FCC's Net Neutrality Rules Are Reportedly Going To Be Brutal

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

What really gets me is the number of people fooled by corporate lobbyists into thinking that the government is "taking over" the internet with these rules changes. That somehow not allowing corporate America to pull the fast lane garbage is going to curtail personal freedoms. These rules changes are happening despite several of the telecom giants threatening to stop upgrading the infrastructure that they have already accepted government money to upgrade.

In the end though, the telecoms are going to lobby congress to pass a law either preventing this from happening or to overrule it if it goes into effect too fast for congress to do something about it. Failing that they will sue and force it to go all the way to the SCoTUS, where an extremely business friendly court will rule that the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate the internet in any way.

crimson5pheonix:
Good manga. It just ended though :(

Wait, Liar game came back from Hiatus and ended like 5 months later?! SERIOUSLY?!

.....Oh well. Guess now's as good a time as any to get back into it and see it through to the end. That "musical chairs" based chapter was insane and awesome.

---

On topic:

I will trust this when it's done.

And in fact, I'm REALLY suspicious about that line where he said he'd "modernize" title 2. I don't like the sound of that. For all we know he's going to make title 2 so flimsy and shitty that not only will the internet get screwed up beyond repair, but so will phones. >_>

Baresark:
I only used cable as an example. Clearly if we were to all get Google Fiber (1000 Mbps) we would all be better off.

Google Fiber? That's the alternative that springs to mind? After all of your complaining last time about people living in more remote areas, burying lines in the ground is all you can think of? This is where your argument fall apart: wireless internet access is a thing. Forget cellphones, my own current ISP is Dish. They provide a fast enough connection to watch Youtube in HD. At least until I hit the bandwidth cap, at which point they throttle my speed. (such as right now)

For all your complaints about me assuming cable companies are being greedy, (because they are) Dish mainly caps and throttles my bandwidth because the FCC currently requires them to. Why? For the same reason some cities have banned the general public from using municipal broadband such as Google Fiber: to protect cable's monopoly. Your assumption that costs are what prevent competition is quite naive. TWC and Comcast are quite adept at buying out politicians, especially on the local level.

My point is that the technology exists to provide good internet access far & wide without breaking the bank. And cable companies have been suppressing it whenever it challenged their supremacy. So quit fearmongering about internet access becoming expensive.

The funniest thing I find is that we went from companies want to be able to sell fast lanes to now we have to classify it as utility which literally makes everything a thousand times more complicated than it was, when the government could have just said no from day one.

The FCC did say no on day one. But the SCotUS decided to push an agenda. So Wheeler took what he assumed to be the path of least resistance by giving his old buddies in the company what they wanted. Now, Wheeler pretty much has to reclassify ISPs as utilities to reinstate net neutrality without violating the SC's ruling.

That, or Congress can pass a law on this matter. Good luck making that happen.

EiMitch:

Baresark:
I only used cable as an example. Clearly if we were to all get Google Fiber (1000 Mbps) we would all be better off.

Google Fiber? That's the alternative that springs to mind? After all of your complaining last time about people living in more remote areas, burying lines in the ground is all you can think of? This is where your argument fall apart: wireless internet access is a thing. Forget cellphones, my own current ISP is Dish. They provide a fast enough connection to watch Youtube in HD. At least until I hit the bandwidth cap, at which point they throttle my speed. (such as right now)

For all your complaints about me assuming cable companies are being greedy, (because they are) Dish mainly caps and throttles my bandwidth because the FCC currently requires them to. Why? For the same reason some cities have banned the general public from using municipal broadband such as Google Fiber: to protect cable's monopoly. Your assumption that costs are what prevent competition is quite naive. TWC and Comcast are quite adept at buying out politicians, especially on the local level.

My point is that the technology exists to provide good internet access far & wide without breaking the bank. And cable companies have been suppressing it whenever it challenged their supremacy. So quit fearmongering about internet access becoming expensive.

The funniest thing I find is that we went from companies want to be able to sell fast lanes to now we have to classify it as utility which literally makes everything a thousand times more complicated than it was, when the government could have just said no from day one.

The FCC did say no on day one. But the SCotUS decided to push an agenda. So Wheeler took what he assumed to be the path of least resistance by giving his old buddies in the company what they wanted. Now, Wheeler pretty much has to reclassify ISPs as utilities to reinstate net neutrality without violating the SC's ruling.

That, or Congress can pass a law on this matter. Good luck making that happen.

Listen, I am not going to sit here and list every single option for internet access. Also, I stated that satellite was one of two options for internet along with cellular data, and they were horrendously bad. Horrendously bad. The caps were incredibly low, much lower than what I'm sure your are getting.

Also, I agree, Congress is terrible and slow. That is an issue with government bureaucracy, it's always slow.

Baresark:

OF course more is better, but by definition 2 is not an antitrust issue, 1 is. Also notice I put 2 or more. It's annoying to have to explain this speed thing. First, not everyone needs 100Mbps. A lot of people only use it for email, casual surfing, or business (which requires more up than down typically). But I'm not saying it wouldn't be awesome everyone had 100Mbps down speeds, that would be incredible. But we are also the first country who had internet coverage so wide as we do. And yes, though there are parts of the country that do not have access (I lived in one for two years where the only possible way to have internet was either satellite or cellular, both of which were extremely spotty). What that means is that our infrastructure is also among the oldest in a lot of places.

Lets talk about the land coverage the US has. Most places you can live. But a lot of those places conditions can be harsh (ie. In New Mexico where the lowest elevation is 5000 feet above sea level and it's extremely flat there is constant wind and the water table can be hundreds of feet below the ground making wells very expensive to dig). When I lived there, we were about 14 miles outside of the nearest town (Truth or Consequences, NM) over miles and miles of dirt roads. Now, we had electric but no one is going to run cable lines over that distance for a handful of ranches, it would take generations for them to cover their costs. New Mexico is bigger than some nations in Europe (if it were placed in Europe, it would be the 10th largest nation in Europe by area). Let compare populations. The current tenth largest nation in Europe is Poland and their population is about 38.5 Million people. New Mexico is slightly larger and contains only 2 Million people and many are spread out (though most clearly live in Albuquerque and Las Cruces). New Mexico is not the only place like this in the US. And the places that have internet have that old infrastructure I mentioned before. It's much easier and cheaper to provide fast internet and options to people who get internet later than we did (which is most people in the world).

I'm not making excuses, but I'm looking at reality rather than some magic standard that people want to define for someone or some group of people. I want everyone to have super fast internet but I'm realistic enough to look at the roadblocks that are presently in place in the US.

If the 2 or more are conspiring together to fix prices it is an antitrust issue no matter how many companies are there.

You are flat out wrong there. 100mbps should be the minimum for everyone. Not everyone may use it not, but that mainly due to services people use not being able to support them, and they dont support them mainly because majority dont have acess to it anyway. Raising internet speeds creates new uses for them.

So yes, everyone needs 100mbps.

well tough shit. improve your infrastructure. your government poured billions into the infrastructure, which nicely landed in ISP pockets without significant improvement. my country changed the infrastructure TWICE in half the time. and yet the most economically powerful nation in the world cant do it once? A-grade-bullshit.

Ah, yes, your entire country is a desert with 2 million people. except that its not. only New mexico is in this case. even if we take it that entire 2 million people lived in unprofitable ranches, thats still only 0.6% of your population, which hardly explains over half of your population not having access to even the 25mbps down speeds.

not to mention on why the fuck would you live in a ranch in middle of nowhere unless your intention was to be disconnected from the world.

And no, its not easier nor cheaper to replace infrastructure in countries that got internet later than it is in US. it costs exactly the same - the cost of putting new infrastructure in and removing old (often its left there anyway). laying down 1 mile of cable in europe and laying down 1 mile of cable in US costs the same. and your government has poured billions into it while ours havent. yet yours are still far worse. so yeah, reality is ISPs are greedy thieves.

Yes, there are roadblocks in US. they are called AT&T, Comcast and the like.

P.S. everyone should have same upload speed as download speed. no provider that discriminates against upload deserves to stay in business.

Strazdas:

Baresark:

snip

If the 2 or more are conspiring together to fix prices it is an antitrust issue no matter how many companies are there.

You are flat out wrong there. 100mbps should be the minimum for everyone. Not everyone may use it not, but that mainly due to services people use not being able to support them, and they dont support them mainly because majority dont have acess to it anyway. Raising internet speeds creates new uses for them.

So yes, everyone needs 100mbps.

well tough shit. improve your infrastructure. your government poured billions into the infrastructure, which nicely landed in ISP pockets without significant improvement. my country changed the infrastructure TWICE in half the time. and yet the most economically powerful nation in the world cant do it once? A-grade-bullshit.

Ah, yes, your entire country is a desert with 2 million people. except that its not. only New mexico is in this case. even if we take it that entire 2 million people lived in unprofitable ranches, thats still only 0.6% of your population, which hardly explains over half of your population not having access to even the 25mbps down speeds.

not to mention on why the fuck would you live in a ranch in middle of nowhere unless your intention was to be disconnected from the world.

And no, its not easier nor cheaper to replace infrastructure in countries that got internet later than it is in US. it costs exactly the same - the cost of putting new infrastructure in and removing old (often its left there anyway). laying down 1 mile of cable in europe and laying down 1 mile of cable in US costs the same. and your government has poured billions into it while ours havent. yet yours are still far worse. so yeah, reality is ISPs are greedy thieves.

Yes, there are roadblocks in US. they are called AT&T, Comcast and the like.

P.S. everyone should have same upload speed as download speed. no provider that discriminates against upload deserves to stay in business.

You sound like you have read a lot of news stories on the internet about the US. Good for you. But I'm here to tell you that what you think you know doesn't scratch the surface, just like I would never presume anything about where you are from. You did have one thing right, people live in that area by choice. They have the freedom and ability to go anywhere in the US, but they don't. Your country is so great, I'm sure they do everything right. When your country is remotely as big as the US you can then come back here and tell me about how easy it should be to upgrade one of the largest infrastructures in the world.

Baresark:
Title 2 was never meant for this, it's intended as an antitrust measure, which no ISP's fall into because virtually everywhere in the US there are 2 or more choices for internet service. I want net neutrality as much as anyone does but doing something that extends a law to something it was not intended for is the wrong way to go about it.

Two options in ISP service isn't enough. We have three or four in my part of Canada (and about the same nation wide) and there's no actual competition. Hell, with so few companies in the mix, they don't even need to collude to avoid competition. All they have to do is make the conscious choice to not put their prices too far below the other guy. Which is exactly what happens because trying to compete is likely to, at best, result in as many companies all having the same market share, and making a lot less money. And you can't get any new companies coming into the market very easily because the cost to enter is astronomically high, but what people end up being charged relative to the cost to deliver those services, as well as the quality of service they get isn't consistent with a market where there's actual competition.

There are a lot of circumstances where the free market breaks down and consumers suffer, and industries with few competitors and extremely high barriers to entry are exactly those sorts of circumstances. Having two companies in a market, for all intents and purposes, is no better than having one company.

You did have one thing right, people live in that area by choice. They have the freedom and ability to go anywhere in the US, but they don't.

If your only option for better ISP service is to pick up and leave town then there's something very, very wrong with the market. And there are a lot of people in the world for whom packing up and moving is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

Vivi22:

Baresark:
Title 2 was never meant for this, it's intended as an antitrust measure, which no ISP's fall into because virtually everywhere in the US there are 2 or more choices for internet service. I want net neutrality as much as anyone does but doing something that extends a law to something it was not intended for is the wrong way to go about it.

Two options in ISP service isn't enough. We have three or four in my part of Canada (and about the same nation wide) and there's no actual competition. Hell, with so few companies in the mix, they don't even need to collude to avoid competition. All they have to do is make the conscious choice to not put their prices too far below the other guy. Which is exactly what happens because trying to compete is likely to, at best, result in as many companies all having the same market share, and making a lot less money. And you can't get any new companies coming into the market very easily because the cost to enter is astronomically high, but what people end up being charged relative to the cost to deliver those services, as well as the quality of service they get isn't consistent with a market where there's actual competition.

There are a lot of circumstances where the free market breaks down and consumers suffer, and industries with few competitors and extremely high barriers to entry are exactly those sorts of circumstances. Having two companies in a market, for all intents and purposes, is no better than having one company.

You did have one thing right, people live in that area by choice. They have the freedom and ability to go anywhere in the US, but they don't.

If your only option for better ISP service is to pick up and leave town then there's something very, very wrong with the market. And there are a lot of people in the world for whom packing up and moving is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

What you are talking about is price fixing, which is also illegal in the US (and I'm sure in Canada). In those situations the government should step in and investigate. In my area we have 4 different otions and each one of those options offers various levels of packages with different pricing. I pay more than I would like for my Cable internet, but I'm currently getting in the range of 50-105Mbps, and I personally feel the money is worth it. That is my personal decision of course and others may not feel the money is worth it, but that is a decision they have to make for themselves.

For the people who choose to live in those regions, not having internet is part of what they are looking for. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who don't like a "connected world". It's good for a great many things but it's not for everyone. One thing the town was overflowing with was art galleries. So many artists in a tiny tiny little town with only a few thousand people. Hell, the entire county only had 12,800 people in it. They could live in a suburb of one of NM's cities, which would offer a fair share of what they got in TorC but they chose to live there.

I am not a huge fan of the US in a lot of ways, but one thing that is pretty great about it is you can find a place to live that is what you want. It's a bad assumption to assume everyone wants the same things. Me, I love my internet speed and my work commute, but NM brought a completely different set of values to the table for me, and the time I spent there was great.

Baresark:

You sound like you have read a lot of news stories on the internet about the US. Good for you. But I'm here to tell you that what you think you know doesn't scratch the surface, just like I would never presume anything about where you are from. You did have one thing right, people live in that area by choice. They have the freedom and ability to go anywhere in the US, but they don't. Your country is so great, I'm sure they do everything right. When your country is remotely as big as the US you can then come back here and tell me about how easy it should be to upgrade one of the largest infrastructures in the world.

my country is hardly perfect, but we do have good internet. i used it as an example of how entire infrastructure can be replaced twice in short amount of time and still charge far less for the service than yours did. and lets face it, when people want fast internet in US they dont mean that 3 house ranch in middle of nowhere, they mean the suburbs of big cities that are getting dialup currently. its acceptable that some small percentage of people that live far away wont get good service. its not acceptable when its over half of your population.

Strazdas:

my country is hardly perfect, but we do have good internet. i used it as an example of how entire infrastructure can be replaced twice in short amount of time and still charge far less for the service than yours did. and lets face it, when people want fast internet in US they dont mean that 3 house ranch in middle of nowhere, they mean the suburbs of big cities that are getting dialup currently. its acceptable that some small percentage of people that live far away wont get good service. its not acceptable when its over half of your population.

It's funny, but I know some ranch folk who have decent internet. Not perfect, but not dial-up.

Count me as cautiously optimistic.

On paper, it looks pretty good. Almost too good, and whenever you're dealing with giant bills like this, there's bound to be some kind of catch somewhere.

So hopefully things go smoothly, or if they don't, we can collectively beat down any bullshit clause or segment they try to sneak past.

Strazdas:

Baresark:

You sound like you have read a lot of news stories on the internet about the US. Good for you. But I'm here to tell you that what you think you know doesn't scratch the surface, just like I would never presume anything about where you are from. You did have one thing right, people live in that area by choice. They have the freedom and ability to go anywhere in the US, but they don't. Your country is so great, I'm sure they do everything right. When your country is remotely as big as the US you can then come back here and tell me about how easy it should be to upgrade one of the largest infrastructures in the world.

my country is hardly perfect, but we do have good internet. i used it as an example of how entire infrastructure can be replaced twice in short amount of time and still charge far less for the service than yours did. and lets face it, when people want fast internet in US they dont mean that 3 house ranch in middle of nowhere, they mean the suburbs of big cities that are getting dialup currently. its acceptable that some small percentage of people that live far away wont get good service. its not acceptable when its over half of your population.

Here's the thing though, the percentage of the population in the united states that lives in rural areas isn't "some small percentage" It's more like 20% of the population.

https://ask.census.gov/faq.php?id=5000&faqId=5971

Yea, it's not over half the population, and i'm hardly saying the cable company assholes aren't kinda ruining it for us (they are), but you can't just dismiss that 20% of the population that lives in rural areas where it might be a huge endeavor to provide them all internet service by building that level of infrastructure.

insaninater:

Here's the thing though, the percentage of the population in the united states that lives in rural areas isn't "some small percentage" It's more like 20% of the population.

https://ask.census.gov/faq.php?id=5000&faqId=5971

Yea, it's not over half the population, and i'm hardly saying the cable company assholes aren't kinda ruining it for us (they are), but you can't just dismiss that 20% of the population that lives in rural areas where it might be a huge endeavor to provide them all internet service by building that level of infrastructure.

This census defines Urban Areas as 50.000 and more people. This has lead to this misleading statistic. A town of,say, 40.000 would fall into your 20% of population but in no way should fall into the "ignore thier internet" one. when i said a small percentage of population not having access is acceptable i mean people like mentioned by the other poster - 3 houses in middle of nowhere. not cut off every smaller town.

For all this freedom we are supposed to have, it's amazing how little control or say we actually have in the decisions of things that affect us all.

If this helps more people get access to broadband, that's good at least.. But I don't know as much about it as I should.

Back in the early 2000s, I had to suffer through with dial up, when 3 or 4 houses down(less than 1/4th a mile!) they had DSL. It took shitty Sprint 2 more years to get it down the rest of the street.

Strazdas:

Baresark:

You sound like you have read a lot of news stories on the internet about the US. Good for you. But I'm here to tell you that what you think you know doesn't scratch the surface, just like I would never presume anything about where you are from. You did have one thing right, people live in that area by choice. They have the freedom and ability to go anywhere in the US, but they don't. Your country is so great, I'm sure they do everything right. When your country is remotely as big as the US you can then come back here and tell me about how easy it should be to upgrade one of the largest infrastructures in the world.

my country is hardly perfect, but we do have good internet. i used it as an example of how entire infrastructure can be replaced twice in short amount of time and still charge far less for the service than yours did. and lets face it, when people want fast internet in US they dont mean that 3 house ranch in middle of nowhere, they mean the suburbs of big cities that are getting dialup currently. its acceptable that some small percentage of people that live far away wont get good service. its not acceptable when its over half of your population.

I've seen you say "my country" like three times.

What country?

BTW, reports I've seen say 70% of US Citizens have broadband access available, not more than 50% as you say.

Yozozo:

Baresark:
Title 2 was never meant for this, it's intended as an antitrust measure, which no ISP's fall into because virtually everywhere in the US there are 2 or more choices for internet service. I want net neutrality as much as anyone does but doing something that extends a law to something it was not intended for is the wrong way to go about it.

We'll see what happens though. Not like I actually have any say in it.

Lol. Oh man, that's funny!

With the new classification of High Speed Internet? Guess how many providers in my area there are?

Here's a hint. It's less than 2.

Anywhere NOT in a big city is pretty much in a similar situation.

Yup. I can attest to that. I live in a small village of about 400 people. I get 1 good provider and 3 cell phone wifi things. So, technically I get 4 or 5. But, really, the only one (if you want fast internet) is worth it.

That said, I get 10 mbps for upwards of 95$ a month. Even then, I get cut down to 5 mbps from time to time. With the new laws, the ISPs are either going to change their services from what is called broadband.... or charge me even more.

If this BS really is legit (and not just BS) I say they pass legislation to severely cut off how much ISPs can actually charge for internet a month.

BoogieManFL:

Strazdas:

Baresark:

You sound like you have read a lot of news stories on the internet about the US. Good for you. But I'm here to tell you that what you think you know doesn't scratch the surface, just like I would never presume anything about where you are from. You did have one thing right, people live in that area by choice. They have the freedom and ability to go anywhere in the US, but they don't. Your country is so great, I'm sure they do everything right. When your country is remotely as big as the US you can then come back here and tell me about how easy it should be to upgrade one of the largest infrastructures in the world.

my country is hardly perfect, but we do have good internet. i used it as an example of how entire infrastructure can be replaced twice in short amount of time and still charge far less for the service than yours did. and lets face it, when people want fast internet in US they dont mean that 3 house ranch in middle of nowhere, they mean the suburbs of big cities that are getting dialup currently. its acceptable that some small percentage of people that live far away wont get good service. its not acceptable when its over half of your population.

I've seen you say "my country" like three times.

What country?

BTW, reports I've seen say 70% of US Citizens have broadband access available, not more than 50% as you say.

My country can be found in my profile. It is Lithuania.

Its worth noting that these reports you read is based on old, quite silly, definition of broadband, that was recently changed which puts over half of the population with no access to broadband.

Strazdas:

BoogieManFL:

Strazdas:

my country is hardly perfect, but we do have good internet. i used it as an example of how entire infrastructure can be replaced twice in short amount of time and still charge far less for the service than yours did. and lets face it, when people want fast internet in US they dont mean that 3 house ranch in middle of nowhere, they mean the suburbs of big cities that are getting dialup currently. its acceptable that some small percentage of people that live far away wont get good service. its not acceptable when its over half of your population.

I've seen you say "my country" like three times.

What country?

BTW, reports I've seen say 70% of US Citizens have broadband access available, not more than 50% as you say.

My country can be found in my profile. It is Lithuania.

Its worth noting that these reports you read is based on old, quite silly, definition of broadband, that was recently changed which puts over half of the population with no access to broadband.

How can you compare the infrastructure of a country with 25,212 square miles (65,300 km) and 2.9 million people to one that has 3,805,927 square miles (9,857,306 km) and 320 million people? That's not even realistic, the logistical differences alone are immense.

My ISP has about as many subscribers as 75% the total population of your country and is only like 8th in size in the US.

BoogieManFL:

How can you compare the infrastructure of a country with 25,212 square miles (65,300 km) and 2.9 million people to one that has 3,805,927 square miles (9,857,306 km) and 320 million people? That's not even realistic, the logistical differences alone are immense.

My ISP has about as many subscribers as 75% the total population of your country and is only like 8th in size in the US.

What you forget is that your ISP also has 75% of the income my entire country has so it can afford to have this infrastructure.

Strazdas:

BoogieManFL:

How can you compare the infrastructure of a country with 25,212 square miles (65,300 km) and 2.9 million people to one that has 3,805,927 square miles (9,857,306 km) and 320 million people? That's not even realistic, the logistical differences alone are immense.

My ISP has about as many subscribers as 75% the total population of your country and is only like 8th in size in the US.

What you forget is that your ISP also has 75% of the income my entire country has so it can afford to have this infrastructure.

I get 80-100 Mb/sec so I think it's pretty good as is...

But there is also yet another flaw in your statement, even if both had identical currency value and income they still have a much, much, MUCH wider area to have to upgrade. So no. It's not so simple as that. For every mile/kilometer of cable and infrastructure for a region that small in comparison, it would take like 100 in the larger. Vastly more physical components and hardware, more work crews, more time. Everything is scaled up many orders of magnitude.

William Ossiss:

Yozozo:

Baresark:
Title 2 was never meant for this, it's intended as an antitrust measure, which no ISP's fall into because virtually everywhere in the US there are 2 or more choices for internet service. I want net neutrality as much as anyone does but doing something that extends a law to something it was not intended for is the wrong way to go about it.

We'll see what happens though. Not like I actually have any say in it.

Lol. Oh man, that's funny!

With the new classification of High Speed Internet? Guess how many providers in my area there are?

Here's a hint. It's less than 2.

Anywhere NOT in a big city is pretty much in a similar situation.

Yup. I can attest to that. I live in a small village of about 400 people. I get 1 good provider and 3 cell phone wifi things. So, technically I get 4 or 5. But, really, the only one (if you want fast internet) is worth it.

That said, I get 10 mbps for upwards of 95$ a month. Even then, I get cut down to 5 mbps from time to time. With the new laws, the ISPs are either going to change their services from what is called broadband.... or charge me even more.

If this BS really is legit (and not just BS) I say they pass legislation to severely cut off how much ISPs can actually charge for internet a month.

I'm not even in a tiny village. I'm in a city, it's just not huge. Only 56,000 people, next city ~10mi away is about the same size, with another 30k city the other direction. We're not nothing in the middle of absolute nowhere :/

BoogieManFL:

I get 80-100 Mb/sec so I think it's pretty good as is...

But there is also yet another flaw in your statement, even if both had identical currency value and income they still have a much, much, MUCH wider area to have to upgrade. So no. It's not so simple as that. For every mile/kilometer of cable and infrastructure for a region that small in comparison, it would take like 100 in the larger. Vastly more physical components and hardware, more work crews, more time. Everything is scaled up many orders of magnitude.

they also have much much much more money from higher prices and more clients as well as government subsidies that span in billions of USD.

also did you just claim that your country population density is 100 times lower? because its not. Lithuania has 45 people per square kilometer, US has 32.6. Yet you pay 8 times more for internet (3 times if accounting for purchasing power) and your ISPs are government subsidized.

the "many orders of magnitude" is just bullshit.

Strazdas:

BoogieManFL:

I get 80-100 Mb/sec so I think it's pretty good as is...

But there is also yet another flaw in your statement, even if both had identical currency value and income they still have a much, much, MUCH wider area to have to upgrade. So no. It's not so simple as that. For every mile/kilometer of cable and infrastructure for a region that small in comparison, it would take like 100 in the larger. Vastly more physical components and hardware, more work crews, more time. Everything is scaled up many orders of magnitude.

they also have much much much more money from higher prices and more clients as well as government subsidies that span in billions of USD.

also did you just claim that your country population density is 100 times lower? because its not. Lithuania has 45 people per square kilometer, US has 32.6. Yet you pay 8 times more for internet (3 times if accounting for purchasing power) and your ISPs are government subsidized.

the "many orders of magnitude" is just bullshit.

Bullshit? How? The states that *just my ISP* covers is many times more area than your entire country.

Anyway, this isn't about just my ISP. You just can't compare a country that small, with a fraction of a fraction of the population and area just like it's so simple.

If it was, it would be done because that means more subscribers paying.

65,300 km and 2.9 million people

compared to:

9,857,306 km and 320 million people

That's over 150 times the land and 110 times the population. That IS many orders of magnitude, it's not bullshit at all. It's facts. That's all that needs to be said because those facts speak for themselves.

It's the same reason mass transit and a lot of public transportation is easier in many places in Europe and elsewhere in the world. When you have a fraction of the distance to cover, that is a LOT less track to lay, fuel, maintenance, manpower, employees, land tax, insurance, employee pay/benefits, buildings/facilities, etc and etc.

BoogieManFL:

Bullshit? How? The states that *just my ISP* covers is many times more area than your entire country.

Anyway, this isn't about just my ISP. You just can't compare a country that small, with a fraction of a fraction of the population and area just like it's so simple.

If it was, it would be done because that means more subscribers paying.

65,300 km and 2.9 million people

compared to:

9,857,306 km and 320 million people

That's over 150 times the land and 110 times the population. That IS many orders of magnitude, it's not bullshit at all. It's facts. That's all that needs to be said because those facts speak for themselves.

It's the same reason mass transit and a lot of public transportation is easier in many places in Europe and elsewhere in the world. When you have a fraction of the distance to cover, that is a LOT less track to lay, fuel, maintenance, manpower, employees, land tax, insurance, employee pay/benefits, buildings/facilities, etc and etc.

It seems that you lack basic logic here. since there is 110 times more people, this means there would be 110 times more subscribers assuming identical service (300/300 mbps, so i guess competition got nothing on it in US). This means that it would also be valid to assume that sicne they got 110 times more income they can cover 110 times more area and retain same profit margin.

This means that this 150 versus 110 (1.36 ratio) is not "many orders of magnitude", in fact its less than half of it. So that claim is complete and utter bullshit.

The reason public transport in Europe is better is because its actually supported. they get tax cuts, they get to use the infrastructure layed down by the government, they are used by many as real alternatives. meanwhile US does all it possibly can to ruin public transport, no wonder its in terrible state.

Strazdas:

BoogieManFL:

Bullshit? How? The states that *just my ISP* covers is many times more area than your entire country.

Anyway, this isn't about just my ISP. You just can't compare a country that small, with a fraction of a fraction of the population and area just like it's so simple.

If it was, it would be done because that means more subscribers paying.

65,300 km and 2.9 million people

compared to:

9,857,306 km and 320 million people

That's over 150 times the land and 110 times the population. That IS many orders of magnitude, it's not bullshit at all. It's facts. That's all that needs to be said because those facts speak for themselves.

It's the same reason mass transit and a lot of public transportation is easier in many places in Europe and elsewhere in the world. When you have a fraction of the distance to cover, that is a LOT less track to lay, fuel, maintenance, manpower, employees, land tax, insurance, employee pay/benefits, buildings/facilities, etc and etc.

It seems that you lack basic logic here. since there is 110 times more people, this means there would be 110 times more subscribers assuming identical service (300/300 mbps, so i guess competition got nothing on it in US). This means that it would also be valid to assume that sicne they got 110 times more income they can cover 110 times more area and retain same profit margin.

This means that this 150 versus 110 (1.36 ratio) is not "many orders of magnitude", in fact its less than half of it. So that claim is complete and utter bullshit.

The reason public transport in Europe is better is because its actually supported. they get tax cuts, they get to use the infrastructure layed down by the government, they are used by many as real alternatives. meanwhile US does all it possibly can to ruin public transport, no wonder its in terrible state.

Orders of magnitude of space and people compared to YOUR country, not those two figured to each other. I thought that was obvious. In fact, It think everyone else read it that way other than you since you obviously feel the need to "win" here.

You also assume everything always scales perfectly linearly. It does not.

What you say would be so simple, might be SOMEWHAT more plausible if the entire US was under one single ISP. Not even then, but even assuming it were it still wouldn't be so simple. However, since it is such a large area many places are operated by smaller ISP who cannot just spread anywhere they like due to money and manpower, not to mention if you were able to expand into a competitors region you'd have to worry about you know, competition. Just because you can offer a service in an area doesn't automatically mean any and all people in that region is going to use it like you incorrectly assume. So no, that doesn't mean they have that much more money now because of more people.

The main point here is you and people like you, always run off saying how what someone/something else is doing x wrong and how x way is better, all the while somehow actually believing everything is just so easy and simple and easy to do. Surely, something that works for a small region can magically work on a larger and more complex situation! Foolishness.

You talk as if there is only a small number of variables involved and that simply is not the case.

There is no more interesting conversation to be had here, so I'm done.

BoogieManFL:

Orders of magnitude of space and people compared to YOUR country, not those two figured to each other. I thought that was obvious. In fact, It think everyone else read it that way other than you since you obviously feel the need to "win" here.

You also assume everything always scales perfectly linearly. It does not.

What you say would be so simple, might be SOMEWHAT more plausible if the entire US was under one single ISP. Not even then, but even assuming it were it still wouldn't be so simple. However, since it is such a large area many places are operated by smaller ISP who cannot just spread anywhere they like due to money and manpower, not to mention if you were able to expand into a competitors region you'd have to worry about you know, competition. Just because you can offer a service in an area doesn't automatically mean any and all people in that region is going to use it like you incorrectly assume. So no, that doesn't mean they have that much more money now because of more people.

The main point here is you and people like you, always run off saying how what someone/something else is doing x wrong and how x way is better, all the while somehow actually believing everything is just so easy and simple and easy to do. Surely, something that works for a small region can magically work on a larger and more complex situation! Foolishness.

You talk as if there is only a small number of variables involved and that simply is not the case.

There is no more interesting conversation to be had here, so I'm done.

I have explained to you why that does not matter before you even uttered that phrase, so no it was not clear you are referring to that and even if you were you were still wrong.

you are once agian assuming that i am comparing single ISP here. there are many small and local ISPs here. where i live alone there are 8 to choose from. ISPs are MORE diversified here than in US, so in US it sohuld be easier because in most areas it IS under a single ISP.

Considering that you pay many times more for much slower internet, money per mile is certainly not a problem in comparison to population density. As far as manpower goes, i dont know, maybe there simply are no people in US that know how to lay cable, in which case i suggest importing some from other countries.

No, what i assumed is that you have userbase proportionately, if, say, 5% if people use internet in location X then 5% will use in locatuon Y. that may not be true in seperate locations, but i believe nationwide average pretty much averages simillary considering how necessary internet is in modern world.

you are done because you are simply spouting nonsense excuses and are caught doing it.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here