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

181–190 of 246 posts

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

#181

Post by dijit »

gonzo wrote: post #91
fragsworth wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My broadband service is terrible My business gets 10mbps down, 2mbps up, for $90/month in Los Angeles. It also goes down frequently (5-6 times a year). I think the next best upload rate (5mbps) was $400/month or so with some bullshit "enterprise" plan. It takes way too long to do simple file transfers from my office to a remote machine. I fucking hate it and our culture of monopolies can go to hell.

My business has a redundant 10Gbps connection to our cabinet at zColo. We lease the dark fiber (but it doesn't run very far, so it's not very expensive.) The cabinet has a 1Gbps uplink for Internet. Home is 50Mbps FTTH right now. Google should start to deploy in ATX during 2014, and when they come to my neighborhood, I plan to switch to Google Fiber. I also have a Time Warner fiber service on premise, mainly for one…

I live in the UK, in London actually.

I don't get the choice you get, what I have currently (2Mb/s:d 80Kb/s:u and incredible latency) is the only thing you can buy as a consumer.

leasing a line would cost #1,200 (gbp) a month, which combined with my exorbitant rent would leave me literally penniless.

I would say you're a lucky case.

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

#183

Post by icebraining »

triangleman wrote: post #99
zw123456 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I was thinking about some of the open source implementations of LTE that have been posted here but maybe the wifi mesh approach needs tweaking. Also, from a business perspective, I think it would be cool if there was a way to make it sort of like a "co-op" so people who host hot spots or base stations would get some profit sharing or something?

FON ( https://corp.fon.com/en ) tried to make this work, I'm sure there were other attempts.

It's not a mesh network, so it doesn't divorce itself from the last mile carriers.

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

#184

Post by josu »

speleding wrote: post #163
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…

> Anyone who comes up with a reasonable way of bypassing the natural local monopolies of cable companies... I'm nowhere near a socialist, but government intervention is a perfectly reasonable way to deal with natural monopolies. How do you think Northern European and Asian countries pulled so far ahead of the US on this?

Disclaimer: This is an observation, unsupported by facts, and please take it as such.

I'm pretty sure that the ISP sector is not constrained in any way by a natural monopoly. Take a look at the Internet in Romania wikipedia article[0]. In my view telecom companies have grown to disproportionate sizes, almost everywhere in the world, and this has given them enough power to buy the lawmakers. A lot of legislation has been passed to protect them, state laws, national laws and even international laws. So no, I think that the telecom sector has been intervened enough since its creation, what the consumer needs is to completely deregulate it, and to let the free market work its magic.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Romania

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

#185

Post by mavhc »

speleding wrote: post #163
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…

> Anyone who comes up with a reasonable way of bypassing the natural local monopolies of cable companies... I'm nowhere near a socialist, but government intervention is a perfectly reasonable way to deal with natural monopolies. How do you think Northern European and Asian countries pulled so far ahead of the US on this?

Almost by definition you can't have competition for large networks, road, data, water, electricity, gas, anything that needs lots of effort to set up to serve everyone. All the competing networks are more specific, rail, air, or much more limiting, broadcast tv.

Thus as there can be no competition the network itself should have public ownership, and then there can be competition of services run on top of that network. UPS vs FedEx; various companies that sell electricity/gas over someone else's network; ISPs that run on the phone network, etc.

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

#186

Post by lotyrin »

josu wrote: post #184
speleding wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone who comes up with a reasonable way of bypassing the natural local monopolies of cable companies... I'm nowhere near a socialist, but government intervention is a perfectly reasonable way to deal with natural monopolies. How do you think Northern European and Asian countries pulled so far ahead of the US on this?

Disclaimer: This is an observation, unsupported by facts, and please take it as such. I'm pretty sure that the ISP sector is not constrained in any way by a natural monopoly. Take a look at the Internet in Romania wikipedia article[0]. In my view telecom companies have grown to disproportionate sizes, almost everywhere in the world, and this has given them enough power to buy the lawmakers. A lot of legislation has b…

So just anyone can dig wherever they want whenever they want, laying redundant fiber and tearing up the streets?

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

#187

Post by josu »

lotyrin wrote: post #186
josu wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: This is an observation, unsupported by facts, and please take it as such. I'm pretty sure that the ISP sector is not constrained in any way by a natural monopoly. Take a look at the Internet in Romania wikipedia article[0]. In my view telecom companies have grown to disproportionate sizes, almost everywhere in the world, and this has given them enough power to buy the lawmakers. A lot of legislation has b…

So just anyone can dig wherever they want whenever they want, laying redundant fiber and tearing up the streets?

Somehow I doubt that that would be the most efficient way to do it. But maybe a couple or three companies could lay redundant fiber, while another two used existing infrastructures with new implementations, and maybe a couple more could offer satellite connections.

I don't know, this is just pure speculation. What I know for sure is that the reason to protect companies that exploit "natural monopolies" is to protect the consumer. And right now, the protection of these companies is hurting the consumer, more than helping him.

Yeah, in an ideal situation the state would be able to provide "free" internet at a really low cost. But that solution overlooks this huge problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgJ644LPL6g

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

#188

Post by Kell »

X4 wrote: post #176
pjc50 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. If you're not in the same datacenter you're too slow; all the HFT systems are in racks next to the exchange rack communicating over 10G Ethernet. Source: actually working on an HFT project.

@pjc50 Thank you for your input, really appreciated. What you say is that proximity gives you more benefit than having antennas transmitting data 'wireless', right? I agree with that and I don't, firstly because "Quantum Teleportation (QT)" is available soon enough for a broader audience than just Physicists [1] and such "directed antennas" positioned in the same proximity to the datacenter as the 10G links can resul…

... Quantum teleportation as a mean of transmitting information ?

You know that as of today, QT is completely unable of transmitting data... It transmits a quantum state instantly yes, but that "transmission" cannot in any way be used to transmit any form of data, it would be a severe breach of relativity theory. Look, it's the second sentence of the Wikipedia article on the subject : "Because it depends on classical communication, which can proceed no faster than the speed of light, it cannot be used for superluminal transport or communication of classical bits" [1].

And anyway, the Quantum Communication Measurement and Computing Conference, is not about QT, even if it is probably a discussed subject. The scope of that conference is : "Quantum Cryptography and Quantum Communications, Quantum Measurement and Quantum Metrology, Quantum Computing and Quantum Information Theory, Implementations of Quantum Information Processing and Quantum Simulations, Quantum Control, Foundations of Quantum Physics" [2].

So QT may serve as a way to allow really fast transmission of data, but for that, first physicist would have to completely reinvent physics. That's of course a possibility. But don't count on it as a "soon enough for a broader audience than just physicists" thing. We are decades away from such a breakthrough. And then, if that sort of breakthrough happens... gosh, that would probably change the face of the world in a much more important way than just a faster wireless data feed.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation [2] http://qcmc2012.org/about-qcmc/

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

#189

Post by pjc50 »

X4 wrote: post #176
pjc50 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. If you're not in the same datacenter you're too slow; all the HFT systems are in racks next to the exchange rack communicating over 10G Ethernet. Source: actually working on an HFT project.

@pjc50 Thank you for your input, really appreciated. What you say is that proximity gives you more benefit than having antennas transmitting data 'wireless', right? I agree with that and I don't, firstly because "Quantum Teleportation (QT)" is available soon enough for a broader audience than just Physicists [1] and such "directed antennas" positioned in the same proximity to the datacenter as the 10G links can resul…

The other commentator has dealth with QT; it's not yet a really available commercial technology, and it's not even clear that it lets you send data outside of your light cone which might violate causality.

I would like a cite for your bandwidth claim, but remember it's not bandwidth that matters - orders and market data are fairly small packets of data - but latency. The usual problem with radio systems is that you don't have a nice clean signal "edge" that you can recover, you need to apply some processing to the signal. That might be pure analog (heterodyne reciever) or A/D or pure digital (convolve to recover data from QAM). This processing delays the signal.

Our approach is to do all the processing in an FPGA connected to a 10G line. This allows us to use various tricks to start sending the first byte of the trade before the final byte of the market data packet is recieved.

It says "Principal Engineer" on my business cards; I'm a consultant for a small firm.

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

#190

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

Moru wrote: post #140
gonzo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My business has a redundant 10Gbps connection to our cabinet at zColo. We lease the dark fiber (but it doesn't run very far, so it's not very expensive.) The cabinet has a 1Gbps uplink for Internet. Home is 50Mbps FTTH right now. Google should start to deploy in ATX during 2014, and when they come to my neighborhood, I plan to switch to Google Fiber. I also have a Time Warner fiber service on premise, mainly for one…

I have lived in a number of places in northern Sweden. All had fiber to the house. New houses doesn't even have copper-lines for phones any more, they all go fiber. Some houses don't even have phone-outlets, only a 100 Mbit/s RJ45. A town with 2500 people (100 Mbit/s the last 20 years, Between $60 and $30 per month) Smaller town with 250 people (100 Mbit/s the last 15 years, $30 per month) Small city with 100 000 peo…

Oh Sweden, is there anything you can't do? I'm impressed by this country, especially considering what they manage to pull off with such a small population.
Post reply on HN