101–110 of 333 posts
Google seems to halfass a lot of their products. I really had expected it would at least be live in the Bay Area right now. It's not like Google doesn't have the money.
I think Google has too.much money. They can try a lot of stuff but there isn't much pressure to succeed.
This is why I'm happy to live in a country like France where the government takes part in deploying those infrastructures (by investing money in the deployment). They planned to equip 50% of the territory by 2017 (which was achieved), and 100% by 2022. Same goes for public service, profit-focused corporations can't provide the same quality of service.
It would help if the USA was as small as France.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Same goes for public service, profit-focused corporations can't provide the same quality of service. 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 cancellati…
And where are you living? This sounds a lot like being due a high level of corruption. I think that's one challenge to overcome, you're right that public services are not automatically better
This is why I'm happy to live in a country like France where the government takes part in deploying those infrastructures (by investing money in the deployment). They planned to equip 50% of the territory by 2017 (which was achieved), and 100% by 2022. Same goes for public service, profit-focused corporations can't provide the same quality of service.
This is why I'm happy to live in a country like France where the government takes part in deploying those infrastructures (by investing money in the deployment). They planned to equip 50% of the territory by 2017 (which was achieved), and 100% by 2022. Same goes for public service, profit-focused corporations can't provide the same quality of service.
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...
Many people don't understand the difference between 1gpbs and "up to 300mbps".
Not really surprising, my own country is still profiting from the massive investment in cable done by the state owned telecom operators in the 80s. Infrastructure like this is something that can only be done with government support.
I don't think that's the case. Google certainly has more disposable cash available at less bureaucratic cost than many country's governments. They just lack the interest. If there's a single company with a forever long track record of half-assing products and never finishing them, only to cancel them later with disregard to current customers, that's Google. They make so much money that nothing really matters for them…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to keep in mind that with enough antennas (and enough VERY high bandwidth connections between the antennas - but only has to exist on the service provider side, plus the antennas can be pretty close together and still work) there is, in theory, 2^n interference patterns, each of which is localized. Each of which can transmit data. If you use the interference patterns to transmit data instead of the signals d…
I don't understand why people keep saying that we won't be able to satisfy bandwidth demand on wireless. Is it possible, from an engineering perspective, to build a wireless network with very high bandwidth and generous transfer limits? Absolutely! You just need to increase last mile bandwidth every time you get a new subscriber, so cells never get overloaded. Is it possible, from a market incentive perspective, to b…
As someone who's now lived >5 years in 3 locations, I've always found that there are things that oppose last mile bandwidth buildouts and there are things that don't matter.
What doesn't prevent capacity buildouts:
large costs (but within an order of magnitude or so of reasonable, I'm not talking "FTTH to a fishing village on a remote island" large costs)
technological limitations (again within an order of magnitude of what's possible)
What prevents capacity buildouts:
monopolies
cartels
absurd (and required) levels of capital investment (like buried fiber/copper capacity)
And you know what I find another huge positive about wireless networks ? There's 15 in every place I've lived. 2 "really" independent ones, 1 "more or less"/partially independent one, and a dozen or so that piggyback on the others' networks, providing for more price differentiation. Physically, there's room for something like up to 5 truly independent ones, using different frequency ranges. If the military were to get off half the spectrum, we can easily make that 20, so if the situation gets bad, there is an actual reserve. This means that governments can always threaten the existing providers with allowing another one in, in a way that they can't with wired networks.
Wired providers, there was never more than 2. Mostly there was just 1. Even when there were 2, they were absolutely not comparable (I mean, I've done telecommunications consulting for huge companies, I know there are really 50 or so, with 49 having extremely limited reach, unusable for consumers). This lead to monopoly, which lead to all sorts of shit situations, including bandwidth limits and turning away of customers. Even then, in the one place were 2 were available, the key to good service was to switch wired provider every 2 years.
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.