Slashdot Mirror


Charter Launches 60 Mbps Service

ndogg writes "While other companies are throttling their services, and capping bandwidth, Charter Communications, the cable company, is launching a 60/5 Internet service, starting in St. Louis, MO. It's certainly not cheap, starting at 129.99 per month (add another 10 if it's not being bundled with television or phone.) Currently, it's the fastest down stream speed available, and being a cable company, they potentially have greater reach than FiOS." However, there may be a risk to putting too much money down on this service; Charter Communications as a company faces some serious financial problems right now. As reader Afforess writes, "rumors abound that Paul Allen may just cut his losses and run," by selling the company. (Allen is the majority stockholder.)

55 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. I want the Upstream by alain94040 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't care so much about the download speed of 60 Mbit/s (although it would allow streaming of live HD, which requires 6 - 10 Mbit/s sustained).

    What I'd love is the upload bandwidth of 5 Mbit/s. Forget about file swapping: the killer app for the family is video conferencing that works. Can you see me? I'm tired of the pixellized, ugly, breaking video chat on skype.

    Of course, I wouldn't trust a soon-to-be-bankrupt provider on anything, especially the promise that they don't plan to throttle the traffic. Yeah, right!

    --
    5 Reasons You Shouldnâ(TM)t Incorporate Your Business

    1. Re:I want the Upstream by Chabo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean outside of the industrialized world?

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    2. Re:I want the Upstream by mpaulsen · · Score: 5, Informative

      "They sell you internet access, you get it. Deal is done.

      Well, sure. Unless you count forging DNS results and deep packet inspection in order to insert ads into the sites you're visiting.
      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/15/0432259&from=rss
      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/13/1832256

    3. Re:I want the Upstream by athakur999 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can get symmetrical speeds with FIOS. Their 20/20 plan is $65/month. Of course, the usual disclaimers about limited FIOS availability apply.

      I use their 20/5 plan which is $10/month cheaper. 5 Mb/s is fast enough for all of the time critical upstream I need (VOIP and the occasional video call) and it's fast enough that I can get to a >1 share ratio on torrents in a reasonable amount of time. I'd rather put that $10 into savings instead.

      --
      "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    4. Re:I want the Upstream by sexconker · · Score: 2, Informative

      Charter is in bed with Universal and someone else.

      I looked into it a few years back when my parents got a warning letter for downloading some movie.
      (The letter was prompt and accurate.)

      No idea about the music side of things.

    5. Re:I want the Upstream by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 3, Informative

      What's with the fake signature block you have put into your comment? Trying to trick search engines into promoting your blog? Please stop abusing the system and only put your actual comment in the comment field.

    6. Re:I want the Upstream by vindimy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here at UCLA (which participates in Internet2 and CENIC and some other organizations), it's not uncommon to see 40 Mbps download/upload in offices and 25 Mbps download/upload through the campus-wide WiFi for students. I can get WinXP SP3 in around 5 seconds...

      Not to brag - I actually fear what might happen if some worm or hacker gets access to such high-speed network... :/

    7. Re:I want the Upstream by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Informative

      Simple. Because they (you?) are the most powerful country (in military terms).

      You can't have both. Or in other words: Because you spent all the money on wars.

      {sigh} why is it that you people always try to sell Americans on the idea that we spent all our money on wars and thus must have less than you in other areas? Your logic is faulty, and your conclusion suspect (although I'm sure it makes you feel all warm inside just thinking that Americans will never have faster broadband than you because we have more guns than you.) I hate to break this to you, but the two are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, there's your reality check (since yours has obviously bounced.)

      This has zip to do with Federal expenditures on our military, and has everything to do with the private sector here being run by greedy fucks that are nickel-and-diming us back to dial-up, all the while doing their damnedest to offer us less for more. We're loaded with dark fiber at the moment (laid during the DotCom bubble) that, if it were actually lit up, would give us more than enough capacity to be competitive on the world scene. But it's kept dark because certain large corporations make more money by inducing artificial scarcity (kinda like the music industry, but that's a story for another day.) In fact, if you've been keeping up on your Slashdot, you'd know that our Telcos got about two hundred billion dollars in tax breaks, granted in exchange for their providing high-speed connections to all. They reneged on the deal ... but kept the money.

      Simple, really. You just have to have a few facts at your command.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:I want the Upstream by gandhi_2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because we were set up for liberty, not free bullshit. You want the government to give you everything? There are plenty of countries just waiting for you.

    9. Re:I want the Upstream by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, it's fairly well known that early adopters take the R&D hit. That was us....we invested all the infrastructure that made it all possible. Other countries got to buy in once the tech was refined, and weren't saddled with old-investment gear.

    10. Re:I want the Upstream by Llian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This has nothing to do with it. Only to do with regional areas not having super fast broadband. The telco's just don't want to invest anymore, and with your economy as it is, well.... a large handout would be needed.

      As for pop. density, try Oz. Ours sucks even in the populated areas.

    11. Re:I want the Upstream by Daengbo · · Score: 2, Informative

      What planet are you living on? Outside of Europe and Japan, everyone's at least as screwed as the US when it comes to broadband.

      Every time I go into a supermartket, I'm beaten over the head with 100Mb/s service for about USD25 a month with a year contract. No caps. I don't know the upstream and I'm too lazy to switch off of my current service at about 50Mb/s for the same price.

      XPeed. 100Mb/s. Add Korea to your list.

    12. Re:I want the Upstream by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      no no! not what i'm saying at all.

      fill in the blank: early adopters get ____ed.

      our greedy companies, municipalities, and people bought into a technology. they don't want to see their investment wasted...so they are reluctant to upgrade.

      i do tech in a school district. this happens all the time: i go to trash some old gear to make room for new gear. someone stops me and says "we paid a lot of money for this!" this attitude is pervasive and by no means american...doesn't matter if we run T1 in the era of WAN-PHY...someone payed good money for that T1 CSU/DSU.

    13. Re:I want the Upstream by lysergic.acid · · Score: 3, Informative

      yep, South Korea is also rolling out 100 Mbps symmetric broadband to residential subscribers. FttH is the future, but there's pretty much zero deployment here in the U.S. 100Mbps symmetric FttH is the standard for municipal networks (something the U.S. is too backward to grasp, apparently) in Scandinavia and the "competitive bar" in France. it's the standard in Japan as well, but they're now upgrading residential connections to 1 Gbps.

      most of these countries with advanced infrastructures have per-megabit rates well below $1.00--i think japan is around $0.22 per megabit, though KDDI is planning to offer (or is already offering) 1 Gbps at ¥5985/month, which translates to $66.21/month at the current exchange rate, or $0.06/Mbps. compare that with 60 Mbps at $129/month = $2.15/Mbps. though i suppose that's better than Comcast's 50 Mbps "wideband" service that's $150/month = $3.00/Mbps--and that's for asymmetric bandwidth.

      and yet there are still people defending American ISPs' outmoded business model & outmoded thinking. instead of updating our communications infrastructure to accommodate the growing number of high bandwidth applications coming into the mainstream, ISPs are trying to artificially suppress the demand for bandwidth through packet shaping, bandwidth throttling, and generally controlling how people use their internet connections.

      of course, those ISP apologists argue that residential internet connections should only be used for checking e-mail and surfing the web, which apparently doesn't include streaming media. it's like we're still stuck in the 90's. apparently, instead of the ISPs building/adapting their business model around consumer habits and current usage trends, it's the consumers who are supposed to change their internet usage habits to fit the ISPs' business model (of overselling & charging more for less).

      we're basically sacrificing our society's technological progress to preserve the obsolete business models of companies with outdated attitudes about the internet. if it weren't for their near-unregulated monopolies, most of these companies would have tanked a long time ago.

    14. Re:I want the Upstream by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lets say you start a company. You own the company, it is your property...like your skateboard or television. You have the right, because you own it, to do with it as you see fit.

      Now you hire an employee. You agree to a contract that specifies certain work/compensation terms, which may/may not include paid vacation. You don't have to offer those things....the person doesn't have to sell you his/her work. That contract is property of you both.

      Now here comes the government. "You have to give them 60 days of paid vacation." Nice...so the company what WAS your property now has the government making decisions. That is NOT liberty.

      happiness

      That happiness is a result of governments making great choices for you, or you making good choices for yourself?

      Like I said, America was set up for liberty. It wasn't set up to give stuff to people who can't be asked to get it themselves. I'm not like some people, claiming the US is #1 at this or that. I don't care. If fiber-to-my-doghouse, as cool as that would be, means having governments controlling every facet of life...then you can keep it.

      This all aside the fact that France, for example with it's silly labor laws, ran about 9.5-11% unemployment BEFORE the recession. Hiring someone there is a major liability because you don't own your own property. Protectionism is the only thing keeping French employed. But hey, feel free to continue your march toward a proletarian utopia.

    15. Re:I want the Upstream by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "You can't have both. Or in other words: Because you spent all the money on wars."

      Well, it isn't like that money is thrown away...lots of companies and US citizens working for them make money off those wars....a great deal of it is pumping money back into the US economy.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    16. Re:I want the Upstream by wzzzzrd · · Score: 2

      why is it that you people always try to sell Americans on the idea that we spent all our money on wars and thus must have less than you in other areas?

      because we're right? look at the budget your country spents on the military. the thing after "why is it" actually is true. mod me troll, but you even (so does the eu) get the democracy thing wrong. ever wondered what the poli means in "politician" or "police"? it means city state. democrazy doesnt work with that much people around. marx was a scientist. not an agitator. but yea, obama will make it all right, sure.

      --
      On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
    17. Re:I want the Upstream by tsa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You got ripped off by your government. If the ISPs didn't hold their part of the bargain they should be forced to give the money back with interest. That would probably mean all of them going bankrupt, which is good because new, small companies can then take over. Small companies are prone to listening to their customers because that is what they need to survive.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    18. Re:I want the Upstream by palegray.net · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, this is Occam's Razor. You misspelled his name, too. Wow.

  2. Full power by Panspechi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just plug it straight into my veins... oh yeah, that's the good stuff.

    1. Re:Full power by sxeraverx · · Score: 2, Funny

      FttB? (Fiber to the Brain)

  3. A juicy point from the article. by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to Fawaz, Charter will not impose bandwidth-usage caps on any of its high-speed Internet subscribers. By contrast, Comcast's policies limit users to 250 Gigabytes of data consumption per month.

    Nice. Very nice. I guess there are providers out there interested in competing on the technical merits of their service, while giving the consumers what they want.

    1. Re:A juicy point from the article. by Swordopolis · · Score: 2

      Speaking as someone who is using Charter internet to type this comment right now, their service is awful. It costs too much, the tech support and service people are crap, and it COSTS TOO MUCH. We could be getting DSL from the phone company for half of what we pay now, but their high-speed service area stops about a mile from our house. And we're definitely not going back to dial up. As soon as we can get internet from AT&T, we're ditching Charter's services and going to a dish. Charter isn't interested in "technical merits" or anything of the kind. They're merely interested in staying afloat.

      --
      Alchemist: Be Thou For the People
    2. Re:A juicy point from the article. by calmofthestorm · · Score: 2

      I was stuck with these bastards for a year. They went out of their way to get file sharers (this was two years ago before it was cool), had terrible speeds (we were lucky to get 100 kbps down and we were on a 10Mbps plan), and frequent outages.

      It was slower to connect to my school's servers from two blocks away than from 2000 miles away in Michigan (using a Comcast "5Mbps" connection that was 2/3 the price)

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
  4. Lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Charter stock trades at 9 cents a share today. That's up from 8 cents yesterday.

  5. chapter 11 by fredan · · Score: 5, Informative

    from wikipedia:

    "On January 28, 2009, Charter Communications reportedly filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy."

    Charter Communications

    1. Re:chapter 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now it says:

      "On January 28, 2009, Charter Communications reportedly set up us the bomb."

  6. Speed isnt everything by sempiterna · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a previous charter customer, I wont ever re-subscribe to charter if I have the choice of providers. For the first year I had charter latency was worse than dial up. All their customer service would tell us is that "It's a known issue and it's bound to improve.. sometime." No credits, no refunds, just.. that's how it is, deal with it or cancel your account. After they upgraded their backbone, they blocked port 25, 80, 110, and most of the server ports inbound, and their upload speed was really, really poor. (5 mbs service, with 128k upload MAX) I would not want 60mbs internet if they blocked nearly everything I want to do on the internet.

  7. What's the big deal? by JoonasD6 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    1. Re:What's the big deal? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, but then I'd be living in Finland.

      Not. Gonna. Happen.

  8. fastest? by MoFoQ · · Score: 4, Informative

    fastest? no.
    As an example, there are several providers that have 1Gbps (1000Mbps) service in Japan
    here's one
    here's another

    Maybe the fastest for US cable internet companies thus far but it's nowhere near being the fastest, period.

  9. Charter's Goin' DOWN... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Informative

    Incedently, Charter is Paul Allen's company. They are bleeding money right now with a stock price of... EIGHT CENTS! They've been skirting insolvency for a few years now and the Securities and Exchange Commission is saying that if they fail to refinance some of their debt, they will be forced into bankruptcy.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008683150_charter29.html

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  10. Why the lame upload? by Hsensei · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love the 20/20mb/s service i get with FiOS. My friends leech off my FTP at 1MB/s. and for only 70 USD. I wanted the upload, I could care less about down. I do cheer more competition in these speeds that can only help bring prices down across the board.

    --
    ~
    1. Re:Why the lame upload? by sexconker · · Score: 2, Informative

      COULDN'T CARE LESS.

  11. It's cable. by DurendalMac · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is a cable connection. Sure, they advertise 60Mbps, but your mileage will vary, namely far down. In the evening you will likely NEVER hit that, especially if a lot of people in your neighborhood are online. That'll saturate a shared cable region in no time. That and your latency is probably going to suck. Maybe I'm just bitter, but I just ditched Commiecast 8Mbps service for 7Mbps DSL and I'm happy as hell that I did. No more random connection drops, no more shitty latency spikes, just a clean connection so far. I hate cable.

    1. Re:It's cable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The limit for one 256bit QAM is 38.8mbps. This means that Charter is using a second QAM channel (must be using a DOCSIS 3 modem) to provide the extra bandwidth. If anything, this effectively doubles the amount of bandwidth they have with only a select few customers taking full advantage of it.

      At the Cable Expo in Philadelphia last summer, I saw demonstrations of 150mbps synchronous connections on coax cable using 4 QAM's.

      Seems like if they do it right, all of their customers in this market will benefit from it.

  12. In Southeast Michigan... by GPLDAN · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Charter is the cable company in rural areas, while Comcast gets the major cities. This is one of those areas that I don't fully understand the legislation at the state level that would allow this. How does Comcast get Ann Arbor, Brighton, most of the Detroit suburbs and Charter has to handle the rural areas of Livingston, Jackson, Washtenaw, Wayne, etc.

    What a brilliant deal for Comcast. They get densely populated areas where their return on infrastructure investments are the best, and where more affluent people live, and Charter gets to handle all the heavy lifting of running a cable network in the hard to reach places.

    I always wondered how that cherry-pick arrangement came to pass, if any of you know, please respond because that would perhaps enlighten us as to Charter's financial woes.

    On the flip side of that, I visited a datacenter for Charter and it was really nice, obvious they spent alot on it.

    Oh, and BTW, Charter filed Chapter 11 yesterday.

    1. Re:In Southeast Michigan... by Gybrwe666 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Its very simple, really, and there is nothing sinister or state-regularted about it (which, in some minds, might be the same thing...

      Charter grew up like every other cable provider: acquisition. Cable franchises are granted on a city (or county) by city (or county) basis. In other words, Charter (or a company it acquired) negotiated at some point with the municipalities in question and bought the rights to provide service.

      So, they bought those cities.

      Note that rural areas are generally much cheaper for a cable company to expand into. Two reasons: one, franchises are cheaper, because of the lower number of potential subscribers, and two, in a rural area the costs associated with building a system are *RADICALLY* cheaper. For instance, in the county of Charters HQ (St. Louis, County, Missouri) the average cost per foot (inclusive) to lay fiber is about $8/foot. (Okay, this was the cost in 2002, but it will suffice for this discussion.) However, if you across the river from St. Louis, into Southern Illinois (also Charter territory) the cost per foot averages about $2 per foot. (also 2002 figures). In other words, a sparsely populated, more rural or rural area *CAN* be a cheap acquisition and buildout for a provider. Obviously, this is dependent on simple cost-ratios, and there will come a point where an area is simply too underpopulated to cost-effectively support.

      Also, you have to look at Charter's history to understand why they have lots of rural populations under their belts. The original founders, headed up by Jery Kent, all lived in rural areas of Missouri. When Paul Allen bought into the company, he had completely and totally bought into the "wired world" concept. As a result, between the founders (who desparately wanted service in areas nearly and hour from the edges of St. Louis), Jerry Kent, and the relative cheapness of such systems, there was a gold-rush mentality on these outlying systems that no one wanted.

      So Charter ended up in lots of smaller systems and areas.

      Not necessarily a bad business plan, just one they screwed up with some unrelated decisions much later.

      Bill

  13. We know. We don't care. by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To all the people who are going to point out how much better broadband is elsewhere.

    How much do you pay for an 1100 sq ft (102 m^2) apartment? How much do you pay for energy? For gas? For food?

    Do you REALLY want to get in to a cost of living comparison between, say, Tokyo and here? Because I will GLADLY accept my crappy 12Mbps Comcast internet in exchange for 3-4 times more living space.

    And, by the way, "gigabit" Internet service often isn't. My university has "gigabit" Internet service (in that the computer labs are wired with GigE and 10G uplinks), but the entire campus shares 4Gbps of Internet bandwidth. For anything but other universities (Internet2) or Akamai (local mirror), it's not significantly faster than the 12Mbps Comcast I have at my apartment. Of course, the fact that everyone is torrenting probably has something to do with that.

    1. Re:We know. We don't care. by Yuuki+Dasu · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem with your argument is that you assume that only Tokyo has good broadband. The whole country has amazing connectivity.

      How much do you pay for an 1100 sq ft (102 m^2) apartment? How much do you pay for energy? For gas? For food?

      I live in a city of about 80k people, about 45 minutes from Kyoto. I live alone in an apartment that's a very comfortable size for me - over 400 sq ft - and pay only about $400 a month in rent. Even in winter I only pay about $45 a month in electricity. Public transportation and my bike mean I don't even know offhand the price of gas. Food, I can cook for myself cheaply or go out to low-end restaurants for around $10.

      My 50mbps cable costs me $40 a month.

  14. Is it just me, or is this slow? by geekmux · · Score: 2, Informative

    I guess it's just me, or the local market I live in, but I can get 50/5 fiber service for $80/month now. WiMAX services in the area offer up to 150/150 (no, that's not a typo).

    Local university speed tests are pushing 90 down and 80 up.

    I guess I'm just lucky in my area. Always has seemingly been ahead of the bandwidth curve. Nothing against others offering this, as it's definitely fast.

    1. Re:Is it just me, or is this slow? by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess it's just me, or the local market I live in, but I can get 50/5 fiber service for $80/month now. WiMAX services in the area offer up to 150/150

      Gee thanks for all that info. Too bad you were so much more interested in talking about yourself than in actually passing any useful information along that you left out where your "local market" actually is.

    2. Re:Is it just me, or is this slow? by geekmux · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess it's just me, or the local market I live in, but I can get 50/5 fiber service for $80/month now. WiMAX services in the area offer up to 150/150

      Gee thanks for all that info. Too bad you were so much more interested in talking about yourself than in actually passing any useful information along that you left out where your "local market" actually is.

      First off, as a fellow smart ass, I can recognize a compliment. Spank you very much.

      Secondly, to answer your question, my local market is the Tampa Bay area.

      (That would be in Florida.)

      (Florida, the one in the United States.)

      (In case you were wondering...)

    3. Re:Is it just me, or is this slow? by geekmux · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah, Florida, the SPAM state. Kinda makes sense when you think about it. You guys need the bandwidth to stay in business ;^)

      "This isn't Russia. Is this Russia? This isn't Russia."

      (Sorry, couldn't resist that obligatory quote, even though I live across the bay from St. Petersburg)

  15. Re:In Sweden ... by etnoy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, BBB charges 270SEK (around $34) for 100/40mbps. I'm on it right now, and it is fast! Also, telephony included and I get a fixed IP, no download cap and all ports open in all directions.

    --
    Quantum hacker.
  16. Well that explains it... by Miseph · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd never realized that Paul Allen had anything to do with Charter, let alone ran it. I admit that I did very little homework on them before signing up... just enough to find out they were the only viable broadband option available to me where I live (DSL is too far from a switch and therefore very slow, there are no other cable companies in the municipality because of an exclusivity contract, and there's simply no way I can afford a T# or satellite connection). I also soon found out that they're ridiculously overpriced, have terrible customer support, routinely underserve their customers and can't even manage a channel numbering system that remotely reflects the actual FCC granted channels the networks broadcast over.

    It figures that only a company run by a Microsoft exec could actually make my blood boil worse than Comcast.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    1. Re:Well that explains it... by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It figures that only a company run by a Microsoft exec could actually make my blood boil worse than Comcast.

      Allen was co-founder and left Microsoft in 1983. He's hardly to blame for what's happened since.

    2. Re:Well that explains it... by Vertana · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have Charter and routinely have charges that don't add up. Only those $2 agent fees of course... agents that I never talk to because they don't know anything (although that's every ISP)? And once my Internet went down and after a few phone calls to Charter, they sent over a technician under the understanding that if it was due to a problem on my side of the network (I.e. cables, my LAN, etc.) then I would have a charge, however, if the problem lay on their end, they would not charge me. Turns out they accidentally disabled my connection... and then charged me a $35 dollar technician fee anyway. I was irate to say the least (we didn't have Internet for 3 days and they charged me for it!). I have constant outages, and my bills are routinely in the $75-$85 region, just for Internet. Why can't I go somewhere else? Because they are the only option.

      --
      "The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec^2" -Marcus Dolengo
  17. Yah, right! by Vskye · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just from my personal experience with Charter.. in our area I had their 5MB down service and it sucked bad. I was getting just a tad above 56k modem speeds most times and I called support and lucky me, I wandered into a bunch of script reading droids in India. I got so pissed off, when I went and paid the bill I brought the modem with me and told them I canceled, for good.

    I have AT&T DSL service now and I've been happy. (about 4 blocks from the switching office)
     
    Personally they'll never be able to offer that fast of service here.

    --
    Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
  18. That only applies if money is fixed by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not. Money is just a theoretical construct that helps facilitate trade. It isn't a magical, limited substance that makes something out of nothing. It is just a theoretical notion of stored value.

    Thus on large scales it doesn't function as it does in your personal life. You find that situations where everyone spends more money, causes everyone to get more. Everyone does more, so more is produced so everyone has more wealth. You'll sometimes hear this referred to as "money velocity" meaning how fast it circulates through the economy. That is in fact a large part of the current recession: People and institutions are pulling in to their shells and spending less, which slows down the flow of money.

    Also there is the fact that military spending has civilian benefits. One of them would be right on topic here: the Internet. It was created by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency as ARPANET. They were researching highly resilient networks for government use, and out of that grew what is now the Internet. As a more directly military application there's GPS. It was developed to let the US military accurately locate vehicles, soldiers, bombs and so on. It is still owned and operated by the military. However since being opened to civilians it has become THE primary method of geolocation for everything. Aircraft, boats, etc all use GPS to figure out where they are and only use other systems should it fail. Maybe some day there'll be a non-military system as well in the form of the EU's Galileo but thus far it has been mired in politics and isn't up.

    So it isn't as though military spending is some vast black hole form which money never returns. To look at it that way either means you have never looked at the civilian benefits that come from it (trauma surgery is another), that you don't understand economics on a large scale, or both.

    1. Re:That only applies if money is fixed by Wildclaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not. Money is just a theoretical construct that helps facilitate trade. It isn't a magical, limited substance that makes something out of nothing. It is just a theoretical notion of stored value.

      You get some of it, but still manage to get the whole thing so wrong.

      Yes, money is just paper. The real currency is everything that is produced in a country. And that is a limited resource. If you produce one thing you won't have time/resources to produce another thing. Of course, using trading you can make production more efficent. But only to a certain degree.

      In the end however, money speaks the truth. If x% of your GDP goes to military spending, then that is x% that isn't spent on more useful things.

      You find that situations where everyone spends more money, causes everyone to get more. Everyone does more, so more is produced so everyone has more wealth.

      This is only true if you have serious unemployment or production downtime. And even then, the goverment is better off higher people for civilian purposes (like digging down infrastructure) than it is hiring people to blow up other countries.

      Also there is the fact that military spending has civilian benefits

      Sure, you get the occasional civilian benefit. But, again, you would be better off investing it towards civilian efforts immediatly, getting rid of the 90% that does little but blow up stuff.

      that you don't understand economics on a large scale, or both.

      Sounds like you are the one who don't understand economy on the big scale. Broken windows aren't good for the economy, even if allows the money to circulate more.

    2. Re:That only applies if money is fixed by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, you get the occasional civilian benefit.

      I'm glad you're able to use the "occasional" benefit to type your messages on the Internet. If putting money towards civilian efforts is faster, why didn't some other country beat the USA to the Internet?

      The issue is not military spending. It is a decision to allow private companies to control the expansion of broadband to civilian homes rather than the government. Undo that one decision and everything changes.

      Yeah, that "occasional civilian benefit" line caught my eye as well. The interesting thing about the United States is that it has been far more willing to share the wealth when it comes to commercial spinoffs of once-military technologies than, say, the old Soviet Empire. The world has benefitted greatly from the Internet (of course), satellites (weather prediction, communications, research, you name it) and lots of other applications of technologies that the U.S. originally developed for military purposes. We ought to get a little credit for the trillions of dollars in global economic development that have resulted from such investments on our part.

      Anyone making the claim that United States military spending was of no benefit to the U.S. or the world is full of little red ants.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  19. done with Charter, down with Charter by TheFlamingoKing · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I had Charter for years before Verizon brought FiOS into the area. It wouldn't matter if they had quantum routers that somehow got the internet to me microseconds before someone finished writing it; I am not enough of a sadist to do business with that black hole of customer service ever again.

    If Comcast is really worse than Charter as I hear, I literally weep for their subscriber base.

  20. Cable can compete against FIOS by sponga · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember all the naysayers about how cable was doomed and that docsis 3.0 was vaporware, FIOS was supposed to be the next big thing. Well it came to my area as one of the first places in the nation and "mehhhh" is all I have to say, but luckily our city council has their heads screwed on straight and demanded more speeds/options for their citizens. FIOS could blow them out of the water, but they hold back or you have to cough up big bucks to get real fiber speeds.

    As far as I can see, FIOS has laid down the fiber and they are still withholding speeds in a lot of areas where service is available.

    Alone head to head FIOS has faster speeds, but might be a little more expensive and you have to sign a damn contract with them for a couple years.
    I found my ping to actually be better on cable than the same FIOS line coming into the home, roommate has FIOS and I have cable internet because triple package is cheaper.

    TWC is doing the same thing nationwide with the implementation of docsis 3.0, since they skipped 2.0.

    Although to be honest, 99% of the websites/server out there do not even supply the speeds close to max out the connection of fiber. Everyone on FIOS trying to download at max speed will never work, streaming already works pretty good and this will be a glory to P2p/Warez scene.

  21. Re:Speaking as someone... by Grem135 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nothing wrong with St. Louis.... not sure about a place that charges $105 for a paltry 1.5/0.5 line.. just wonder what else they rape you for........ BTW, I pay $37 a month for my 10/1 meg line.... in St. Louis.. they dont throttle me and use as much of that BW as i can.... need some more hdds. lol