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

Why Super-Fast Internet Is Coming Super Slowly

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 126 posts

Re: Why Super-Fast Internet Is Coming Super Slowly

#101

Post by bicknergseng »

amirhirsch wrote: post #13
xcrunner529 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen articles that it is just not feasible or even possibly to put all of the burden the wired networks carry onto the wireless ones. Besides the ugly data caps we have to deal with there, there's not enough room in the frequencies. Wireless is used as an excuse to not put in effort with wired and it's going to screw us.

There's plenty of room in the frequencies, even just using linear momentum encoding with directional transceivers. Add in MIMO/OAM and and suddenly there's even more bandwidth. the FCC / ownership of spectrum is a whole other chimera. Wireless today is like using a LED and a photodiode instead of a screen and a camera.

I've been wondering for a while why this doesn't get brought up more whenever spectrum debates happen. I expect some amount of it chalked up to crappy fact reporting and lazy business attitudes, but you would think someone on CNN or the NYT could do 15 minutes of googling and actually bring some sense to the table...

Re: Why Super-Fast Internet Is Coming Super Slowly

#102

Post by w1ntermute »

rayiner wrote: post #71
w1ntermute wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't explain why internet speeds suck in NYC.

Its a combination of density, economics, and politics. Japan/Korea are best case scenario. Not only very dense, but people believe in tech as a way forward economically. In the U.S., the places that are dense also have intractable politics. Outside the tech set, you're not going to sell San Franciscans on the idea that gigabit should be an important priority. They couldn't care less.

> Japan/Korea are best case scenario. Not only very dense, but people believe in tech as a way forward economically.

This is a common misconception. When it comes to actually using technology, the Japanese are at least a decade behind the West, thanks to their aging, collectivist, and risk-averse society. Fax machines continue to be widely used[0].

The primary difference is that in Japan, the government nationalized the last mile, resulting in a ton of competition. You can pick between a dozen ISPs in Tokyo.

0: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/world/asia/in-japan-the-fa...

Re: Why Super-Fast Internet Is Coming Super Slowly

#103

Post by res0nat0r »

reversi_online wrote: post #100
rayiner wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The urbanized parts of the U.S. aren't behind in general. If the east coast states were countries, a number would be top-5 on Akamai's list for highest average bandwidth. As for HK and SK: there is only one city in the U.S. as dense as Hong Kong or Seoul, and that's NYC. And it has FIOS. So why does everywhere in NYC not have FIOS? Is it because of lobbying? No, its because building infrastructure in dense places req…

I must say your dichotomy between lobbying and political priorities is positively Martian. And I haven't noticed the U.S. public rallying in horrified opposition to faster internet speeds in a big way. Or at all, really.

They haven't been rallying in support of it either.

Re: Why Super-Fast Internet Is Coming Super Slowly

#104

Post by cdash »

kbolino wrote: post #99
coldtea wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual nonsense is the existance of the mythical " real, free-market capitalism", that nobody has ever seen in practice. The "free market" that does exist is based on subsidies, bailouts, state protection, monopolies, a huge army, bullying, and resource grabbing (and past 300+ years of colonialism). Heck, the "free market" is even more mythical than the laughable "really existing socialism".

The free market does not exist because the government stands in its way. To then go on to chide free market advocates for actions they do not support is disingenuous at best. Businessmen are not interested in ideology, if they can use the government as a cudgel against their opponents, or a crutch to sustain them in hard times, they will. Every time the government's power over the economy has been expanded, advocates…

No one broke your spine, it never existed and never will. It is imaginary.

Re: Why Super-Fast Internet Is Coming Super Slowly

#105

Post by mlangdon »

gcb0 wrote: post #15

thats a borderline moronic article. starts by saying incumbents deny access even to city cabling and explaining the duopoly on most cities and ends by saying that allowing netflix to pass the fee to comcast subscribers is good because people will move companies and a free market is the answer. is this april 1st or something? also extra moronic points for not understanding the first thing about isp to isp agreements a…

Leave it to the WSJ to blame a problem that needs old school trust-busting on excess regulation. They've got libertarian rabies.

Re: Why Super-Fast Internet Is Coming Super Slowly

#106

Post by alexeisadeski3 »

brenschluss wrote: post #92
alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monitoring =/ censorship If the gov't views the internet as it's possession, then it can make sense for it to be both fast and censored.

Well perhaps this may be the case in some scenarios, but that doesn't mean that the internet can't be censored when internet infrastructure is private, either. p = internet is public infrastructure q = censorship for some (but not all) p -> q for some (but not all) ¬p -> q q -> irrelevant It's irrelevant to the question of fast internet. To reiterate, you're saying that censorship and fast internet are a package deal…

I'm saying that the political process which leads to things like gov't required fast internet may also lead to greater encroachment upon said internet.

It's an interesting way of thinking of things.

Yesterday I listened to a discussion comparing the less regulated and more stable banking system of Canada to the heavily regulated and crash prone US banking system. Everyone in the US says that they want Canada's banking system, it's a common refrain.

But do Americans want the political system which leads to such a banking system being implemented properly? As soon as you get to the Queen of England appointing US Senators, Americans tend to want to forget about the whole banking system thing.

I suppose the point is this: If you tell the US political system to implement Korea style fast and cheap internet, what you're going to end up with is something much different from what you wanted. The same political forces which got you to your current location will filter this legislation as well. And you may end up with something far worse than the status quo.

Re: Why Super-Fast Internet Is Coming Super Slowly

#107

Post by praxeologist »

logfromblammo wrote: post #84
praxeologist wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. Leftists conflate "state capitalism", cronyism or corporatism with real, free-market capitalism. Internet monopolies like Comcast or TWC enjoy are state-granted monopolies, not "natural monopolies" (which have never existed).

Natural monopolies do exist, it's just that not all businesses claimed to be natural monopolies actually are. If you can, imagine a watershed. The river, along with its tributaries, covers the most efficient downhill route from every point in the watershed to sea level. The natural monopoly on precipitation drainage is everywhere you see flowing water. Installing a second river does not work. Wherever you try to put…

The analogy with a river doesn't work at all. Rivers don't act or engage in exchange. I see what you are saying on the most optimal path for water to flow, but that is then equivocating on "monopoly".

Re: Why Super-Fast Internet Is Coming Super Slowly

#108

Post by kbolino »

cdash wrote: post #104
kbolino wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free market does not exist because the government stands in its way. To then go on to chide free market advocates for actions they do not support is disingenuous at best. Businessmen are not interested in ideology, if they can use the government as a cudgel against their opponents, or a crutch to sustain them in hard times, they will. Every time the government's power over the economy has been expanded, advocates…

No one broke your spine, it never existed and never will. It is imaginary.

Pretty sure my spine is real. Perhaps you meant to unpack that analogy first?

The "free market" is simply what exists absent interference. It ceases to exist when a single player or group of players asserts force over the others. The purpose of government is to reduce the effectiveness of violence as a strategy.

Re: Why Super-Fast Internet Is Coming Super Slowly

#109

Post by rayiner »

foobarqux wrote: post #97
rayiner wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. beats Sweden in Akamai's study, so are we paying more to get more?

The US allegedly beats Sweden in average broadband speed which is a poor measure for most purposes. I don't think you will find any Swedes telling you that the US has better broadband. From the FCC: "The United States is 26th out of 32 countries in the 15-25 Mbps speed tier (advertised) with an average stand-alone broadband plan price of $56.50. The lowest advertised price for stand-alone services is in Slovakia at $…

Why do you rely on a study that uses advertised speed instead of actual speed like Akamai's? Akamai also has a category for 10 Mbps+ availability, and the U.S. ranks very well there too.

Re: Why Super-Fast Internet Is Coming Super Slowly

#110

Post by saosebastiao »

reversi_online wrote: post #91
saosebastiao wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High density doesn't eliminate millions of other reasons that a given city doesn't have it. It just provides a floor for cost competitiveness, and a major input into ROI. Even in Kansas City, google has stated they won't roll out FTTH to every neighborhood, even in the long term...and in the short term, they have focused on the neighborhoods with the fastest ROI. I'll let you guess whether the high density or the low…

Then why did you bring up density in the first place? Unless you're saying that urban and suburban America each lack FTTH for their own wholly unrelated reasons, an explanation that seems rather lacking in parsimony. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Because a huge and significant chunk of America lives at a density that is prohibitive for small competitors to provide FTTH. The only way to get it is through municipal funding, because the large broadband providers certainly aren't going to provide it.
Post reply on HN