71–80 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Norway has overall low population density, and seems to do fine.
148,729 mi² vs 3.797 million mi²
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sweden has the same regulation but we got widespread fiber anyway
> the same regulation As in, you compared the regulated prices?
What blows my mind is how a lot of parts in highly developed countries like the US or Germany don't have access to a broadband internet connection. We had a lot of investment from the EU to install optical fibre everywhere, even in small towns. Now we have even small companies that only operate locally with very, very competitive prices.
Here's an anecdotal experience: 1. I live in the UK, in a town 25 minutes by train from central London. The best broadband I can get is ~45Mb, and the best I've seen in the rest of the town is ~120Mb, provided by Virgin Broadband (which, for one reason or another, can't provide that service at my home). 2. I'm currently visiting my family in Croatia, and they've recently got a fibre connection; I just measured 527Mb…
What blows my mind is how a lot of parts in highly developed countries like the US or Germany don't have access to a broadband internet connection. We had a lot of investment from the EU to install optical fibre everywhere, even in small towns. Now we have even small companies that only operate locally with very, very competitive prices.
> highly developed countries like the US or Germany In Germany this is due to regulation. Deutsche Telekom has no incentive to lay cables, as they will have to share the infrastructure with competitors at a price that makes doing so unattractive.
Seems like a pretty severe failure of government if they actively disincentivised investment into fiber tech...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> highly developed countries like the US or Germany In Germany this is due to regulation. Deutsche Telekom has no incentive to lay cables, as they will have to share the infrastructure with competitors at a price that makes doing so unattractive.
>Deutsche Telekom has no incentive to lay cables, as they will have to share the infrastructure with competitors at a price that makes doing so unattractive. Seems like a pretty severe failure of government if they actively disincentivised investment into fiber tech...
What blows my mind is how a lot of parts in highly developed countries like the US or Germany don't have access to a broadband internet connection. We had a lot of investment from the EU to install optical fibre everywhere, even in small towns. Now we have even small companies that only operate locally with very, very competitive prices.
There is active work and lots of money spent by large ISPs and telecoms to prevent deployment of additional networks, and to make it as difficult and expensive as possible for new entrants to start up. It really should be a national shame, how much the US has permitted AT&T and Verizon and Comcast and Time Warner et al to derail the correct functioning of a market so insanely critical to the growth of prosperity (bot…
You mean lobbying by telcos to make permitting and other things expensive in municipalities and counties.
> This is what happens when you let the state decide who is allowed to offer certain types of services
Yes. Absolutely this.
I'm amazed that the latency appears so low. I used satellite broadband for years here in very rural England, latency was more like 1000ms!
If you take the US to Europe round-trip, the latency is even faster then the cable bound connection, because the light in vacuum (space) travels around 1/3 faster then in fiber.
Pretty sure the speed of light is a constant... You may be confusing the latency of the network framers/etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you take the US to Europe round-trip, the latency is even faster then the cable bound connection, because the light in vacuum (space) travels around 1/3 faster then in fiber.
> because the light in vacuum (space) travels around 1/3 faster then in fiber Pretty sure the speed of light is a constant... You may be confusing the latency of the network framers/etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because the light in vacuum (space) travels around 1/3 faster then in fiber Pretty sure the speed of light is a constant... You may be confusing the latency of the network framers/etc.
So, you are wrong. The speed of light is not constant. :) The speed of light depends on the medium, where the reference (or max speed) is the speed of light in vacuum. The speed of light in a diamond is only half of the speed in vacuum for example! This is why the latency of the low orbit satellites is lower then the cable bound connection.
In the case of the fibers, the light just bounces on the walls of the tube, effectively lengthening the distance it has to travel.
It's like saying that I did not drive a 50 mph simply because I took a longer detour: I still drove 50 mph, but I did not go in a straight line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you take the US to Europe round-trip, the latency is even faster then the cable bound connection, because the light in vacuum (space) travels around 1/3 faster then in fiber.
> because the light in vacuum (space) travels around 1/3 faster then in fiber Pretty sure the speed of light is a constant... You may be confusing the latency of the network framers/etc.
There is a neat web page where you can see the speed of light in different materials:
https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/speedoflight/index.....