modem like 20 years ago.
You'll have to ask people, or google, what users with gigabit internet use it for. I'd like to watch video in true, uninterruped, unpaused HD. and if 100M people had gigabit, I'm SURE there'd be a revolution in video delivery, and very probably an unbundling so I could pay only for what I watch and not for VHF, E!, MTA, Lifetime, Hallmark, disney, family, etc.
dude...at least go 56k.
That's incredibly sad. There are several options out there to get wifi hotposts if nothing else.
Unbundling is already happening.You'll have to ask people, or google, what users with gigabit internet use it for. I'd like to watch video in true, uninterruped, unpaused HD. and if 100M people had gigabit, I'm SURE there'd be a revolution in video delivery, and very probably an unbundling so I could pay only for what I watch and not for VHF, E!, MTA, Lifetime, Hallmark, disney, family, etc.
Only about 50mbps is required to deliver blu-ray quality compressed 1080p, and the new codecs seem to be poised to deliver 4k at around the same bandwidth.
300mpbs is probably going to be in your neck of the woods next year, so you'll get a chance to see what you really need.
He's a communist sans violent revolution. He doesn't believe in the wait and see approach to market intervention. I question how much he believes in a mixed economy at all.
You actually need less than that for HD... per Neflix, about 5-12 for HD. 4k with the latest HEVC is in the 30-50 range.
The thing is, it's ulative. 3 4k streams = 150 Mbps, plus whatever other internet usage you might have. This could be a typical usage on a middle-class home in 5-10 years.
Businesses do have better reasons for gigabit availability now. Remote backups, replication, video/photo asset transfers, etc. We're a small shop and we moved everything internally to gigabit a long time ago, the difference between a 50 min vs 5 min data transfer saves us time and money. We have 100/100 fiber service, and we do max it out here and there.
As scott mentioned earlier in the thread, there's a compe ive factor too associated with knowing your infrastructure is future proof and at a compe ive price.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
