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

Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

swisscom.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 362 posts

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#131

Post by supernova87a »

pdxandi wrote: post #124
always_left wrote: post #21

Amazing that they can achieve that yet I'm in the bay area and I'm in a never-ending war with Comcast to achieve 50mbp/s

I just cancelled Comcast this week and am in the Bay Area too. I've been going (polite) rounds with their customer support since March. Constantly losing connection, uploads peak at 1Mbps, horribly unreliable. I paid for their 110Mbps plan and have worked remotely for many years. Video dropping all the time, router hanging. After upgrading all my equipment because they wouldn't admit fault, I got a tech to come out w…

Have you ever considered going on to one of the small business plans? I have this through work, and instead of the usual gripes, my connection has a minimum guaranteed bandwidth instead of some soft "may be shared and degrade with neighbors" clause in it.

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#132

Post by SnowProblem »

singhrac wrote: post #4

I would honestly pay significantly higher taxes if we could get Swiss-quality train service in parts of the US (and especially if they have good internet). When I traveled Boston to NY in the past, compare my flight experience vs Amtrak. Flight: - Take $25 Uber to airport and get there 1 hour early to go through security and wait. - Fly to JFK (1h 20m) - land, wait to get off, go through terminal again, then take $50…

I think if you want a high-quality train service, you should pay for it through higher fares. Saying you would pay higher taxes is sly language for saying you want to others to subsidize you.

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#133

Post by vmception »

singhrac wrote: post #4

I would honestly pay significantly higher taxes if we could get Swiss-quality train service in parts of the US (and especially if they have good internet). When I traveled Boston to NY in the past, compare my flight experience vs Amtrak. Flight: - Take $25 Uber to airport and get there 1 hour early to go through security and wait. - Fly to JFK (1h 20m) - land, wait to get off, go through terminal again, then take $50…

Except Swiss quality train in Switzerland are used primarily as commuter and are very expensive for that

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#134

Post by Naac »

rootusrootus wrote: post #121
atoombs wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understand this line of thought. We invest in infrastructure to enable people to move between places, commune with one another, and trade goods. We've invested a tremendous amount in roads. Why do we expect other things like the USPS, Amtrak, etc. to generate profits when they're an expenditure in infrastructure?

It's hard to justify investing in rail. At best, in most parts of the US it is slower, more expensive, and less convenient. There are some edge cases that it makes real sense for, but everywhere else is better served by cars and airplanes.

>> It's hard to justify investing in rail. At best, in most parts of the US it is slower, more expensive, and less convenient

But that's because we haven't invested in it! Before the 1960s most roads in the US were also terrible, so by that logic we shouldn't have invested in the Highway/Freeway Interstate system.

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#135

Post by droopyEyelids »

rootusrootus wrote: post #121
atoombs wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understand this line of thought. We invest in infrastructure to enable people to move between places, commune with one another, and trade goods. We've invested a tremendous amount in roads. Why do we expect other things like the USPS, Amtrak, etc. to generate profits when they're an expenditure in infrastructure?

It's hard to justify investing in rail. At best, in most parts of the US it is slower, more expensive, and less convenient. There are some edge cases that it makes real sense for, but everywhere else is better served by cars and airplanes.

Your point could be correct overall, but to say "rail is more expensive than road transport" you've got to do cirque-de-solei level acrobatics.

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#136

Post by eCa »

stabbles wrote: post #80
vinay427 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The routes in Switzerland are infinitely less remote, to be fair. I've lived in both countries and it's really orders of magnitude different in this respect. If you're on a (passenger) train in Switzerland even in the most rural and mountainous areas of Wallis or Graubünden, you're still not in what most Americans would consider to be the "middle of nowhere." EDIT: minor clarifications

Switzerland does have the Gotthard Base Tunnel aka the longest railway tunnel in the world: 57km or 35.5mi. Anecdotally I believe the current 4g connection is best in the very front of the train, but gets worse if you're in the back.

I don’t remember where I was sitting, but the connection was way better than expected - even in the middle of the tunnel. This was almost four years ago.

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#137

Post by foota »

tryptophan wrote: post #83
atoombs wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understand this line of thought. We invest in infrastructure to enable people to move between places, commune with one another, and trade goods. We've invested a tremendous amount in roads. Why do we expect other things like the USPS, Amtrak, etc. to generate profits when they're an expenditure in infrastructure?

The argument goes that if nobody is willing to pay the price for something(passenger rail), and chooses another alternative(driving), then it means that the service is not worth having and subsiding it would just be a waste of taxpayer money. Of course its not that simple, because driving is subsidized(I would prefer every road to be a toll road and get rid of the general taxes that used to go to roads)...but you get…

I mean, the issue is I can't choose to pay for quality rail service because it doesn't exist here. I can't take HSR from e.g., Boston to NYC, SF to LA, or Seattle to Portland/Vancouver. These are all trips I would have gladly made at 100-400 dollar ticket prices in the last year.

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#138

Post by x87678r »

foota wrote: post #58
wpdev_63 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main problem with the US interstate train system is that it's run on freight train lines. Amtrak and Acela do not actually own the railway they use and they can only go a certain speed due to the grade of the track. I don't think you would be willing to pay the amount of taxes you would need to, to completely redo the railways haha. Anyways Amtrak are barely turning a profit as it is and while it would be great t…

Roads don't break even, why should we expect trains to?

I dont know where you are but in NYC the port authority makes billions from bridge and tunnels to use to subsidize the PATH train system.

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#140

Post by Aeolun »

singhrac wrote: post #4

I would honestly pay significantly higher taxes if we could get Swiss-quality train service in parts of the US (and especially if they have good internet). When I traveled Boston to NY in the past, compare my flight experience vs Amtrak. Flight: - Take $25 Uber to airport and get there 1 hour early to go through security and wait. - Fly to JFK (1h 20m) - land, wait to get off, go through terminal again, then take $50…

> But is (b) a real problem if you can work on the train?

Japan has the Shinkansen that gets you between the two major cities at 300kmph in slightly less than two hours. Nonetheless, they’re still trying to build a maglev that will do the same thing at 500kmph in 1.1 hours. I guess if you already have the convenience of working on the train, you want to do less of it.

I kind of forgot what my point was.

Post reply on HN