Slashdot Mirror
How Much Does a New Internet Cost?
wschalle writes "Given the recent flurry of articles concerning ISP over subscription, increasing bandwidth needs, and lack of infrastructure spending on the part of cable companies, I'm forced to wonder, what is the solution? How much would a properly upgraded internet backbone cost? How long would it take to make it happen? Will the cable companies step up before Verizon's FiOS becomes the face of broadband in America?"
It will always cost as much as you are willing to pay, and the upgrade does not matter here at all.
As long as they can get away with offering sub-par connectivity at premium prices, what incentive do they have to rock the boat? The only thing that can induce these telcos to make costly infrastructure upgrades is competition, which is in pretty short supply currently.
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
If the money was not being spent on the war it will have been spent on something else, certainly not the internet backbone.
Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
Perhaps the question should be re-framed. As an iPhone owner, the most damaging aspect of the product is the AT&T service. Edge blows on this thing. As a consumer in Chicago, city-wide wireless would be an incredible benefit to business. But, our shortsightedness, or the effective lobbying by various groups, makes us focus on their business rather than ours. I am also a small business person.
Whatever it is that we are being sold, it is ineffective at best and long-term incredibly damaging to education, business, and culture. In the states, we like to argue about the "issues" which is in effect lobbying, rather than the discuss the desired results. What kind of economy do we want? And, what do we need to achieve it?
Whether the computer is useful in education, whether the businesses we should focus on are large or small, or whether it costs too much are side issues at best. Our infrastructure and our priorities are unfortunately showing all to well lately.
Hey, I'm still waiting (been over SEVEN YEARS now) for AT&T to deliver DSL to my home. I've been using Comcast/Time Warner (expensive but relatively high bandwidth) for the last five. Cable companies have already spent billions to upgrade their infrastructure, only now are they running out of bandwidth. AT&T spent billions on acquisitions and millions on lobbiests to lock in their monopoly on the final mile. And I'm still waiting.
If that much money had been spent on internet infrastructure, we'd probably have 99% wireless penetration and 10Gbps fiber to the home for $30/month.
You really think $1,000 per capita could do that? Heck, the contractor would charge that much just to bury the last 50 feet to your house.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
This Ask Slashdot question makes the false assumption that there is one, and only one Internet backbone, and that the only way to upgrade is to replace it. As Foldoc shows, the so-called backbone is composed of a number of large-scale networks that interconnect. If you need more bandwidth, all that's needed is to add as much as you need and can afford.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
The answer is to create wireless mesh devices and take centralized control out of the equation entirely.
You'd still need a backbone to cross long uninhabited expanses, but that's all.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
So in other words, spending money on something stupid is ok because it would have been used on something stupid anyway? I realize trying to stop the government to spend money on useless think is an enormous game of whack-a-mole, but even I usually don't get that depressive.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I had to quote that word because it's getting ridiculous how often it's thrown around now.
Anyway, the government should make, lay, and lease the fiber to the service providers, or even create one themselves. It would provide a MAJOR employment boost for the people, most notably the linemen who would actually lay the fiber. The manufacturing of it isn't rocket science and from the top down you could hire people for it, from the designers to the janitors. Teams of men and women would go out and work on the network and that would probably be thousands of jobs, if only temporarily. Keep some on per region (or many depending on how hard it is to upkeep) and keep the manufacturing plants open to sell the fiber to businesses.
Lay it all out like we did the highway systems, charge Verizon, Time Warner et. al. to use it. If it breaks, it's like a pothole, fix it.
Make it a not for profit (as if the government wasn't already) take all money from it and put it back into the network, not into some bridge to no where.
Upgrade as necessary, keep the country moving forward, the internet is too important to the world to allow it to slow or crash (not that I fear a crash).
My name is Anonymous Coward and I am running for President.
To us it's the "cost of war". To the profiteers and pirates, it's the business of war. A very profitable business. Much more profitable than selling internet services.
What?
Yes, people are starving. Yes this site is US centric. Still, can't we have a tech discussion without the "people are starving" bullshit? Quit posting on slashdot and go feed them if its so important to you jackass.
you can't ack before you balls.. you just
Believe me, if you put up BPL in my neck of the woods, I could pump out a pretty powerful HF signal and be perfectly licensed to do so. Those power lines aren't just radiating antennas, they'll also pick up my HF signal. And since the whole BPL scheme is based on a 'live with the interference' clause, guess whose packets will end up fragmented into noise? Here's a clue: not my morse code.
Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
BPL is a red herring. Just think about what it's attempting: pushing broadband data over unshielded, unbalanced lines -- lines that are already carrying line current and are connected to all sorts of noisy equipment. You think that DSL is bad? At least those wires are designed for carrying information, and are wired in balanced loops, with circuits end-run to the DSLAMs -- and DSL sucks in most places already.
Using power lines combines the worst of DSL, unshielded wiring (even worse, since it's unbalanced), and shared-circuit cable internet. BPL was the power companies' attempt at cashing in on 'last mile mania'; the damage it would do to the radio spectrum is only the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to its problems.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Given the recent flurry of articles concerning ISP over subscription
That article seems to be about throttling BT bandwith. Thats not the same thing as over-subscription. Oversubscribing a network is when the service you are providing (say 5Mb DSL), multiplied by the number of clients is greater than the pipe you are feeding it. Let me give you a little hint, consumer DSL has been oversubscribed virtually from it's inception. I used to work at a company who developed provisioning automation software and when we first talked with vendors about our DSL offerings (this was back in the day when CLECs were popping up everywhere) they laughed that our product didn't support over-subscribing.
Why do they do this? Not sure but I'd lay a bet that their cost-model for DSL implementation was based on data from dial-up usage which was a far different behavior pattern than people use today. It could even be that they simply applied a model similar to POTS which is also designed for over-subscription. Ever get a fast busy signal instead of the usual slow one? In my hometown it was uncommon about 20 years ago (and today unheard of) but that's an all-circuits-busy signal.
Point here is that over-subscription isn't something new, neither is it a sign of the collapsing internet. It's just the model that telcos adopted because of some assumption about usage patterns. It is a reason to feel ripped-off though, since it's part of the reason you will virtually never get 6Mbps out of your 6Mb DSL line.
increasing bandwidth needs
This article really seems like it's about Cable infrastructure supporting IPTV. This, to me seems to be about the capacity of the cable network - NOT the internet, specifically about upstream traffic. I'm not an expert here and I don't think I'm willing to pay for the original article but I would expect there's a variety of technologies in play amongst cable providers. So how many cable providers this affects is the worthwhile question to ask.
I'm forced to wonder, what is the solution? How much would a properly upgraded internet backbone cost?
It's an interesting question but I don't see how any of the above forces you to wonder it.
and anytime you have long uninhabited expanses you have bottlenecks. With bottlenecks you have greedy monopolists and with greedy monopolists you have restricted access.
I don't believe there is any big network issue that cannot be fixed with technology today. I just don't think that any of the corps that have the power to change have the incentive to change. Until they do, or are pushed we'll keep on running out of internets like we have been for the last 20 years!
Move to another country like Japan or South Korea. It would probably be cheaper.
As an American living in Japan, the prospect of moving back to the US is quite dismal when considering broadband. Currently I'm paying about $50/mo. for 50 Mbps ADSL. NTT in the last couple of months has rolled out a fiber optic service for approx $90/mo. at 100Mbps. I don't live in Tokyo or any other big city you might think of when you think of Japan. I live in the boonies of Aomori Prefecture and it is available.
Click and be jealous/angry (if you're american) http://flets.com/english/opt/charge_opt_hf.html (there is still an ISP charge on top of this number which is why I said ~$90 earlier)
It's a shame and disgrace the US is so far behind... Verizon promoting their FiOS at 5Mbps as top-of-the-line is a joke. But hey, FCC says better deals/competition will come from all the telcom mergers... 10 years from now maybe the US will see 25 Mbps service!
The US DSL/cable/etc business model is built on a certain amount of oversubscription, just like (nearly) every network out there. I have worked for several companies, up to top 10 of the Fortune 500, and not a single one of them had a network that wasn't oversubscribed to a certain degree... even on the LAN (which is where it's the cheapest).
Those of you that work in a corporate environment with any density (>20 users on a floor, more than one floor)... If you've got a gigabit LAN, go ask your network guy if they have a 10-gig uplink for every 10 ports on the floor.
.
.
.
After he stops laughing and realizes you're serious, ask him why they are running an oversubscribed network. If he's on the design side, he'll end up telling you that you don't build a network for that level of traffic if it simply doesn't use it (most don't). The most likely place you're going to see a fully non-oversubscribed network is one that supports a supercomputer with many nodes. Even then you might see some.
It's just not economically feasible to build non-oversubscribed networks. Any of you know how much a card for a Cisco GSR that has just two OC-192 intermediate-reach ports on it is? MSRP is $585,000.
$585K for two 10 gigabit intermediate reach ports. And to build a non-oversubscribed network for a small community with say 2000 users on 8-meg cable connections that cost $60 a month. Gotta pay for the cable plant itself (to a certain degree), the fiber to link the customer-facing nodes (how much it cost to dig/hang/lay the fiber), the routers in the customer-facing nodes, the cards in the routers in those nodes (more bandwidth = higher cost cards), the distribution routers that link all the customer nodes together (and their cards), core routers with higher-speed interfaces to tie it all together if you have any decent number of distribution nodes (and their cards), peering routers to your upstream bandwidth provider (and cards), maintenance on every router/switch (which runs ~20-30% yearly over and above the purchase price), spares of a few of your most commonly-failing equipment, datacenter space, AC, cooling, engineering staff costs, field maintenance staff costs, systems administrators staff costs, 24x7 NOC staff costs, 24x7 helpdesk costs, multiple layers of management (each of those fields has to have management in an organization of any size), training costs to keep up on the latest developments, staff turnover costs, taxes... and that's before we've paid for one bit of peering bandwidth or even thought about making a profit - or considered what Mother Nature, backhoes, or out of control drunk drivers do to the equipment and fiber that make up the customer-facing network that sits in equipment sheds on concrete pads on the side of the road. And don't forget to add another 100% or so to all of those equipment costs, for redundancy. Don't want the whole east side of the city down because one port/device/fiber failed, do you?
There's a lot more than just a couple of Linksys gig switches and some cable RF converters that make up a cablemodem network. There's more than just a card in a phone switch that makes up a DSL network. The gear is very expensive, typically because there's lots of R&D that must go into the boxes to make them able to do what they do without having horrendous failure rates (which still happens sometimes).
Quick Google says we're pissing about $12,000,000,000 - $20,000,000,000 per MONTH away on Iraq. Where the F*CK do _YOU_ think we could get the money for domestic infrastructure?
Geez.
You know, there are _real_costs_ to letting a bunch of monkeys run free destroying a nation this size and we're the victims of it.
France is an example of how different public policy decisions produce different outcomes.
France is pursuing, roughly, the public policy that the US adopted in the mid-1990s: Unbundle the local loop, permit competitive interconnection, encourage competition for services over the incumbent's old wire. That was, in fact, the gist of the Telecom Act of 1996.
In 2001, the Cheney-Rove regime's new FCC executed an about-face. They decided that the Bells were to be the winners, And their competitors were not to be. Furthermore, the Bells saw the Internet as the real enemy, not local telephone competitors per se, so they were allowed to execute their strategy to knock off the ISPs while replacing it with their own marginal substitutes. The last stage, which has not yet happened, is to remove "neutrality" from their networks, replacing Internet access with a set of "broadband services" of their own, like kickback-selected shopping, censored "news", and pay-per-view "media" access. That could never happen with real competition. The FCC's excuse is that there's cable, and a duopoly is "enough" competition, especially with the imaginary "third pipe" that never really appears in any useful way.
France, in contrast, stayed the course. There are multiple ISPs sharing the old FT wire. So advances in DSL technology meant advances in available speeds, and reductions in DSLAM prices and backbone ISP rates meant reductions in DSL charges. It's not exactly peaches and cream for FT, but it's great for the economy as a whole.
I'd like to add some outside perspetive. Here in New Zealand, we only have two non-dailup internet options thanks to a goverment sposored monopoly: ADSL and microwave. Thanks to our aging phone system, our ADSL is the same speed as good dailup in the US, and Dailup is on par with nailing ones own hand to the table. What the microwave providers have done is produce a resonable speed and price connection that is slowly crawling down the contry. The odd thing is that ADSL will magicaly 'apear' in areas that have microwave towers going up. I used to live in a verry rural area where the only way to get any net at all was dailup, and then only at about 8kb/s (serious), the phone company claimed that it was too expesive to install the ADSL repeaters on the old phone hardware running there. Then the power company put up a microwave tower ofering high speed internet, and suddenly the phone company worked out how to do it. The piont I'm trying to make here is that if it's making companys money (especialy hand over fist) then you can have all the discusions about a new net you like, it's not going to happen unless the almighty buck says it is.
Read my blog you know you want to
For something as important today as the Internet, it's surprisingly fragile and primitive. It's amazing we've gotten this far; it's not clear that "more of the same" can happen.
;-)
One obvious problem, at least in the United States, is the "last mile" or if you prefer "first mile" problem. In maybe half of homes it's a cable/ILEC (old monopoly phone company) duopoly. Most of the rest can get cable or telco DSL. A fair share can't get either yet. FCC statistics are intentionally deceptive about this, counting ZIP codes that have even one "broadband" subscriber as being served, even if most of the area isn't. And their 200 kbps downstream definition of "broadband" is pathetic.
DSL is a mid-life kicker for old copper. Passive Optical Network-style fiber, as in FiOS, is also questionable as a long-term goal; like ADSL, it too is highly assymetric, and it's really too expensive. (I think Verizon is doing it mainly for political show, and will slow down. Besides, FiOS is bundled with Verizon Online, with its onerous rules and likelihood of draconian censorship in the mid-term future.)
Still, I think it's premature to count out cable technology. Hybrid Fiber-Coax is an evolutionary path to bring optical fiber to the home. A decade ago, it was first being rolled out with maybe 1000 homes per node (optical transition node, where a strand of fiber turned to coax) and up to three analog coax amplifiers on the coax side. Modern builds have maybe 50-100 homes/node and no amplifiers. Thus far fewer users share the same capacity. DOCSIS 3.0, now being tested (CableLabs is very strict on compatibility certification), uses more than one 6 MHz TV channel at a time in order to boost download speeds. And while upstream is still a bottleneck, DOSCIS 2.0 tripled upstream efficiency over the original cable modems; as each DOCSIS 1.x modem is phased out, overall capacity can increase. There are also tricks for boosting upstream on a point basis by using the spectrum above 900 MHz as well as below 42 MHz, while cable companies can also just drop off fiber at a location that really needs it (not a house, but a business or multiple-dwelling-unit site).
Next glitch: The protocols themselves. TCP/IP is from the 1970s, and while it's amazing how far it's gotten, it is really not designed for today's applications. IPv6 is the wrong approach -- tastes crappy, more filling. We really need an all-new protocol stack; it's not obvious how to phase it in though, or get consensus on a replacement. Remember TCP/IP happened because the government financed it for its own internal use (ARPAnet) and Berkeley produced open source code for it, so it became a de facto standard for multivendor corporate networks too. (This during the 1980s when OSI was supposed to be the standard, and most companies used their vendors' proprietary network technologies like DECnet, IPX, SNA and Wangnet.)
Plus there's the business issue: It's hard to make money providing Internet service. The early public ISPs were subsidized by the 1990s stock bubble. Telco/cable duopolies are potentially profitable (actually, telcos may still be losing money at it, though cable does better) but pure ISPs have a tricky time meeting demand with the kind of prices people want. Since there is usually no price feedback, users have no incentive to not do things that cost their ISP a lot of money (streaming HDTV, lots of big DVD downloads, etc., especially from distant sources). ISPs prefer the proverbial little old lady who just uses the computer to check email and stock prices a few times a week.
And FEMA, and various other Federal agencies, and the military, and ... the list of folks who would be interfered with by BPL is very long. The NTIA's comments to the FCC regarding BPL read something along the lines of, "Not only no, but fuck no!"
+++OK ATH
Norway, Sweden, Canada, Finland have lower pop. density than the US and better, MUCH BETTER broadband.
This stupid argument has been debunked a zillion times, including a few times in this very page already.
The only reason why broadband sucks in the US is because of CORRUPTION. Legal corruption, but corruption nonetheless.
How about using existing resources better instead? Why a website having a million visitors should send copy of the same thing million times across the globe?
Problem, for the most part, could be solved by developing a new delivery mechanism that's not endpoint-oriented, but resource-oriented (you don't care where you get your data from as long as you can be sure you're getting latest, unaltered copy of data you asked for).