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

181–190 of 362 posts

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

#181

Post by Erik816 »

_AzMoo wrote: post #159
unpopular42 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swiss taxes vary by location but are generally not higher than the US taxes. So it's not about paying more, it's about wasting less.

It's about priorities. Swiss defense spending as a percentage of GDP is 0.675%. US defense spending as a percentage of GDP is 3.2%. I just picked a simple example, but you will find similar disparities across the board.

And part of US Defense spending helps defend countries like Switzerland. Maybe we still spend too much, but we also "defend" a lot more countries than ourselves, and a lot more territory than Switzerland.

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

#182

Post by rootusrootus »

ethbr0 wrote: post #157
Naac wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

Seriously. Here's the Amtrak network: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Am... Here's the US freight rail network: https://i.imgur.com/4TYsU_d.webp?maxwidth=1024&fidelity=medi... You can't tell me we can't do better.

We could definitely have a beautiful, big, fast train network. But most people still wouldn't use it.

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

#183

Post by pdxandi »

supernova87a wrote: post #131
pdxandi wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless it runs through a different junction box, which it might, it wouldn't matter. The tech said as much, that they could upgrade my plan for free, but it wouldn't make a difference. The node is literally on top of the pole outside my house and there doesn't seem to be a way around it.

The AT&T internet plan seems sufficient for my usage. It's capped at 100Mbps, which I understand to be a limit, at least in part, of running over copper phone lines. I get about 20Mbps up pretty consistently, which is enough. Apparently fiber in my neighborhood is right around the corner (literally, my neighbors have it), but we probably won't live here when it arrives.

On a side note, AT&T threw in free install, $150 in gift cards, and a free 24" Samsung LCD. All for $45/mo no contract service. Made it real easy to switch, though I would've anyway.

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

#184

Post by rootusrootus »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #135
rootusrootus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seem to be presenting this as a false dichotomy. The road network can't go away even if we have excellent rail travel. If you look at the incremental costs of additional traffic capacity, road transport is pretty competitive.

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

#185

Post by twoodfin »

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?

Roads could easily break even with gas taxes or other fees that users would complain about but still pay. Federal gas taxes cover the majority of highway operational and capital expenses, even with ~1/6 diverted to mass transit. Double the gas tax and interstate highways are entirely user-funded at fuel prices lower than prevailed a few years ago.

Passenger rail outside of the Northeast corridor can’t even fund its current operating cost through ticket sales, let alone the massive capital needed to build more.

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

#186

Post by ajmurmann »

wpdev_63 wrote: post #53
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…

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…

I understand that Acalea still suffered an unusual problem. Because the tracks are connected to freight tracks, regulation required it to do well in a collision with a heavier freight train. This means that it has to be much heavier than true HSTs are in other countries. That's why it goes much slower than HSTs elsewhere and is still pricey.

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

#187

Post by _-___________-_ »

jeffbee wrote: post #94
PTOB wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true. The USA has over 10x the population and 238x the land area. A national train system = dollar amounts that the human mind can't really grasp.

That is not the reason because if it were, there would be Switzerland-sized bits of the US with Swiss-esque rail service, and there are not. For example, LA County is more populous and five times as dense as Switzerland, but has essentially no rail service of which to boast. It's just a land use choice we are making: we can either have compact urban forms easily served by rail, or distributed forms that are impossibl…

I’m not sure that it’s the sprawl either. Many European cities with large suburban areas around them and nearby smaller towns that have effectively become part of them (e.g. Milano) have frequent local/regional rail service out to all the suburbs and associated towns.

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

#188

Post by ajmurmann »

teclordphrack2 wrote: post #57
lukeqsee wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switzerland is also very small, as countries go. The longest train route is IC 1 (St. Gallen Geneva) going from the (almost) easternmost point to the westernmost point, and it’s 4 hours (it does have a few higher speed sections close to Bern). They simply don’t need much speed if they run frequent and reliable trains.

Size is never the reason.

Not sure if your "never" statement is true, but it seems that more frequently than size, it's density or lack of it that makes the difference

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

#189

Post by wahern »

_AzMoo wrote: post #159
unpopular42 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swiss taxes vary by location but are generally not higher than the US taxes. So it's not about paying more, it's about wasting less.

It's about priorities. Swiss defense spending as a percentage of GDP is 0.675%. US defense spending as a percentage of GDP is 3.2%. I just picked a simple example, but you will find similar disparities across the board.

FWIW, Switzerland has a higher GDP per capita at $82k as compared to $62k for the U.S. Swiss per capita defense expenditures are closer to ~1/4 (28%) of those of the U.S. as compared to ~1/5 (21%) when judging by GDP percentage. (Conversely, France and U.K. have GDPs of about $42k, so they compare much worse by that metric.)

But more importantly, Switzerland isn't a NATO member.

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

#190

Post by _-___________-_ »

ckocagil wrote: post #165
SnowProblem wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How are you going to privatize infrastructure? There can be no competition in big infrastructure projects. What's a competitor to do, lay a new railroad next to the existing one? This is also why fiber lines should be owned by cities and leased to ISPs.

> This is also why fiber lines should be owned by cities and leased to ISPs.

In Vietnam, even in smaller cities, there are at least three different ISPs with citywide GPON FTTH. The fact that they weren’t forced to share a government lowest-common-denominator physical layer means that we are now seeing some competition around improvements to that physical layer, with one ISP offering much faster speeds made possible by incrementally improving their physical network. The others will be encouraged by competitive pressure to do the same, or maybe even do better.

Post reply on HN