Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

pbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 246 posts

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#121

Post by lotharbot »

catmanjan wrote: post #115
lotharbot wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Does rough it mean suffer?" With a few seconds on your favorite search engine, you could discover that "rough it" is an idiom commonly used to refer to camping in a nature-heavy setting (without electricity/plumbing.)

Haha, excuse me for not jumping to that conclusion straight away, I have never heard the ability to live in the bush being used as an argument for another country in a discussion about Australia! Also first link in Google: rough it - to live in a way that is simple and not very comfortable Don't pretend search engines deliver the same content to everyone

> "excuse me for not jumping to that conclusion"

I'm not suggesting you jump to conclusions. I'm suggesting you do basic research when you don't understand an expression. By the time you skim the first page of results, whether or not it's the same as my first page of results, you should have a clear idea what the idiom means.

> "an argument for another country in a discussion about Australia!"

The immediate discussion was about whether there were arguments for living in America, not whether there were arguments against living in Australia. The US has a lot of things going for it; whether or not some of those things also apply elsewhere isn't really relevant.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#122

Post by tacticus »

vacri wrote: post #69
catmanjan wrote: post #4

I'm Australian, am I to understand that our internet quality and distribution is only just approaching what the American's had in 2007? WTF!? I wish poor internet connection was something I could really get upset about, but I guess the rest of my life is a lot better than most around the world.

I'm just in the process of upgrading our office in the heart of Melbourne from ADSL2 to a 10/10Mb synchronous DSL. That costs us just shy of $600 per month. There is enough fat in that pricing that the vendor dropped around 10% off the list price with us just asking, no real haggling. Our office in the heart of SF has 100/100Mb (admittedly, 'selected buildings only') for $50/month. And this is just after us receiving…

You can look at other suppliers with fibre.

it will probably be quite shit but tpg offer that sort of service for 300$ per month (though they have a 5k installation charge )

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#123

Post by celeryreally »

bane wrote: post #75
robzyb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that a significant majority of the United States' healthcare system is lacklustre. I understand that a significant majority of the United States' only offer limited annual leave (compared to Australia's 4 weeks). I understand that a significant majority of the United States' suffers from an extremely high murder rate for a 1st world country. This is a sample of why I don't want to live in the US, even th…

Let's do one for another country, say Korea. - I understand that a significant majority of Korea's healthcare system is lacklustre, but cheap. - I understand that a significant majority of Korea's only offer limited annual leave (1 week) (compared to Australia's 4 weeks). - I understand that a significant majority of Korea suffers from an extremely suicide rate for a 1st world country. This is a sample of why I don't…

     I understand that a significant majority of Australians still support the Aboriginal segregation and forced adoption laws.
What? I don't think I've met anyone, ever, whom holds such an opinion. (And I grew up in south west Sydney).

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#124

Post by kevinalexbrown »

Anyone who comes up with a reasonable way of bypassing the natural local monopolies of cable companies is going to make a fortune.

I would think dense wireless networks in urban areas could work. I'm not an expert, and would be interested in hearing from one, but I imagine that wireless networks could benefit from algorithmic advances in a way that might be more difficult in traditional copper/fiber networks.

If you gave me (someone with very little wireless experience but used to be a cable guy) carte blanche, here's what I would investigate:

Several routers in an urban area which require minimal installation and can be mass-produced and immediately interchanged - think roof access, and could be turned on and off remotely, maybe battery operated, flowing to relatively few fiber hubs.

Infrastructure advantages: Network algorithms have come a long way, and the ability to dynamically add or scale nodes as needed could have great performance/cost balances that aren't possible with fixed nodes. And upgrades do not require new lines, just more and better routers. If a router dies, replace, and send the old one to a shop somewhere inexpensive. No midnight service restoration pay.

Customer advantages: I connect to wifi the same way I do right now. Zero home installation (google Comcast horror stories if you need imagery).

If I were to start, I would do it in an urban area with a landowner that had a monopoly. Hyde Park, Chicago is like that. There are basically two landowners: University of Chicago and Mac Apartments. You have to make one community love you to pieces before branching out, and that would require a lot of cooperation. Of course a danger here is if Mac suddenly decides that they hate you and removes access privileges. But if that worked, and you got more funding to expand, imagine the word of mouth: "Here's how installation works: it's a wifi network and you connect to it".

A la "it's a folder, and it syncs" dropbox. Presumably something like this has been tried before, but that's true of many things that end up working (like search engines or social networks).

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#125

Post by derleth »

gradstudent wrote: post #70
derleth wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robust free speech protections, ability to rough it in a country that's still in the first world, and the ability to enter industries that don't exist to the same extent elsewhere. We're also much less racist than Europe, for example: We haven't banned wearing traditional Muslim garb, for example, and we don't have the hatred of the Roma which is endemic to the European continent.

> we don't have the hatred of the Roma which is endemic to the European continent. s/Roma/Mexicans; s/European/American; Fixed.

I note you didn't respond to the fact it's illegal to dress as a Muslim in some places in Europe but it's legal everywhere in the USA.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#126

Post by anactofgod »

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #46
001sky wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should be subject to regulation; they should not be granted monopolies. These are two entirely different concepts. The current system grants them monopolies, and fails to regulate them appropriately. This is exactly the wrong way round. But this is the problem with politicians: monopoly provides concentration of cash, and this can be tapped into far more efficiently from the perspective of political exploitation…

Its much easier to garner a donation from a rich individual with concentrated cash, than many individuals. Interestingly, this may change soon. It's probably inevitable that we're going to see politicians raising money a'la Kickstarter. A well-presented and charismatic politician should be able to raise a decent amount with crowdfunding, especially if they're a Redditor. Since most children are Redditors, and since s…

Sooner than you think.

smile

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#127

Post by thundara »

kevinalexbrown wrote: post #124

Anyone who comes up with a reasonable way of bypassing the natural local monopolies of cable companies is going to make a fortune. I would think dense wireless networks in urban areas could work. I'm not an expert, and would be interested in hearing from one, but I imagine that wireless networks could benefit from algorithmic advances in a way that might be more difficult in traditional copper/fiber networks. If you…

> I would think dense wireless networks in urban areas could work

You've basically described mesh networks. There are a number in cities across America, but are normally run by enthusiasts.

The trouble is, in dense urban environments, there's a lot of noise to overcome, and if you don't work around that, your network will fall apart. Especially a problem with the coming 802.11ac routers which will crowd up the 5 GHz band that is current the target for backbone links in the wireless networks.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#128

Post by gradstudent »

derleth wrote: post #125
gradstudent wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we don't have the hatred of the Roma which is endemic to the European continent. s/Roma/Mexicans; s/European/American; Fixed.

I note you didn't respond to the fact it's illegal to dress as a Muslim in some places in Europe but it's legal everywhere in the USA.

To the best of my knowledge it is not "illegal to dress as a Muslim" anywhere in Europe. In France it is prohibited to cover one's face while in public. The argument for this law is not grounded in any religious objection, as I understand it, but rather in the fact that face coverings make identification difficult and do not fit in with the expected norms for social interaction in that country.

France also has a ban on the display of religious symbols in public schools. The ban is applied wholesale and does not discriminate against any one particular group. This law, as I understand it, is motivated by a strong desire for secularism in the public education system.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#129

Post by vinceguidry »

gametheoretic wrote: post #66
marincounty wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how Comcast charges differnt rates for internet speeds, but at around 5:30 p.m., when people settling in after a hard day of work--the rate is reduced? My hope is Comcast is eventually split up by the government.

Do you think the government would rather deal with more ISPs or fewer, insofar as surveillance is concerned?

The NSA != the government. It can't dictate how the economy works. It just has to deal with what's there.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#130

Post by derleth »

vacri wrote: post #79
derleth wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robust free speech protections, ability to rough it in a country that's still in the first world, and the ability to enter industries that don't exist to the same extent elsewhere. We're also much less racist than Europe, for example: We haven't banned wearing traditional Muslim garb, for example, and we don't have the hatred of the Roma which is endemic to the European continent.

The functional difference between free speech in Australia and the United States isn't that strong. On the idealistic part of the spectrum, the US does win, but in terms of how it affects your life, they're pretty comparable. It is interesting to note that Australia is consistently rated superior to the US on the Press Freedom Index, and both are outscored by a passel of European countries. http://en.rsf.org/press-fr…

OK, to begin with, Australia still bans things. This is something the USA grew out of decades ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia

It's insane.

Also, there are the defamation laws:

https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html

> In theory, the objective of defamation laws is to balance protection of individual reputation with freedom of expression. In practice, defamation laws are frequently used as a means of chilling speech. A threat of (costly) defamation proceedings and damages, whether or not a plaintiff's claim is likely to be upheld by a court, is often used to silence criticism not only by a particular person or group but also as a threat to others.

Basically, defamation laws in the USA are much more defendant-friendly compared to their equivalents in Commonwealth countries. Australia deserves much praise for apparently being much better in this regard compared to the UK, for example: Australian law recognizes truth to be an absolute defense, which is not generally the case in Commonwealth libel laws.

Canada deserves special approbation for its insane hate speech laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commissio...

Which are similar to the insane laws against denying the Holocaust or even using certain images in parts of Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_%C2%A7_86a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_legal...

There have been just as many substantial fascist parties in places with those laws as there are in places without them: Zero. They're an attack on free expression, a universal human right, and they're an absurd over-reaction, an example of terrified cowering at a few worthless fools. What's worse, they do nothing to solve any of the real problems modern Europe has with anti-Roma and anti-Muslim racism.

Post reply on HN