Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

2 Chinese ISPs Serve 20% of World Broadband Users

Posted by timothy on from the easier-to-choke-down-on dept.

suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: "If you need a reminder of just how big China is—and just how important the Internet has become there—consider this stat: between them, two Chinese ISPs serve 20 percent of all broadband subscribers in the entire world and both companies continue to grow, even as growth slows significantly in more developed markets. Every other ISP trails dramatically. Japan's NTT comes in third with 17 million subscribers, and all US providers are smaller still. 'The gap between the top two operators and the world's remaining broadband service providers will continue to grow rapidly,' said TeleGeography Research Director Tania Harvey. 'Aside from the two Chinese companies, all of the top ten broadband ISPs operate in mature markets, with high levels of broadband penetration and rapidly slowing subscriber growth.'"

82 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. ALIRIGHT CHINA POWER !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Cat Power is better for all

  2. And they only get 20% of the internet? by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or something like that.

    --
    Error 404 - Sig Not Found
    1. Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? by Soilworker · · Score: 1

      Someone could convert both ISP prices and statistics to compare with our ISPs ?

    2. Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On average, Internet access is ~30% cheaper in China than in the US, which is actually fucking expensive for China if you consider the average salary in China vs. average Salary in the US.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    3. Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Yeah well, They're catching up.. Yet another nail in our coffin

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? by icebike · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What constitutes broadband in China?

      Its commonly claimed (usually with little in the way of statistics) that what qualifies as broadband in the USA would not be considered broadband in other countries.

      (Usually the comparison countries are European, where there is a strong state funded telecom authority.)

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? by Nursie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why another nail in the coffin?

      If their pay catches up then they lose the competetive advantage and investment in the US becomes more viable again, surely?

    6. Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? by maxume · · Score: 1

      People think economics is like a pie, and they do done wanna git theirs.

      (Really, it is more like a bakery)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Because American are letting their wages and working conditions decline. They don't have to, but they are. It's like they've just given up... Acquiescing to whatever authority tells them to... "for the children" or "their own safety". Americans go down on their knees to it, while in China, where it is expected (by western standards), is turning out to be full of surprises. American politics has become a farce. And for such a young country, its demeanor is more like that of a grumpy old man that completely collapses with the slightest disruption. Or screams like a little girl when it sees a mouse, then wants to nuke it. A real flash in the pan it is turning out to be. It literally is crumbing before our eyes. China isn't putting the US into its coffin. The Americans put themselves there. The only thing they want is to beat up the kid, for the wife to bring the beer (Goddammit! You think it opens itself? WHACK!), and put on the game, and TV dinner hot and on the table precisely at six. It's like a demented version of the Honeymooners.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    8. Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      That illusion must be maintained to keep the slave trade alive.

      If there are no poor people, who will do the work?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    9. Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? by maxume · · Score: 1

      What, which is the illusion? Is it what people think, is it the pie or is it the bakery?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      The pie.. there can only be one

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  3. Choice by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And I bet the two ISPs serve different regions, in which case citizens wouldn't even get to choose between A and B.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Choice by creat3d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem to confuse American Idol/football stats with "accurate information on world affairs" or "unfiltered news on one's own country/government"... Do you work for the Chinese government or are you always this stupid?

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
    2. Re:Choice by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Because of all the things Chinese citizens could possible complain about, which state-owned pipe to the great firewall to choose from is totally going to rank in the top 5?

    3. Re:Choice by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

      Well, a quick internet search pulled up 20 different ISP's in China so it might not be as clean cut as A or B.

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    4. Re:Choice by elvesrus · · Score: 1

      Just think. In China, the government actually pays you to be a pro China forum troll.

    5. Re:Choice by koxkoxkox · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly, at least in the Beijing area where I live. They precisely delimited which area each company serve, and redirect you to the other one if you call them but are not in their area.

    6. Re:Choice by euyis · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually there're choices - some time earlier the huge China telecommunications company broke up and became two separate corporations, with Netcom (later merged with Unicom as per orders from the government in order to "create more competition" and "optimize the structure") serving north China and Telecom serving south. They expanded into the rival's territories rapidly and actually competed with each other at the beginning, but the two biggest ISPs soon realized that competition was not a good idea for them and signed a "truce" restricting themselves to current distribution, for Telecom no further north and Netcom no further south.

      And the "choices" are nothing more than different flavours of the same shit - you get the same shitty Internet (eh, Intranet with some access to outside) with different ISP advertisements (deep packet inspection & inserting HTML codes) fucking up your pages and trojan horse PPPoE dialers.

    7. Re:Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I've lived in Beijing (4 different locations), Dongguan and Shenzhen.

      In most cases you can choose from both Unicom(CNC) and Telecom. Just the older buildings typically cannot because, indeed, in the past, the market was divided. The real scam though is, that the many local/community/building ISP there are not allowed to peer with International ISP's. This means your International traffic will always go through Unicom(CNC), Telecom or, sometimes, China Mobile.

    8. Re:Choice by Urkki · · Score: 1

      And does that really matter? These people have more important things to do in life than to argue about little things over their internet connections.

      Competition is the only thing that is able to drive prices lower without creating shortages. No competition means higher prices. Higher prices means more time spent on working, and/or less money for other activities in life.

      In other words, unless you consider doing more work to get money to be able to afford internet connection more important than the internet connection itself, yes it does matter.

    9. Re:Choice by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      oligopolies

      Oligopolies in our democtatorship? Oh noes!! If there's more than one legitimate choice, it's not a monopoly. And just because a company is run by more than one person, I wouldn't call the market an oligarchy.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  4. The view from the other side... by thej1nx · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The statement in the article could also be translated, less flatteringly, to "Rest of the world has already achieved adequate penetration of internet for most of their population, while China still has long way to go".

    Keep in mind that in already saturated markets, like Tania Harvey says, growth of the market becomes pretty slow. Almost everyone in Japan, for example, already uses internet on PC or their cellphones etc. The companies may get customers to switch between them, but finding new customers is much harder.

    Not to mention the "quality" of internet, one gets in China, what with half of it being blocked out/censored anyways. Long way to go before they catch up with the rest of the world.

    1. Re:The view from the other side... by Reason58 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the "quality" of internet, one gets in China, what with half of it being blocked out/censored anyways.

      If half the internet is blocked then that means their connection is effectively twice as fast!

    2. Re:The view from the other side... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the "quality" of internet, one gets in China, what with half of it being blocked out/censored anyways.

      Give Australia some time... They don't seem content to play second fiddle in that department.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    3. Re:The view from the other side... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      You are also theoretically missing out on the half of the internet that is porn (if the filters actually worked as well as claimed). And that means that for at least half the population, the internet experience is not "better".

  5. Developing vs. Developed by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is this really news?

    At all levels, China's GDP continues to grow while western nations stagnate or creep forward. China is developing while the west has already developed it products and service offerings. Eventually, they will reach a saturation point like the west and slow down. But get ready to accept them as the 1# economic super power when that happens. Simply put, they have far more human resources to tap into. The only thing holding them back right now is local politics.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Developing vs. Developed by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your post should be modded funny. China's growth has only started when and to the extent to it opened it's economy to capitalism. It's nothing to do with central planning. It's to do with selling off its vast population as a cheap labor force for capitalist (initially mostly Western, Japanese and Taiwanese, and more recently Chinese) companies.

      Btw, sure you can accomplish a specific goal in the short term if you turn a nation of 100 million into 100 million slave laborers dedicated to that goal, and sacrifice a few million lives in the process, but that strategy ain't gonna work for long. Can't believe there are still Stalin apologists around today.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    2. Re:Developing vs. Developed by EEPROMS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are seriously deranged if you think China "with over 500 million people earning less than $2 a day" (higher than India) is a economic light for the rest of us to follow. The reality is China needs 12% growth just stop going backwards when compared to the west.

    3. Re:Developing vs. Developed by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      One piece of data for those thinking China is just about to take over: China GDP per capita $6,500 (slightly better than Namibia, slightly worse than El Salvador). by comparison USA: $46,000. As far as living standards go, China has a looong way to go and some major transformations on the way. Selling off your population as cheap labor force is only gonna take you so far. You pretty soon have to deal with the fact that the increasingly well off population starts demanding certain things that a totalitarian government is not well suited to provide. Planned economy can never compete with a true capitalist economies and pretty soon the communist party will have to either allow true economic liberty (as opposed to piecemeal like now), which inevitably will lead for demands for political liberty, or it will resist the change and stifle China's growth and cause more political problems for itself. Yoda: I see a great disturbance in China the moment meteoric growth slows down.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    4. Re:Developing vs. Developed by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

      One piece of data for those thinking China is just about to take over: China GDP per capita $6,500 (slightly better than Namibia, slightly worse than El Salvador). by comparison USA: $46,000. As far as living standards go, China has a looong way to go and some major transformations on the way.

      It's sometimes useful to think of China as two countries; a somewhat-developed country of about 400 million, mostly in the coastal provinces, plus another 900 million rural peasants. There's a formal registration system ("hukou") to enforce this division, tying peasants to their home area. It's not as rigid as it once was, but it's still in effect. Most of the economic gains are being realized by urban workers.

    5. Re:Developing vs. Developed by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think the only thing holding them back at the moment is the time it takes to actually put the infrastructure in place. For example they are building two new power stations every week, which is a lot by any measure, but it will still take them a long time to get all the power stations they need for their population.

    6. Re:Developing vs. Developed by troll+-1 · · Score: 1

      You're right, China does have more human resources to tap into. And so far they're doing a poor job of it.

      Note the conspicuous lack of innovation from China. What do the vacuum tube, the transistor, and the integrated circuit have in common? They weren't invented in China. What do the Internet, email, and social networking have in common. They were all viewed as dangerous by the Chinese government.

      Perhaps the most import thing we learned from Copernicus and Galileo is not that the Earth goes around the Sun but that government censorship can have a chilling effect on science, technology, and innovation.

      Perhaps we can all ponder that while we're waiting for the next big thing from China besides paper and gunpowder.

    7. Re:Developing vs. Developed by jandersen · · Score: 1, Interesting

      China's growth has only started when and to the extent to it opened it's economy to capitalism

      Not quite - China has not "opened to Capitalism", they have merely allowed a free(-r) market to develop under Communism. Whether you believe it or not, China's economy is still tightly controlled by the central government - which is precisely why they haven't succumbed to the woes that hit Russia, where a few got obscenely rich and most of the rest fell on hard times - because Yeltsin, in his drunken stupor, just let go. Happily for the Chinese, their government have chosen a far more restrained and disciplined route, and their success is obvious.

      Btw, sure you can accomplish a specific goal in the short term if you turn a nation of 100 million into 100 million slave laborers dedicated to that goal, and sacrifice a few million lives in the process, but that strategy ain't gonna work for long. Can't believe there are still Stalin apologists around today.

      Let's not start this stupid mudslinging again; you know perfectly well that it has no truth in it. An just for your information: There is still a significant number of people in former USSR that see Stalin and Lenin as great heroes, and who feel that what they did was necessary for the greater good. I can't say that I agree, but I can understand it - Russia before Communism was a backwater with huge inequalities; Stalin et al introduced universal education and social security, at in least in the same sense that he persecuted opponents and sent them to Siberia.

      And so on. You know, I don't have a problem with people criticising China and/or Russia - there are many real and serious problems, and there are many on different levels of government that are trying to block progress; but I really can't abide this sort of uninformed black-painting. Not only is it unfair and unreasonable on so many levels, but it also puts your own smug idiocy on display, and it quite frankly makes me cringe.

      Here's a couple of definitions: Ignorant - that's when you don't know. Stupid - that's when you go out of your way to avoid learning.

    8. Re:Developing vs. Developed by tokul · · Score: 1

      The only thing holding them back right now is local politics.

      The only thing keeping them together is local politics. IMHO Chinese need strong ruler to keep them together or country might fall into smaller pieces like it did n times before.

    9. Re:Developing vs. Developed by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      For the average rural Chinese citizen they exist as a serf in an agrarian feudal society, as they have been for the last hundreds (thousands?) of years. The difference is that instead of some noble lord, they have the corrupt local appointed bureaucrat.

      In most of china, the central government has no real influence in how the regional governors use their share of government income, so the bureaucrats take advantage of the situation.

    10. Re:Developing vs. Developed by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

      It's quite possible that the China government will loosen its restrictions to allow for capitalist growth while trying to maintain political power, as their behavior seems mostly geared towards cultivating economic power. I think it'll be more likely to see their population have a higher standard of living, but their explosive growth will slow down as they reach the gdp of other industrialized nations. Mostly because manufacturers will start to look for other sources of cheap labor or transportation resources, e.g. gas becomes prohibitively too expensive to transport cheap goods a long distance (maybe 50-100 years down the line).

  6. Re:20%? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I bet it's >75% of the infected/pwned machines if the logs from my servers are any indication......

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  7. 2 providers for all those people?!? by BenJCarter · · Score: 1

    The more providers the better. That way nobody has a corner on the market and if you don't like your service you have options.

    --
    For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
    1. Re:2 providers for all those people?!? by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      I agree. They should get a little competition going between several ISPs. What are they, a bunch of communists?

  8. Pfff by BitHive · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet if they deregulate they could get that down to just one ISP.

    1. Re:Pfff by Mr_Miagi · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, Warren G doesn't live in China...

  9. Define broadband by voss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you define it as 256kbps(like the US did until 2 years ago), 1.5 mbps(at&t basic DSL), 10m(comcast), 25-50mbps(FIOS,uverse, next gen comcast)?

    in the US there are plenty of users who cant yet get above 5 mbps.

    1. Re:Define broadband by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1, Funny

      Broadband is faster than dialup.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:Define broadband by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      5mbps? Man, it'd take over 2 hours just to receive "5mbps"!

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    3. Re:Define broadband by Macrat · · Score: 1

      Do you define it as 256kbps(like the US did until 2 years ago), 1.5 mbps(at&t basic DSL), 10m(comcast), 25-50mbps(FIOS,uverse, next gen comcast)?

      in the US there are plenty of users who cant yet get above 5 mbps.

      I barely get 5mbs on Comcast. But still better than DSL.

    4. Re:Define broadband by adtifyj · · Score: 4, Funny

      Broadband is faster than dialup.

      You'll go far with definitions like that.

  10. Monopolies Are Bigger Than Cartels by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know what the point of this story is. China's a mafia economy, Japan's is state capitalism, America's is based on cartels that compete within with each other, but primarily defend their mutual cartel from any newcomer. None of that is good.

    A healthy Internet is one that's highly distributed, decentralized. The more ISPs per person, the healthier and more stable the Internet. The more Chinese it is, the worse.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Monopolies Are Bigger Than Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are mistaken. Russia's may be a mafia economy, China's definitely not. It's more like Japan's state capitalism.

      You are also mistaken to assume that China ONLY has 2 ISPs - absolutely wrong. China probably has more ISPs than US or any other country. The original article merely states that two big ISPs from China have highest subscriber counts - not market share percentages!! Big distinction.

      In fact, China's ISP industry, for quite a while anyway, suffers from hyper cut-throat competition and low capital concentration. Too many ISPs with too little investment capital.

      You don't seem to know much about Chinese ISP industry (nor about Japan's economy or America's presumably), but very bold in making sweeping statements. Suggest you make statement on what a healthy Internet would to be (which you may qualify) but not what Chinese are or are not (which you certainly are not qualified).

    2. Re:Monopolies Are Bigger Than Cartels by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am not mistaken. China's economy is mafia. The government is the mafia. It enforces its policies by brutal force, it is highly corrupt, the people have no rights protected, only protected by fear of a counterrevolution or a discouraged work slowdown. The government exploits labor and nature to ruination, enforced by fear of violence. Crime is OK for cronies, competition is prohibited outside of what benefits the rulers. That's a mafia economy. In Russia, the mafia is part of the economy, but the government itself is a mafia mostly only in the energy industry.

      I didn't say China has only two ISPs, you did. Anonymous strawman Coward, I know more about China and its economy than you care to admit, because you're just another Chinese apologist. I wouldn't be surprised if you work for China's propaganda ministry.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  11. China has 20% of the world's population! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So why is this news? It has 20% of the people in the world, so it has 20% of the broadband users .

    1. Re:China has 20% of the world's population! by daveime · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's news because unlike other countries, which just talk about it, China sets a goal of giving every user Broadband access, then DOES IT.

    2. Re:China has 20% of the world's population! by thej1nx · · Score: 1
      It's news because unlike other countries, which just talk about it, China sets a goal of giving every user Broadband access, then DOES IT.

      You don't really understand what was said, do you? Or maybe you don't really understand how ratios and percentages actually work.

      Let us see. United states for example, consists of 4.5% of world population and yet consists of 12% of world internet users. China consists of 21% of world's population and yet consists of mere 20% of world internet users. Clearly the internet penetration in USA is much higher(more than twice) of that of China.

      Or take the neighboring Japan for example, which accounts for mere 1.86% of world population and yet accounts for 5% of world internet users.

      It is a no-brainer that over-populated China, with the highest population in the world, would also comprise the highest number of internet users in the world. But when you take the ratio of internet users to total population, China contrary to its government's big claims and boasting, is still lagging far behind and has a long way to go yet.

      And we are not yet even talking of how heavily censored that internet access is, in China i.e. how exactly does the populace benefit in their daily life due to said internet, as compared to say Japan, USA or EU again? For example, the Japanese use mobile internet to search commute routes, to find addresses, for shopping deals, communications, checking weather, banking and trading etc. and online entertainment in Japan at least is usually legal and paid for, and hence beneficial for the economy.

      Compare this to China, where the major usage for internet is(surprise!), entertainment. And you are welcome to take your guess how much of it is actually paid for, as opposed to stolen/pirated. Owing to unsafe security practices, online banking/shopping is not as popular, since you will end up getting hacked. Add to that, the perception of the Chinese government, of internet being a mere propaganda tool, so much so that their ultimate stated goal is to have a 100% state-controlled Chinese intranet instead, while having honest-to-goodness war plans to attack, cripple and bring down the actual free internet.

    3. Re:China has 20% of the world's population! by mr_gorkajuice · · Score: 1

      While OP is clearly clueless, you should've sticked to explaining penetration percentages. The 20% mentioned is *not* the chinese total, but only the total of the two largest ISP's within China.

    4. Re:China has 20% of the world's population! by spamking · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you say that is easier to accomplish when the large majority of the population lives in more urban Areas? I don't have any stats, but I think I'd be safe to assume that the higher density populations in China is in the larger urban areas of the country. Thus making it easier to get the infrastructure in place for providing broadband.

      The US is more spread out and doesn't have the infrastructure in place to provide broadband to "every user".

  12. What does "serve" mean? by swb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does this mean as actual paying subscribers to a private residence?

    Or does this mean "providing internet access to" some large group of people who primarily use internet cafes, cell phones or some other shared access method?

    1. Re:What does "serve" mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think these are individual subscribers and broadband subscribers. The article quotes 55 M for China Telecom, which is about right.

      By the way, a lot of earlier comments show staggering degree of ignorance - it's really sad. With the exception of content censorship issues, Chinese telecom, mobile and Internet businesses are amazingly vibrant and advanced, more advanced in some areas than US. While large telecom operators used to be monopolistic and bureaucratic, they have been rapidly deregulated and made competitive in the last 30 years or so. As a result, they have grown exponentially, not just customer head counts, but also in services they offer, revenue and profits. China Mobile, for example, has probably the highest market value of all mobile operators. (It's "capital market value in $", dear capitalist.) So if people still think of them as Soviet style planned economy and have "pity" on their consumers, your "sympathy" is misplaced!

      Of course details are more complicated, and censorship is a big issue, not to take light of it, but in a whole, I think it's healthy for Americans to realize that Chinese economy of today is extremely open and competitive today for a large part of industries. In fact, it's common joke today to say that Republicans will be drooling if they could get China's level of low regulation.

  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. That Explains It by vgbndkng · · Score: 1

    I've been trying to figure out why everything I do online ends up in Mandarin. And to think I blamed my breakfast fruit of choice.

  15. Same here really... by Aoet_325 · · Score: 1

    Hey! That's the same number of ISPs I get to choose from in the US!
    Individuals in the US may not have much for options either but I do feel a little better that our gov has to work a little harder to spy on our net traffic than they do in China where it's all centralized for them in one of two places.

    1. Re:Same here really... by Wh15per · · Score: 1

      You get two ISPs? All we have here is... Comcast. Well, I guess I could do dialup somewhere.

    2. Re:Same here really... by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Where I live in Britain, Sam Knows says I get to chose from the following:

      Wireless - (not Wifi or HSDPA, it is a bit faster than that) - Now Broadband
      Cable - Virgin Media
      ADSL - BT, AOL, O2/Be Cable & Wireless, NewNet, Orange, Sky/EasyNet, TalkTalk and Tiscali (two sets of pipes)
      HSDPA - O2, Vodafone, Orange, T-Mobile, Three

      Carphone Warehouse owns AOL, TalkTalk and Tiscali, so they have a total of four sets of pipes to my exchange

      In addition, there are various virtual operators who use the pipes owned by the above companies.

  16. New IPv6 because of China? by drHirudo · · Score: 1

    This article once again proves the thesis that the world hunger will come when the people of China realize they are eating only the garnish. And that we will need the new IPv6 when the people of China realize that Internet is vital.

  17. Not just that by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The Chinese ISPs don't give two shits about hackers. So there's all kinds of bad stuff floating around on them. Not only puts you at risk as a subscriber, but means you getting even more blocked. A company gets a bunch of hack attempts and mails the ISP saying "Hey, you've got a baddy on your network." Their reply is, and I'm not making this up "That's not our IP address," even though APNIC says it is. So then the company says "Fuck you," and shitlists the ISP.

  18. Well technically by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Broadband is any service where the line is shared with other services. So any speed of cable or DSL qualifies. The network is not the exclusive link, it rides on top of cable and/or phone. A certain, generally wide, part of the frequency range is used. Baseband would be what it is opposed to and that would be something like Ethernet. The entire signal is for the network. The signal goes all the way down to 0Hz.

    As a practical matter, anything faster than a modem in a home is "broadband." Very rare to find faster baseband services (ISDN would be such a service) in a home.

    Now if you mean what is high speed, well that's a different matter. Currently from my tests I'd say 10mbps is about the cut off to call it truly "high speed." Above 10mbps you don't notice much difference in normal use. Pages load immediately, videos play right away even HD. Basically you can scale the bandwidth up more and really not notice a speedup, other than for file downloads.

    1-2mbps is about the lowest "non-suck" net speed. Below that, you are doing a lot of waiting.

    This will continue to rise, of course, as more and more data gets on web pages. The larger the images, the higher the video, the more you'll need to keep the net feeling fast. However for now, I call it 10mbps the point of severely diminishing returns for everything except downloading large files. Of course that is becoming more common too.

  19. Not really surprised... by flyingkillerrobots · · Score: 1

    Given that China also has about 20% of the world's people, doesn't this article simply mean that China is more or less average?

    --
    "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations..." -Winston Churchill
  20. Re:20%? by Zantac69 · · Score: 1

    The rest are MMORG gold/item farmers.

    --
    1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
  21. That is wildly inaccurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Competition is the only thing that is able to drive prices lower without creating shortages. No competition means higher prices.

    That only applies to completely free markets (and sometimes doesn't even work there). It only applies there because with no competition, the companies can and will charge as much as people are willing to spend ("Oh? We are the only company that sells fuel in this area? Fuel that people desperately need. We can charge whatever the fuck we want!") and with competition they are forced to lower their profit margins.

    A regulatory body can look at the cost of materials, etc. and say "You really would be able to offer the service for X... You arent allowed to charge more than X+Y at most. If you are too incompetent to offer the service for that price, we will find someone more competent.". Of course, you can call that a form of competition (and yes, competition can and needs to exist even in completely socialistic systems) and you would be correct... But I doubt it is the kind of competition you had in mind there.

    1. Re:That is wildly inaccurate by Urkki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Competition is the only thing that is able to drive prices lower without creating shortages. No competition means higher prices.

      That only applies to completely free markets (and sometimes doesn't even work there). It only applies there because with no competition, the companies can and will charge as much as people are willing to spend ("Oh? We are the only company that sells fuel in this area? Fuel that people desperately need. We can charge whatever the fuck we want!") and with competition they are forced to lower their profit margins.

      A regulatory body can look at the cost of materials, etc. and say "You really would be able to offer the service for X... You arent allowed to charge more than X+Y at most. If you are too incompetent to offer the service for that price, we will find someone more competent.". Of course, you can call that a form of competition (and yes, competition can and needs to exist even in completely socialistic systems) and you would be correct... But I doubt it is the kind of competition you had in mind there.

      But how do you come up with X and Y? With sufficient lobbying/bribing, Y can be increased, since it's just arbitrary profit margin, essentially a cartel imposed by the government. Also in most businesses, X changes all the time, sometimes even rapidly. The regulatory body would need to be constantly re-calculating proper value of X, or there will be trouble one way or the other. And the people doing the re-calculating have no personal interest in getting the real value for X (unless you enter corruption, in which case they actually have interest in getting false value of X). And sometimes there will be somebody higher up that just comes in and says something like "I just heard that over there X+Y is this much, so it must be lower here because we are better than them, so make sure you calculate it so that it is", with no regard to reality.

      Also, even though you'd imagine that businesses would still want to optimize to maximize profits, that's far less motivation than optimizing in order to not be driven out of business by more innovative competitor. Also, if any optimization goes to maximize profits, then the business owners benefit, unlike when optimization goes to lower the price (to gain market share from competitor).

      In short, that doesn't work terribly well. Only thing that can determine correct value of X and optimal value of Y is the market itself. Your kind of regulation just doesn't work, and the longer the regulation continues, the farther it will drift from the optimum, and the more corruption will sneak into the system.

      Only places where free market really doesn't work is markets where the goal is to minimize the business. For example health care, military, security: there the goal should be to minimize the need for that service, while business interest is to maximize need for their service. And another place for heavy regulation is business where there can be no competition for practical reasons, ie. "natural monopolies". But even in those cases, regulation doesn't work well, just better than free market would.

  22. Impossible! by Ecuador · · Score: 2, Funny

    The numbers simply don't add up:
    -We know Chinese ISP's block all interesting content like pr0n.
    -We know at least 95% of internet users browse pr0n almost daily.

    So how can this be? :)

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Impossible! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      -We know at least 95% of internet users browse pr0n almost daily.

      No, we know that at least 95% of slashdot readers browse pron almost daily.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Impossible! by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      You don't need the 'almost' in there.

      --
      Is 1563649 a prime number?
  23. What routers? by Tanaka · · Score: 1

    I can just see it now.... the first glimse inside one of china's ISPs... a single room, with a flashed WRT54G router in the middle of it.

  24. I KNEW it! by dave562 · · Score: 2, Funny

    People have always tried to tell me that spam is automatically generated, but I KNEW BETTER! I knew, deep down in my soul that it was really millions of Chinese peasants, hooked up to TTY machines, flooding teh intarwebz with router clogging texts and Bayesian fooling, poorly constructed English non-sense.

    1. Re:I KNEW it! by ctchristmas · · Score: 1

      Speekeng of witch, A lady dide last nyte and left you ten trillyon american dollars! If you could just send me your adress, social security, name, phone number, and date of birth to konfirm youre identity, I can give you your moneys!

      *Disclaimer - this is just a joke. Don't send me your information because I don't have shit for you and don't want it.*

  25. Re:How many ISPs are there in China? by M8e · · Score: 1

    BTW, China's percentage of the world population? About 20% last I heard. So really...does this article mean anything?

    1. These two ISPs serve nearly 100% of chinas broadband users.

    2. China has the same broadband penetration as the worlds average. (20% of the population and 20% of the broadband users!)

  26. That's Okay by Kagato · · Score: 1

    Sure, they have 20% of the broadband users. But after Red China Filtering they only have access to 20% of the internet. :)

  27. Chinese DoS! by asvravi · · Score: 1

    And right now, they all seem to be accessing the linked site.

  28. Yes but ... by ioliver · · Score: 1

    We've got all the IP addresses.
    Ian

    1. Re:Yes but ... by koona · · Score: 1

      Well I have certainly learned a lot on this thread.
      What y'all are missing is the up and comming new world order..
      These percentages being bandied about as if they were real objects are merely PR fluff..
      The burgeoning "Internet useage" reported for the usa's is mere "surogate tv" .
      I suspect there is a certain (small) amount of that in chinkland as well, But I also suspect a large percentile of serious business oriented (make stuff happen)content..
      Overall, IMHO, the chicoms, with their 90% dedicated peasantry, and their 20% gung ho agressive business oriented warriors will kick ass in the "Capitalist" dominated world that the powers that be over here promulgamate as reality..
      Yours.
      douglas.
      ps those

  29. Re:Pfft.. by Archimboldo · · Score: 1

    So I have heard from many who have visited China. However there is a small percentage in any population that thinks outside the box. Many of the innovative Chinese went abroad because of herd mentality in their homeland, but the flow is starting to reverse. Some of the innovative and out-of-the-box thinking Chinese scientists are returning from American and European universities because there is at least now oodles of capital back home to work with. It's just my personal reading of early trends, but I wouldn't be shocked to see more innovation coming from China in the future. If you read the names on publications from American universities you see an astonishing number of Chang's, Wong's, Li's. That's in addition to Chandra's, Krishna's, Gupta's ... etc. Many, of course, do stay here. Time will tell.

  30. Re:Pfft.. by h7 · · Score: 1

    By the time enough Chinese and Indian Americans return to their countries, the developed world will be so far ahead that it will be impossible to catch up.