10 Internet Connections At Same Time

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

10 Internet Connections At Same Time

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday August 21, 2012 @06:19AM from the for-when-nine-just-don't-cut-it dept.

An anonymous reader writes "As a follow-up to the story about Verizon being forced to allow tethering, the engineers at Connectify climbed on the roof and made a video showing an 85Mbps download rate through a combination of a tethered Verizon mobile phone and all of the available open Wi-Fi networks. It's a darn shame that they cancelled the unlimited 3G on the Kindle; tether 20 of those bad boys and you could have had a real Internet connection."

152 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Can't use it like one connection by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 06:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

You need a node on the internet that can split a single connection and send the data down the separate links. Otherwise those are just 10 separate internet connections that can only be used for separate transfers.
Besides, if you were to use 20 3G connections at a time, you'd see significant slowdown per connection as these are in competition for the shared medium.
1. Re:Can't use it like one connection by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 06:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It looks like they're using Free Download Manager on top of their connection software in the video (http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/) In that case, those separate Internet connections could speed up even a single download quite a bit. My impression of 3G is that the fairness is set up so that a lot of connections per tower can get the expected download rates at the same time, no?
2. Re:Can't use it like one connection by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  So most likely it is Link Teaming then. I bet they would not get those numbers if they did a straight up SSH, SCP, or RSYNC.
  Apps that make use of multi-part/multi-segment download will reap the benefits of this, but not single connection apps. :(
  I'm sure this can be done for free on Linux and Mac OSX Boxes. I'm sure Windows supports this as well, all of which is out of the box, with the addition of some settings.
  So I'm guessing this kickstarter project is putting an easy front end on the configs...
  Sounds like a great tutorial to write up. >:)
3. Re:Can't use it like one connection by funwithBSD · 2012-08-21 07:08 · Score: 2
  
  And the latency does not get any better, which sucks on 3G and 4G.
  
  --
  Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
4. Re:Can't use it like one connection by Lennie · 2012-08-21 07:10 · Score: 2
  
  There is a big chance that will change in the future though. What do you think of Multi Path TCP ?
  short demo:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWN0ctPi5cw
  Longer presentation:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02nBaaIoFWU
  IETF WorkGroup:
  http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mptcp/charter/
  Linux kernel implementation:
  http://mptcp.info.ucl.ac.be/
  
  --
  New things are always on the horizon
5. Re:Can't use it like one connection by Gerzel · 2012-08-21 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Eh separate transfers might be alright if you are accessing different things. I often listen to online radio while I play an online game and download something. Add in roommate's Netflix and you have four separate transfers going not counting any background system stuff that might happen at the same time.
6. Re:Can't use it like one connection by Cormacus · 2012-08-21 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  What do I think of it?? I want it! More than once I've started a large file transfer on the LAN from my laptop only to remember that I am on the WiFi. Instead of plugging in the cable and restarting the transaction I would love it if I just had to plug in the higher bandwidth connection and the kernel would handle the transition between adapters.
  
  --
  Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
7. Re:Can't use it like one connection by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  Otherwise those are just 10 separate internet connections that can only be used for separate transfers.
  Separate transfers... such as the way Bittorrent works?
  I'd be pleasantly happy with torrenting at those speeds.
8. Re:Can't use it like one connection by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  You need a node on the internet that can split a single connection and send the data down the separate links. Otherwise those are just 10 separate internet connections that can only be used for separate transfers.
  Isn't this the problem MP-TCP (multipath TCP) is designed to solve?
  http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mptcp/
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/MultipathTcp
  You could practically design in your head an MP-TCP command line file download tool where the server side would use a fountain code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_code) to split and transmit the source over multiple channels while the client side would recombine and quit on completion. As error recovery is automatic, this might even be better as a UDP file transfer protocol.
9. Re:Can't use it like one connection by BadgerRush · 2012-08-21 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure Windows supports this as well, all of which is out of the box, with the addition of some settings.
  There is no easy way of doing it on Linux. You must be confusing it with interface bonding which binds two or more interfaces in the same local network, this is supported on the kernel for years and recently has been added to network manager. Interface bonding does not work to link two different internet connections.
  To use multiple connections on Linux you would need a very complicated setup redirecting all traffic from both connections trough some kind of custom vpn server.
10. Re:Can't use it like one connection by KingMotley · 2012-08-21 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Sort of, except with multipath TCP, your "command line file download tool" would just be wget. There wouldn't be a need for a separate tool usually for doing multipath transfers aggregating the links. It all happens at a lower level in the TCP/IP stack. Now you could create a multipath aware wget-like tool (mpwget?) that would allow you finer control over the aggregation that would differ from the system default.
11. Re:Can't use it like one connection by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Or, you know, some kind of round-robin nat...
12. Re:Can't use it like one connection by cayenne8 · 2012-08-21 08:27 · Score: 2
  
  Looking at the kickstarter deal...it appears that you do not buy this software, but you only get annual rentals of it??
  The add seems to indicate you get a years license for the 'software router'.....
  Is this what others are seeing too?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
13. Re:Can't use it like one connection by ZorinLynx · 2012-08-21 09:38 · Score: 2
  
  It will, you just have to set up your DHCP server to assign the same IP address to both the MAC address of your wifi interface and wired interface.
  I do this on my Macbook Pro. At home I can move seamlessly between Wifi and wired without missing a beat, even mid-transfer.
14. Re:Can't use it like one connection by Cormacus · 2012-08-21 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Thats an interesting idea (and I'm sure that it does work for you) but having the same IP address resolve to two different MAC addresses on the network seems to be a Bad Idea. Ignoring the network itself though, if that works then the MacOS kernel must already have some support for this because (for example) if you opened a connection on the WiFi interface, some internal juggling has to happen if you say plug in your Ethernet jack and then turn off the WiFi, right? What prevents that socket connection from simply closing when you turn off the associated hardware?
  
  --
  Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
15. Re:Can't use it like one connection by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 12:12 · Score: 0
  
  I live in an area where the best DSL is 7mbit, so I have two lines that I combine without an outside node.
  This doesn't improve bandwidth for a single TCP connection,you're right about that, but for multiple connections, I max out both for the full 15mbit. I've found that most of my downloading can take advantage of this. For example, most pay-by-GB usenet providers allow any number of connections for downloading an NZB.
  It's quite easy to set up under linux, you just use iptables to identify the protocols you want to load balance and then round-robin each TCP connection through the multiple internet connections. Set your downloader to use, say, 4 or 6 connections, and voila.
16. Re:Can't use it like one connection by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 17:06 · Score: 0
  
  I was worried about that, too. It says "one full year of complimentary product upgrades and support", though. If its like their hotspot app, it'll work forever but you only get upgrades and support for a year.
17. Re:Can't use it like one connection by ZorinLynx · 2012-08-23 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  In OS X, socket connections are tied to the IP address, not the interface. They also don't automatically close when the interface goes down, like they do under Windows (which is annoying because all your SSH sessions die if there's so much as a burp in your Wifi connection)
  This is the way it should be. Shit happens to interfaces, but generally an IP will remain the same unless you physically move to another network.
Nook by gurps_npc · 2012-08-21 06:27 · Score: 1

I have an old (if anything this new can be called 'old') nook that came with 3G. It has battery issues (batteries are always the first thing to go - invent a new one and rule the world).
But I still stick with it because I like the 3G. I would rather use my old one with the heavy case and light, then buy a new one without the 3G connection that weighs half as much and has the integral light/color.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
1. Re:Nook by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, the one home is my grandma. Have fun, she could use it.
2. Re:Nook by tangelogee · 2012-08-21 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Battery issues? The nook (1st gen at least) had user-replaceable batteries.
3. Re:Nook by VortexCortex · 2012-08-21 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  It has battery issues (batteries are always the first thing to go - invent a new one and rule the world).
  
  OK: Ultra Capacitors exist. Very fast charge rate. For the ones made of ceramic and aluminium, using them prolongs their life... Get rid of the artificial scarcity syst --er, I mean patent system, and they might have a chance in the entrenched battery market.
4. Re:Nook by craash420 · 2012-08-21 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  Go home, Dad, you're drunk.
  
  --
  Extra medication for all!
Re:Wasn't it limited? by sexconker · 2012-08-21 06:27 · Score: 4, Informative

Nope, the old Kindle's have a rudimentary web browser you can enable in one of the settings menus. Works fine on 3G.
What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 06:27 · Score: 5, Funny

I'll tell you what I'd do, man: 10 internet connections at the same time, man.
1. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  I'd probably have to pay 45% in total taxes, "fees" and "surcharges".
2. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by ericloewe · 2012-08-21 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  I'd just have the local ISP supply me one of their 1Gb/s links.
3. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 06:38 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'd probably have to pay 45% in total taxes, "fees" and "surcharges".
  No, at a million dollars the tax rate goes down to 13%.
4. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  UID in excess of 2M and misses the obvious joke... yep, you and me AC? We're old. Of course that means the bearded geeks we used to call old are now positively ancient...
5. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Jeng · 2012-08-21 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  No, you have to be so rich that you would never spend the money anyways to get a 13% tax rate.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
6. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by somarilnos · 2012-08-21 06:45 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  And I think if I was a millionaire I could hook that up, too, 'cause internet connections dig dudes with money.
7. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  actually never any less than 13%
8. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Reasonable+Facsimile · 2012-08-21 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'll tell you what I'd do, man: 10 internet connections at the same time, man.
  'cause chicks dig dudes with 10 internet connections at the same time.
9. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  With $1 million I'll try to have an early retirement.
10. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Samantha+Wright · 2012-08-21 07:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You know what I would do if I had a million dollars? I would invest half of it in low risk dark fiber and then take the other half over to my friend Asadulah who works in software...
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
11. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-08-21 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh where are my mod points today?
12. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  Well, you don't need a million dollars to do that man. Take a look at my cousin, he's unemployed and gets 10 internet connections for free at the local mall near the food court.
13. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  With $1 million I'll try to have an early retirement.
  You have the right idea. But I never seem to win the lottery...
14. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-08-21 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Am I the only one that pictured 10 monitors in a circle, each showing porn, and a swivel chair in the middle?
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
15. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by GameboyRMH · 2012-08-21 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  And a dude spinning in that chair and doing a 1-man circle jerk?
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
16. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by KhabaLox · 2012-08-21 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  Are you arguing for a regressive tax system?
  Can't tell if young, naive pseudo-libertarian or just trolling.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
17. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by h4rr4r · 2012-08-21 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes, I actually do buy cars based on a calculation of a percentage of income.
  The rich paying less percentage tax is just that, them paying less tax than they should be paying. The fact that the number is still higher has no impact.
18. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  I'll tell you what I'd do, man: 10 internet connections at the same time, man.
  What do you need 10 Internet connections for?! You only have one dick!
19. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Jeng · 2012-08-21 08:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Those who benefit the most from society owes society the most.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
20. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  Reading this? Funny.
  Reading this while watching Repo Games? Hilarious.
21. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  The rich paying less percentage tax is just that, them paying less tax than they should be paying.
  No disagreement there - Buffett should probably pay more tax as a percentage of his yearly income than his secretary. But:
  
  Those who benefit the most from society owes society the most.
  I'm pretty sure that the 13% tax Buffett pays on his $100 million in earnings per year is $13 million more than the 20% tax on your $8,000 earnings per year at McDonald's.
  Obama is good at populist rhetoric, but what he doesn't tell you is that the top 20% of wage earners pay 80% of the income tax in the US, and that taxing the top 1% more would only yield around $5 billion in extra tax revenues - not nearly enough to erase the debt that he and Bush Jr. accumulated. Read the Wikipedia articles on taxation in the US if you don't believe me.
22. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  1/2 mil in software? You'd be better off getting it in 1's and burning it for heat in the winter.
23. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by mark-t · 2012-08-21 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  A million dollars isn't enough to comfortably retire on particularly early, unless you are only expecting to only live another 15 to 20 years or so. You need at least five mill to be really certain of early retirement.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
24. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, I actually do buy cars based on a calculation of a percentage of income.
  You're either being intellectually dishonest or you need to work on your reading comprehension. There's a difference between what you can afford and what you have to pay. A guy making 100k a year and a guy making 10k a year don't pay 5% of their respective incomes for identical cars. Try responding to what I actually wrote this time.
  
  The rich paying less percentage tax is just that, them paying less tax than they should be paying
  Why should they be paying that? Because that's the law? The law is always right, eh?
25. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by roman_mir · 2012-08-21 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  Those who benefit the most from society owes society the most.
  - I agree. That's why the poor and generally those who do NOT run businesses should pay higher taxes than those, who do run their own businesses.
  Who do you think benefits from the society more, the people who run their own businesses or the people who buy products created by the people who run their own businesses?
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
26. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 14:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yea because you know us rich folk are always using those government services! Now excuse me, the bus is here.
27. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  Can't tell if ad hominem or... wait, yes... it is.
28. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by KhabaLox · 2012-08-21 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  A regressive tax system is so bad for so many obvious reasons that it is unnecessary to refute the argument. But I honestly couldn't tell if he was seriously putting it forward or simply being trollish.
  If you think you have a good argument for a regressive tax system, I'm all ears.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
29. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 17:36 · Score: 0
  
  If you think you have a good argument for a regressive tax system, I'm all ears.
  It's fairly simple. If I agree to all the premium cable channels, 100mbs internet service and unlimited mobile data service at $400 a month, guess how much I should pay. I should pay $400 dollars a month. If, however, I'm automatically signed up for those services and forced to pay $400 regardless of whether or not I use then, regardless of whether or not I'd rather have a different company, guess how much should pay. Nothing, because I didn't agree to it. Even if I'm naturally going to use them because, after all, I'm forced to pay for them anyways and there isn't another game allowed in town, that doesn't change the fact that it's extortion/theft.
  I know this is a shocking concept and all but being forced to pay for something I don't want, or forced to buy from a provider when I'd rather choose another isn't a legitimate debt. Rich people may indeed reap benefits from society but (1) they might prefer not to at all and (2) they might prefer an alternative.
  Go ahead and convinced yourself that society equals government and without taxing the poor we'd all be sitting in the mud banging rocks together instead of shooting to the moon and jacking off to Nature and Science magazines but that's utter bullshit. I'd pay for most of these things anyways, I just don't appreciate the song and dance as if I'm obligated and as if it's the only way.
  A "good argument" for regressive tax system can only be subjective. It only depends on what your goal is. If you're a utilitarian that wants "what works" then guess what, slavery and genocide work too. What's your argument against them? No, I'm not equivocating paying taxes to crimes against humanity. It's an analogy just to show you that your values come from somewhere more emotional and subjective than you'd probably admit at first glance.
  Here's what it boils down to. All human interactions should be voluntary. If I clear a field, sew the seeds and tend the crops, I should be own the fruits of my labor. I'm simply suggesting that we follow that logic wherever it takes us. Taxation and welfare states ain't it. I give to charity because I care about other people, as do many people that have been productive and made a lot of money. I'm offended that, however, as soon as I become productive, all these people say I owe them something. Without the government there would be no roads or schools, etc. That's a lie but even if it were true, my parents have done a lot more than the government has as far as making me what I am and bringing me to where I'm at. Guess what, they don't own me either. They have no right to use violence to enforce a debt I never agreed to.
  Think about it for a good long while and maybe, just maybe, when you grow up, graduate college and stop watching Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann stroking their own egos, you might just understand that there's a difference between charity and loans. Society gives to people but those recipients don't owe a debt to be enforced with violence. I guess it's not ok when I make ad homs though, right?
30. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-22 00:23 · Score: 0
  
  Who do you think benefits from the society more, the people who run their own businesses or the people who buy products created by the people who run their own businesses?
  The people who run their own businesses, obviously. Since they are ALSO the ones who buy the most products from other people's businesses
  The guy who doesn't own a business doesn't have to buy (or rent) a huge office, or factory, or company cars, or business software, or hire staff, etc.
  The business owner, should he be successful (if not, that's just his own failure in satisfying the market), would end up quite a bit richer than someone who does not own a business. They tend to then spend that money to buy nice luxurious things, like fancy cars and yachts which non-business owners rarely, if ever, buy. They might even hire servants.
31. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-22 00:34 · Score: 0
  
  Those who benefit the most from society owes society the most.
  Now we just need to define what you mean by "benefit" and "society", in terms which can be quantified.
  Just an example, who benefits "more" from "society"- a rich person who pays for everything out of pocket, or a poor person who relies on government assistance for everything? Now switch it up- what if the rich guy made all his money in China and moved here to retire? Are you saying he shouldn't have to pay any taxes because he never had any benefit from our society?
  And just as a last point to consider, you also need to define what you mean by someone "owing" society, specifically in terms of how that payment is made. For example, if I give 50% of my $100k income to the local homeless shelter, do I still owe society taxes on the other 50%, the entire 100%, or some other amount?
  And to the mods, no the parent post is not +5 Insightful. It's empty rhetoric with no supporting logic.
32. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by icebraining · 2012-08-22 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  That's not an argument for a regressive tax system, that's an argument for no tax system.
  
  All human interactions should be voluntary.
  And I would like a pony. The difference is that my wish is actually feasible.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
33. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by icebraining · 2012-08-22 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  But it's not the law, otherwise they would be paying!
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
34. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by h4rr4r · 2012-08-22 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  A guy making 100k is not going to buy the car the 10k maker will buy. Why would they? They don't get the same level of service from the government either. The 10k/year earner has no money for the FDIC to protect, no need for police to move vagrants and other riffraff away from property as he owns none, nor does he need the protection of the fire department for his nonexistent property. The lower earner will have far less use for the civil courts as he lacks the capital to engage in lawsuits.
  They should be paying that because it is a fair way of calculating payment. The law says that because people decided it was correct. The law is not always right, but in this case it happens to be.
35. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-22 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  So those members of society who are generationally entrenched in the welfare system and other "social programs", who receive 100% of everything they have from society, owe society the most? Hmm... I think you're right.
36. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by KhabaLox · 2012-08-22 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  icebraining hit the nail on the head in the sibling post. You have put forth an argument for no taxation. And you know what, it's not completely without merit. On the other hand, I think you are confusing "taxes" with "contributions to society".
  
  Go ahead and convinced yourself that society equals government and without taxing the poor we'd all be sitting in the mud banging rocks together instead of shooting to the moon and jacking off to Nature and Science magazines but that's utter bullshit.
  There are some examples in history of societies which worked without an explicit taxation system (I'm thinking tribal societies like Native Americans; there may be other examples of more infrastructure-heavy societies that worked without any taxation, but I can't think of any. Do you have some examples?).
  However, even in those tribal societies, there was an implicit taxation system. Everyone was obligated to participate and "give back" to the society. When you went out to hunt, you didn't keep all of the kill to yourself - you shared it with your family and tribe. This is a simplification of the social structure of thousands of different cultures, but the point is just because there isn't a bureaucracy forcing you to contribute at threat of physical detention doesn't mean that there isn't a cultural more forcing you to contribute at threat of banishment. By living in a modern society you are entering into an implicit agreement: you will benefit from the physical infrastructure, the police and fire protection, the national defense, the national parks, etc. In return, you agree to pay your taxes, and you agree to elect representatives who will shape tax and spending policies in ways you agree with.
  
  A "good argument" for regressive tax system can only be subjective.
  Ummm... no.
  Here's an example: A flat consumption tax would be regressive, because people with lower incomes spend a greater percentage of their income each year. The richer you are, the more you save (i.e. the less you consume, as a percentage of your income). One can make objective arguments for such a tax by making the case that it is easier to collect, will raise the same amount of revenue as an income tax, etc.
  
  Here's what it boils down to. All human interactions should be voluntary. If I clear a field, sew the seeds and tend the crops, I should be own the fruits of my labor.
  I don't necessarily disagree. However, what you're missing is that there are some goods and services that require society working together as a whole. It doesn't make sense for individuals to voluntarily contribute to, for example, national defense. People, by their nature, will free-ride. Even when the volunteer payment for a free service model looks like it works (see: public radio), a closer examination shows that it is subsidized by advertising and taxes.
  Can you give some examples of public goods which succeed with an all volunteer funding model?
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
37. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-22 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  Those who benefit the most from society owes society the most.
  Nobles Oblige.
38. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-22 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  You have put forth an argument for no taxation.
  I admit that I was quite drunk when I wrote that last post, which is why I kind of spaced out on the regressive taxation and went straight to no taxation. I think that the current system is more akin to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" when it should be "pay for what you use". My point was, even if we ignore the involuntary nature of taxation, wealthy people shouldn't be paying for more than they use. Sure they should contribute back to the government what they've gained from it but we're going above and beyond that.
  
  A flat consumption tax would be regressive, because people with lower incomes spend a greater percentage of their income each year. The richer you are, the more you save (i.e. the less you consume, as a percentage of your income). One can make objective arguments for such a tax by making the case that it is easier to collect, will raise the same amount of revenue as an income tax, etc.
  You are just including some unstated assumptions. The point is, there's a gap between "how things are" (fact) and "how things should be" (opinion). You can't make a bunch of measurements and then conclude how things should be without starting with some sort of opinion. To put it another way, all human actions consist of beliefs and desires. In this context, beliefs are statements about the world taken to be true and desires are goals to be accomplished. You can't have nothing but beliefs, no desires, and still get human action.
  You can't derive the action "putting on warm clothes" from only the following beliefs:
  1. The temperature outside is freezing.
  2. Freezing temperatures causes damage to exposed human tissue.
  3. Damage to human tissue causes pain.
  4. I am currently naked.
  5. I am outside.
  You have to also add the desire:
  1. To not feel pain.
  Of course, if that desire is different:
  1. To feel pain.
  Then you might just continue standing outside naked anyways. That's what I mean by subjectivity. Sprinkling a bunch of facts on top of an opinion doesn't make it objective.
  
  Can you give some examples of public goods which succeed with an all volunteer funding model?
  I am skeptical of most claimed tangible public goods. Just to make it clear, a public good is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. I take issue with non-excludability. A common example is lighthouses. If there's a lighthouse and some ships pay for the service, other ships can still benefit from it even though they didn't pay for it. But there are ways for dealing with that.
  The lighthouse owner could have a way to identify all the paying ships. When there are paying ships out there, true enough, the non-payers can get a free ride. But every so often, there will only be non-payers out there and the lighthouse owner could shut off the light, possibly causing non-payers to crash. Therefore, non-payers will still incur a cost, obviously the cost of a new ship if they actually crash but even if they don't, crew will demand higher pay for the added risk to their lives, insurance companies will demand higher premiums for the added risk to cargo and customers with irreplaceable or extremely time-sensitive cargo will take their business elsewhere, regardless of price. Don't forget PR either. A shipping company that is known for that kind of activity is going to get a bad reputation. If they are willing to cheat people out of their money, endanger lives, etc, would you trust them with your cargo? All of this puts an upper limit on just how much of a free ride the non-payers are getting. There's no way to predict, but it seems to me that payers will have the competitive advantage, cheaper crew, cheaper insurance, less risk, more potential customers and a better public image.
  Of course, this isn't perfect excludability. There could always be fly-by-night operations that understand everything I've just pointed out b
39. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-22 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, based on the recent CBO report "Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009", the top 20 percent of wage earners pay 94% of all income taxes. Somehow, that's not enough. 49% of all wage earners in America pay zero(0) Federal Income Tax at all. I guess that's fair... Tax is a re-distribution from those who earn to those who don't, plain and simple. It's authorized stealing that breeds laziness and an ever growing sense of entitlement that is irreversible.
40. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by KhabaLox · 2012-08-22 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  I think that the current system is more akin to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" when it should be "pay for what you use".
  There are two problems with this. First, it is extremely difficult to measure how much someone uses. How much do you use a road (this is actually an easy one - per gallon gas tax, all toll roads [might be impractical for surface streets], per mile car registration fees, etc.)? How much do you benefit from the presence of a fire department (even if your house doesn't catch fire, you benefit when they put out the fire down the block)? What about police? How much do you benefit from FDA regulations which ensure certain standards of food/drug quality? How much CDC or NASA do you use?
  Second, often times the people who use a lot (i.e. those on welfare, receiving food stamps, etc.) are those least able to pay. It doesn't make much sense (when talking about the social safety net part of government) to say you can only receive a government benefit if you can pay for it.
  
  I am skeptical of most claimed tangible public goods. Just to make it clear, a public good is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
  [lighthouse analogy]
  So if Exxon wasn't contributing to the lighthouse fund, it would be best for the lighthouse to turn off it's light when the Exxon Valdez was trying to navigate the treacherous reef during a storm? What we're talking about here isn't so much public goods as externalities and the Tragedy of the Commons. In your analogy, the non-paying shipping company probably isn't bearing all the cost of not-paying for lighthouse coverage. Even if there isn't a damages cap, it's not always possible to put a monetary figure on the costs of pollution. What's the financial impact of the Deepwater spill? Chernobyl? Is it possible for a single entity to cause an incident which costs more than it's ability to pay?
  But we're getting away from the question of taxation and how to pay for government. If we're talking about lighthouses, police/fire, roads, parks, CDC, FDA.... excludability costs money. It's more efficient (but perhaps not fairer in your view), to offer those benefits to everyone. It might cost X to have a lighthouse. It will cost X+Y to have a lighthouse with a mechanism to determine who's paid and who hasn't.
  To me, the discussion shouldn't be "how do we handle the excludability," but rather "what services should the government be providing. Maybe it shouldn't be providing crop or flood insurance. Maybe it shouldn't be providing unemployment insurance. Maybe it shouldn't be providing fire services.
  
  Sure, Texas isn't going to let you drop a nuke on Oklahoma but outside of that, if you want to drop paratroopers in OK, that'll be okay with Texas,
  I'm not sure why you're using States in your analogy. The issue is if the individual would voluntarily contribute to fund the national defense. If everyone else is paying $100 per year to support our military, why should I pay anything? The proof of the free-rider effect is shown when you look at Canada's military spending versus ours. Canada (and Mexico, Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, etc.) don't have to pay for defense because they know we will.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
41. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-23 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  The 10k/year earner has no money for the FDIC to protect, no need for police to move vagrants and other riffraff away from property as he owns none, nor does he need the protection of the fire department for his nonexistent property.
  But he is getting welfare, public transportation, free ER visits and an assload of other services. Also, that says nothing about middle class families paying little to no taxes. Try harder or just admit you don't have a leg to stand on.
  
  The law says that because people decided it was correct.
  People also decided you could own slaves and deny women the right to vote, I guess the popular opinion is always right, eh?
42. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-23 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  How much do you benefit from the presence of a fire department (even if your house doesn't catch fire, you benefit when they put out the fire down the block)? What about police? How much do you benefit from FDA regulations which ensure certain standards of food/drug quality? How much CDC or NASA do you use?
  This is known as the economic calculation problem and is a direct criticism of central planning (government type solutions) and an argument for free markets. The only way to decide how much something is worth is to let markets settle on it. If my choices are (1) 0.0001% chance of getting sick from food poisoning and paying a million dollars for a hamburger or (2) 0.01% of getting sick and paying two dollars for a hamburger, I'm going to have the $2 burger. There's an optimum non-zero amount of risk in everything. Asking me to put an exact dollar amount on benefits I perceive is silly and completely backwards. Markets sort that out and then I pick from my available options.
  As for the FDA, I've written about them before. The main problem with the FDA is that if they let 1 bad drug through and 10,000 die, it's all over the news, heads roll etc. If they block 100 safe drugs and 10,000,000 people die from lack of access, it doesn't even make the news. The predictable result is that the FDA is ultra-conservative which costs lots of money jumping through hoops and kills millions of people a year. Please watch this talk given by Dr. Mary Ruwart. She spent 19 years as a pharmaceutical research scientist for Upjohn Pharmaceuticals and talks extensively about the FDA. You have a common sense view of "regulation equals safety equals good" which is intuitive but wrong because that's not how it works.
  
  So if Exxon wasn't contributing to the lighthouse fund, it would be best for the lighthouse to turn off it's light when the Exxon Valdez was trying to navigate the treacherous reef during a storm?
  That wouldn't happen in the first place. You completely ignored everything I said about crew, insurance, public relations, etc. You're also ignoring the fact that there would be no public property so whoever owned that section of ocean would be as likely to allow Exxon through without lighthouse service as you would be to allow someone to operate on you without a degree in medicine. You're holding everything constant and saying "what if X happened". It wouldn't, for so many reasons that I've covered.
  
  To me, the discussion shouldn't be "how do we handle the excludability," but rather "what services should the government be providing.
  It should provide whatever justifies you holding a gun to someone's temple. If there was a guy that lost his job and everyone on the block started donating food to him but you didn't want to, would you think it's acceptable for them to break into your house and take it by force? Of course not but somehow the idea that everything should be peaceful and voluntary is lost when you get a government process going.
  
  The proof of the free-rider effect is shown when you look at Canada's military spending versus ours. Canada (and Mexico, Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, etc.) don't have to pay for defense because they know we will.
  Do you have some numbers to back that up or is it your gut talking? I'm more inclined to believe our government military spending is due to us having bases and troops all over the world and starting wars every couple of years and pissing off half the world. I went from Amsterdam to Paris by train and there wasn't a single security checkpoint but somehow the Eiffel Tower is still standing but the World Trade Center isn't.
43. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by KhabaLox · 2012-08-23 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  You have a common sense view of "regulation equals safety equals good"
  I would say my view is more nuanced: Some regulations equals a particular level of safety which may be good depending on the costs. I fully realize that a lot of regulations are bad and too costly - for example, the TSA.
  You seem to have the view that any regulation equals cost equals bad. The problem with relying on the market in all cases is that 1) there is asymmetrical information (e.g. I don't know what chemicals they are using to frack, so I can't, as a market agent, correctly price natural gas) and 2) the market doesn't always price externalities correctly.
  
  That wouldn't happen in the first place.
  Sure it would. Companies and people will always take shortcuts to save costs. Look at Deepwater. The contractor used sub-standard practices in creating the cement casing. Now, BP has paid out billions in claims, but after the lawyers take their cut, I'm doubtful that the true cost of the oil spill will be recouped by those affected. It's virtually impossible to calculate the true cost to tourism, fishing, the environment, etc., so any settlement between BP and individuals or BP and the government will likely be incorrect. It makes more sense to insure (through regulations) that these types of events have a very small chance of happening.
  One of the issues here is the is the different discount rates agents in the market have. A (public) corporation will tend to have a lower discount rate (i.e. preferring their money upfront), whereas an individual will tend to have a relatively higher discount rate (because they don't need to make their quarterly numbers). Because of this, a corporation may choose to save $100 today if the cost in a year is $120.
  
  If there was a guy that lost his job and everyone on the block started donating food to him but you didn't want to, would you think it's acceptable for them to break into your house and take it by force?
  What's the difference between that and from forcibly expelling me from their society, which is what would happen.
  
  Do you have some numbers to back that up or is it your gut talking? I'm more inclined to believe our government military spending is due to us having bases and troops all over the world and starting wars every couple of years and pissing off half the world.
  Of course our military spending is due to having bases and troops all over the world, and this is precisely why countries like the UK, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan can get away without spending as much on their militaries. Look at most NATO actions - who takes the largest role? Usually it's the US, while the rest of NATO (nearly) free-rides.
  It would be hard to find a foreign politician who will say that they don't spend as much on defense because of the US's commitment to defend them, but it's an obvious conclusion when you compare military spending per GDP:
  US: 4.8%
  Taiwan: 2.7%
  S. Korea: 2.7%
  UK: 2.6%
  Germany: 1.4%
  Spain: 1.1%
  Japan: 1.0%
  Phillipines: 0.8%
  The UK and Spain were targets of bombings on 7-7-07, so it's not like the US is the only target. Also, I would argue that you have cause and effect backwards. We are probably pissing everybody off because (in part) we are spending so much on defense.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
44. Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-23 12:42 · Score: 0
  
  You seem to have the view that any regulation equals cost equals bad.
  No, my view is that regulation equals involuntary equals initiation of violence.
  
  I don't know what chemicals they are using to frack, so I can't, as a market agent, correctly price natural gas
  I don't know how to fill teeth or what a jet engine is made of but that doesn't stop me from being able to price a dentist or a flight. We rely on experts and reputations everyday.
  
  Sure it would. Companies and people will always take shortcuts to save costs. Look at Deepwater. The contractor used sub-standard practices in creating the cement casing.
  So, part of your argument for why we need government regulation is to point at a catastrophe that the US Bureau of Ocean Energy failed to prevent?
  
  Because of this, a corporation may choose to save $100 today if the cost in a year is $120.
  How long will such a business be around if there is a better way to do it? That's the entire point of competition. If you do a bad job, you go out of business. If you're the government, who cares. Is FEMA out of business after Katrina? Nope.
  
  What's the difference between that and from forcibly expelling me from their society, which is what would happen.
  I don't follow you. If you own property, nobody has the right to expel you.
  
  Of course our military spending is due to having bases and troops all over the world
  It seems the obvious solution would be to stop doing that.
Sounds great for Bittorrent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 06:32 · Score: 0

This sounds like it would be awesome for Bittorrent. If Dispatch can make peer connections across my LTE and Cable connections, I could almost get South Korean download rates!
Bring me Google Fiber by Picass0 · 2012-08-21 06:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

The reason you need to jump through hoops like this video only underscores how crappy internet service is in the US.
1. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  But even still imagine using Dispatch with TEN Google Fiber connections :)
  This technology probably still works outside the US.
2. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by gl4ss · 2012-08-21 06:43 · Score: 2
  
  But even still imagine using Dispatch with TEN Google Fiber connections :)
  This technology probably still works outside the US.
  you need some point to aggregate to that has a fast link though too. but the tech itself isn't that new idea. what's puzzling about the demo is why they didn't do it with 10 verizon links to achieve something 100mbit+.
  you see, if you got wifi in there.. just one decent wifi link to a decent office connection could do that 80mbit/s.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
3. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by cpu6502 · 2012-08-21 06:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  >>>how crappy internet service is in the US.
  Oh look.
  A member of the Entitlement Generation complaining "oh the U.S. is so sucky" while the other 6 billion people live on less than 10 dollars a week. It's like listening to a member of the elite bitch-and-moan that he's only in the top 1% of the wealthiest instead of the 0.1% wealthiest.
  FACT: The average U.S. speed is EQUAL to the average EU speed. That's right: Our cousins in the European Union have it No better than we Americans. Sure they have some states that are better, but they also have some crappy states (like Greece, Spain) that are a mere 1-2 Mbit/s.
  The only continent-spanning union that is faster is the Russian Federation (+2 Mbit/s faster than EU or US). But the U.S. average is faster than Canada. Faster than Mexico. Faster than China. Faster than Brazil. Faster than Australia. Faster than India.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
4. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by angel'o'sphere · 2012-08-21 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Considering the planet only has slightly over 6 billion inhabitants ....
  Averages are always meaningless numbers if the sample size is that high.
  Who cares what the average bandwith in the USA is, when 50% of the americans have less than 64 killo bandwith?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
5. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:23 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Oh look.
  A member of the Entitlement Generation complaining "oh the U.S. is so sucky" while the other 6 billion people live on less than 10 dollars a week.
  Oh look, a member of the "you have no right to complain about anything" generation. I'm guessing you're a Baby Boomer, that generation that had as children the best mix of right and left ideas, who when they grew up into the political thinkers of the 80's who decided the rest of us weren't entitled to that.
  Generational bigotry works both ways.
6. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by gman003 · 2012-08-21 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's slightly over seven billion now, actually. 7.034 billion, to be precise.
7. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  Has someone had a bad day, hmmm? Seems like you are coming on a little strong.
8. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  LOL this moron again with his "FACT" statements and no backup. US internet blows chunks, I'll stick with my 10 euro per month, 30MB/s connection rather than move to your little backwater.
9. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by pjt33 · 2012-08-21 07:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Sure they have some states that are better, but they also have some crappy states (like Greece, Spain) that are a mere 1-2 Mbit/s.
  Source? I'm in Spain and I could have 50Mbit/s if I switched to ONO. (I can't be bothered: 20Mb/s with Jazztel is good enough for me). Maybe it's 2Mb/s if you average over everyone, including those who choose to live so far out in the sticks that they don't have running water, but I'd like to see the figures.
10. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  Sources for your "facts"? I certainly haven't experienced the fast average speed you seem to be touting.
11. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by camperdave · 2012-08-21 07:33 · Score: 2
  
  Considering the planet only has slightly over 6 billion inhabitants ....
  Um... A billion people would like to have a word with you and your decades old statistics.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
12. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by grumpyman · 2012-08-21 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  It comes with Google (TM) Internet.
13. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Picass0 · 2012-08-21 07:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm going to go out on a limb and guess than since I'm 44 years old there's a good chance older than you, so don't talk down to me like I'm your junior.
  I didn't burn a flag so stop implying things about my political leanings. I only said internet speeds in the US don't fare well against benchmarks from around the world and that's the truth. That will change if Google Fiber goes widespread.
  Stop injecting politics into crap that's not political. I'm not alone in being sick of people talk like they're on a cable TV debate program. I was discussing internet bandwidth, not the November general election.
  If I were eating and said "MMM, good cheeseburger!" you'll find a f'ing way to make it about Obama. You know what? Forget everything I just said. What I really should have typed is short and sweet:
  STFU
14. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  Oh look if it isn't another member of the Bend Over and Take it Generation back again to tell us why we should settle for the scraps of a society you left behind instead of aspiring for more. Just because the youthful idealism of the 60s became a cooped bastardization of itself and under your stewardship the peek of american influence was squandered doesn't mean that everyone else has to abandon hope of a better future (with better internets).
15. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  FACT: The average U.S. speed is EQUAL to the average EU speed.
  [citation needed]
16. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by fa2k · 2012-08-21 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  what's puzzling about the demo is why they didn't do it with 10 verizon links to achieve something 100mbit+.
  Wireless doesn't work like that
17. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Zlib+pt · 2012-08-21 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  States? is the EU a country now?
18. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Zlib+pt · 2012-08-21 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  And a little more ontopic:
  
  My parents pay a little under 40€ for unlimited phone to 75 countries (landlines) 24/7, 110 channels and 100 Mb Eurodocsis 3 internet connection. Today I reached 80mb/s+ on a real world download - not some speedtest - at their house.
  
  And from what I understand in France the price and services are very similar
19. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by angel'o'sphere · 2012-08-21 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Dors not matter if I miscount by a billion. As the number of people having a faster internet connection than the average of the US population is far bigger than the total US population.
  Even in Bangladesh people have 4G mobile internet connections ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
20. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Picass0 · 2012-08-21 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  I - AM - the original poster.
  I was responding to cpu6502 who called me an entitlement generation leftist because I made a statement about bandwidth speeds in the US.
21. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  You think Google Fibre is going to provide 1 Gbps sustained per user? Not a chance; you're as contended as any other service and perhaps even more so.
  Google, as usual, won't provide information on such trivial matters.
  Just don't run any servers on their network, because that's greedy.
22. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by gitano_dbs · 2012-08-21 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  That's right: Our cousins in the European Union have it No better than we Americans. Sure they have some states that are better, but they also have some crappy states (like Greece, Spain) that are a mere 1-2 Mbit/s
  I am on ONO at Spain paying for the 50mb/5Mb plan, they offered me a month ago a upgrade to 75Mb/5Mb, the price was 1 year permanency more, same money. Just did that quick test for you http://www.speedtest.net/result/2132615837.png . ONO its a cable company pretty spread at Spain, so i call bullshit to your "facts" , care to provide any source ?
23. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by TheUnFounded · 2012-08-21 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
24. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Zlib+pt · 2012-08-21 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  uuups. I'm from Portugal. Also the lowest connection speed i know that can be contracted here is 2 Mb unlimited for 16.99€, the rest is usually 10+. Some reach 200Mbps and there are some pilot programs @ 1Gb residencial. Also 3 or 4 providers offer (real) FTTH.
25. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Shados · 2012-08-21 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  That's true in the us too which I think was the point. I'm in the US and can get 300mb. 75+ is fairly available. It's more expensive than in other countries but adjusted to cost of living only a few have it much cheaper
  It's still not as good as it could be but...
26. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Zordak · 2012-08-21 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  I give you: The Dictionary!
  
  --
  
  Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
27. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  The claim is also not valid for Greece. I can get 24Mbps pretty much everywhere. I have to settle for 2Mbps only in small and remote villages. There is limited 50Mbps availability and a FTTH pilot is about to begin. Mobile carriers have also began deploying 4G/LTE. (source: I live in Greece).
28. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Zlib+pt · 2012-08-21 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  your only giving me reason
29. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  Im in america and can have 50mbit with comcast and wide open west. In FiOS markers, comcast is launching 305mb/s internet.
30. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by rebelwarlock · 2012-08-21 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  So everyone who doesn't live in the US lives on $10 a week? You, sir, are fucking retarded. On one hand, I'd like you to leave that shithole of a country you think is #1, but on the other hand, it's probably better for everyone else in the world if you don't.
31. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Jesus_666 · 2012-08-21 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  It always depends on where you live. The fastest speed I can get is 3 Mbit/s while the cheapest plan is for 6 Mbit. I'm too far away from the DSLAM for the telco to deliver the speed I pay for; while the town is too big to really cover with one DSLAM it's not big enough for the telcos to build more than one. (For the record, this is in Germany where internet is either DSL or mobile.)
  
  It's a rural area; I live about 40 km away from the next large city and 10 km from the next small one. That's far enough out that the villages of the region have recently teamed up with the small city such that any future network speed upgrade has to be offered everywhere - the telcos are notorious for upgrading the cities' networks every few years and then declaring widespread high-speed internet coverage while upgrading rural networks only if absolutely neccessary. In fact, some villages in the area still have nothing faster than ISDN for landline internet. (Luckily, mobile connectivity is more strictly regulated and thus places without usable DSL can end up having decent enough HSPA.)
  
  What Europe does have is more competition in the telco market so we don't get things like the ridiculously bad mobile plans Americans use.
  
  --
  USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
32. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Ecuador · 2012-08-21 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  Sure they have some states that are better, but they also have some crappy states (like Greece, Spain) that are a mere 1-2 Mbit/s.
  Wow, wow wow.
  Just wow.
  FACT: Parent post is full of SH*T
  I am Greek and spent 6 years in NY (until 2009). I lived in Brooklyn and in Queens and worked in Manhattan in two locations - Chelsea and Upper West side. In all four locations mentioned, the fastest internet connection you could get was either cable at around $50-$60 for 5Mbps down 384kbps up (useless) or the more decent dsl at 3Mbps down/ 768kbps up for around $40. At the same time, my uncle in a tiny (50 inhabitants) village in a remote Greek island was getting more than 10Mbps DSL at the same price. My friends in Athens (home of almost half the Greek population) could enjoy even lower rates and even higher speeds (up to 24Mbps if you were very lucky, but most were at around 12-15). Also you get a 3G signal almost everywhere (including the subway and islands), and we are talking about real 3G here with downloads starting at 3-4Mbps if you are not at the edge of the signal range (even back in 2009 from when I can make a direct comparison). Compare that to my T-Mobile phone not working at all once I would leave the city, and my Verizon phone giving me (at least until 2009) the "awesomest" sub-Mbps speeds...
  Yes, Greece is among the crappiest European states when it comes to internet connections and broadband penetration (old people here just don't use PCs), and connection speeds and prices are so much better in most of the rest of Europe. So, imagine how crappy US is when it is even worse than Greece - it almost made me want to cry. Sure, if you are in a few select markets you could get something like OO or FIOS, but for the millions upon millions in NYC that was no consolation.
  Oh, I remember the last year I was in the US (2009), SpeakEasy DSL became available at our Upper West side location. $160/month (hey it is "business") for DSL2 (for those who don't follow it is the main service I described for Athens - up to 24Mbps, but usually around 12-15 depending your distance from the DSL center).
  
  --
  Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
33. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Krneki · 2012-08-22 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  And what is your upload speed?
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
34. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by cpu6502 · 2012-08-22 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  No 80s generation. "X". You should be damn lucky we don't have a worldwide government that is a reflection of our American or European governments. The U.S. and EU governments redistribute the wealth from their top 1% down to the bottom by funding 95% of their budgets off that top 1% of earners (and then providing roads, medicare, retirement, welfare, food stamps, airplines, etc).
  If a world government existed on this same model the U.S. and EU citizens would be the ones paying 95% of the tax burden, and that money would be redistributed to poor places like Africa, India, China, South America, and so on.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
35. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by cpu6502 · 2012-08-22 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  >>>cpu6502 who called me an entitlement generation leftist
  No I didn't. The word "leftist" is nowhere in my post. Strawman argument.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
36. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by cpu6502 · 2012-08-22 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  >>>States? is the EU a country now?
  On the official European Union website, it uses the word "states" to refer to its members. Not just one but repeatedly.
  BTW my Source is speedtest.net which tests billions of connections around the globe. There are many areas of the EU, just like the U.S., that are stuck with slow dialup or ISDN connections. So while I and you mght be able to 50 Mbit/s lines, many people can not, and that drags down the union average.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
37. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by cpu6502 · 2012-08-22 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  My Source is speedtest.net which tests billions of connections around the globe. There are many areas of the EU, just like the US, that are stuck with slow dialup or ISDN connections. So while I and you mght be able to 50 Mbit/s lines, many people can not, and that drags down the union average.
  And yes the U.S. has states that are faster than EU states. If you live in California or Washington or Maryland your average net speed is faster than all 27 EU states except Sweden. So if you have crap internet at your current location, just pick-up and move.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
38. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-22 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  The word "leftist" is nowhere in my post.
  Neither is it in the post you are responding to. In fact, nothing of Picass0's post can possibly mean what you fake-quoted them on.
  
  Strawman argument.
  I don't think you understand what a "strawman argument" is. Hint, inventing shit and then baselessly accusing others of that shit does not turn what the other party actually said into a strawman argument.
39. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-22 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  My Source is speedtest.net which tests billions of connections around the globe.
  No they don't. The only data they have is from the people who choose to go to them to test their connection speed.
  But hey, keep on spreading those lies.
40. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by pjt33 · 2012-08-22 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  That's not so good - about 0.85Mb/s.
41. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by pjt33 · 2012-08-22 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  That's funny: their currently available stats place Spain at 11.65Mb/s, which is an order of magnitude more than you stated. (Greece, at 5.73, is only half an order of magnitude more).
42. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Krneki · 2012-08-23 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yap, so don't advertise it as a good connection. I have 20/20 and I use my upload way more then my download. 1:5 seed ratio so you fellows from spain can use your good download speeds. :)
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
43. Re:Bring me Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-24 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  You can be more constructive than that. We can all recognize that the US *can* do better. Why dump on the guy that wants us to live up to our potential?
Re:Wasn't it limited? by wiedzmin · 2012-08-21 06:33 · Score: 2

DX still lets you browse anything you want... it has no WiFi so disabling 3G on it would piss some people off.

--
Bow before me, for I am root.
Hardware-torrent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 06:36 · Score: 0

cool
Wintel Only by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 06:37 · Score: 0

Wintel only for now. This was needed 10 years ago when all you could get was 10 dial-up lines.
JJ
1. Re:Wintel Only by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  Wintel only for now. This was needed 10 years ago when all you could get was 10 dial-up lines.
  JJ
  That brought back memories of pooled landlines for hosting a BBS, and more recent memories about taking an entire weekend to perform a netinstall of Debian GNU/Linux in 2000 AD/CE. After all, 300 bps (baud) should be fast enough for anyone. ;)
Re:Wasn't it limited? by alexgieg · 2012-08-21 06:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

Nope, the old Kindle's have a rudimentary web browser you can enable in one of the settings menus. Works fine on 3G.
True enough. On the other hand, my Kindle 3's 3G connection went kaput a few months ago and I haven't missed it. I guess I could have saved some money buying the WiFi-only model back then. In fact, now that I think about it, I connect it to my home WiFi once every two weeks or so, and I'm reading on it all the time. I wonder if my usage pattern is typical.

--
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Why is this impressive? by Jeng · 2012-08-21 06:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

Ok, so they made a download of 85Mbps, is this impressive due to the speed, or the complexity?
Also, how fast is the Ethernet connection on it's own?

All in all, they hooked up all of these networking cards:
7 USB Wi-Fi Cards
USB 3G Modem
4G Tethered Smartphone
Ethernet Connection

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
1. Re:Why is this impressive? by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-08-21 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  The Ethernet connection was Comcast's "100 Mbps" connection, which was running at 85 Mbps (due to the cap being hit as DHCP handed out the IP address). The other 9 connections were just there to make it "look fancy".
2. Re:Why is this impressive? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-22 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  LOL
My Kindle 3G still works by cpu6502 · 2012-08-21 06:43 · Score: 1

I regularly read facebook or googlemail. I've not noticed it being switched off? I do feel a bit ripped-off though. I bought the 3G version (instead of the cheaper wifi) specifically because the amazon description advertised webbrowsing over the connection. Now suddenly they've taken away that function. (ponder) Maybe if I ask for a store credit, I can return the 3G and get the cheaper wifi instead.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
1. Re:My Kindle 3G still works by arnott · 2012-08-21 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  From the article:
  
  The free Internet ride is over though: Amazon is now capping use of the browser over 3G at 50 megabytes per month.
  
  However, it’s more likely that Amazon is limiting the 3G connection because of hacks that allow the device to be used as 3G mobile hotspot for free.
likely even faster if not useing USB by Joe_Dragon · 2012-08-21 06:53 · Score: 1

likely even faster if not useing USB to link them all.
How is this special? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 06:56 · Score: 0

Seriously, how is this special? This is most likely just an implementation of PPP Multi-link link aggregation. The reason why the software is a subscription model is because the links need to be re-aggregated at an end point, most likely their servers. If it isn't Multi-link, then it is most likely Link teaming.
If you had a dedicated server with a fat (multi-gbps) fat pipe, you should be able to execute on this. I hope their business model isn't banking on an over-subscription model...
1. Re:How is this special? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think its a subscription model. I think you just get upgrades and support for a year. Anyways, I've been waiting for something like this, and haven't really seen anything close to it yet.
FINALLY!!! by jemenake · 2012-08-21 06:57 · Score: 4, Funny

... a use for all of the wireless passwords in my neighborhood that I've cracked! All of my neighbors (individually) have slower connections than I do.

On a side note, it always would irk me that Windows XP, if you gave it more than 1 path to the internet, would be unable to get to the internet at all.
New meme? by bwintx · 2012-08-21 07:00 · Score: 1

From now on, will a link to this story substitute for the fabled "Beowulf cluster" meme? We shall see.

--
Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
1. Re:New meme? by gman003 · 2012-08-21 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Beowulf connection" has a nice ring to it.
2. Re:New meme? by Jeng · 2012-08-21 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  It needs a legendary name to compete with "Beawolf Cluster", hmm perhaps "Hydra Connection"?
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
3. Re:New meme? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  i love it, perhaps its technical term can be a RAIIC
Must go faster by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:09 · Score: 0

OHH to chain all the 4g phones in my office.
If there was only a MiFi app for that to not need 10 individual WiFi cards, but rather spawn a new WiFi virtual access point when the data rate saturates the 150/300 802.11n limits.
Speedtest.net or GTFO! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:16 · Score: 0

Oh how very 1996 of them. I haven't used bonded connections since v.90 modems and ISDN lines went out of favor in 1998. But, these aren't even bonded in the traditional sense they are disparate links form disparate providers. The aggregate bandwidth might indeed be impressive and there may well be a use for this as a headend for some sort of multi-user network, but it won't provide high speed in the sense that everyone expects.
A single connection between you and the website of your choice will never reach more that the speed of the SINGLE link that your TCP session traverses. Doubt it? Let's see this Slashvertisment run against www.speedtest.net or GTFO!
Webramp by CambodiaSam · 2012-08-21 07:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

I played with one of these back in the 90s that did the same thing. http://www.speedguide.net/reviews/webramp-700s-89
Pointless by brainzach · 2012-08-21 07:31 · Score: 1

Interesting concept, but I don't see the practical use.
How many times do you need that fast of Internet connection on the go AND have access to several unsecured WiFi hotspots at the same time?
One fast reliable WiFi connection is a simpler solution that accomplishes the same thing.
1. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  It happens all the time when you're out on a boat. Example: http://setsail.com/efficient-versatile-easy-to-use-communications-what-is-the-answer-for-cruisers/
  You show up in a new port. There are 6 WiFi stations, 2 of which sort-of kind-of work. There's a weak 3G signal that's fast for a few minutes, then gone for a while. There's a strong 2G signal but it's slow. There's a satellite phone, which is pricey.
  A device that can aggregate all of these flaky connections into one reasonably stable data stream is a Very Good Idea.
  (posting AC from work, still on duty...)
smack by magarity · 2012-08-21 07:44 · Score: 1

Someone needs to smack the twit who tethered his Kindle. As if Amazon wouldn't notice. Many times I've used my Kindle's lousy browser as a backup; if they crank down the usage or eliminate it because of this he needs to hope I never catch him unaware. How hard is it to just use a free bonus service in a device as a free bonus service in the device?
Is it so terrible to want more than "average"? by no_such_user · 2012-08-21 09:10 · Score: 1

Entitlement Generation? I must have missed the part where the poster said something about expecting it for free.
Even with its flaws, I'm thankful to have a fast Internet connection at all. But it could be much better.
depends how you live by Chirs · 2012-08-21 10:34 · Score: 1

If your house is paid off you could live on the interest of a million dollars, even if you were making only 5%. $50K/yr is nothing to sneeze at.
1. Re:depends how you live by geminidomino · 2012-08-21 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  Christ, if you're single and not extravagant, you could probably live off 5% of $400k
Done that with 4 cable modem. by erraticus · 2012-08-21 11:20 · Score: 2

A time ago I played with a linux box and 4 cable modem (each had a different IP). It just were a load balancing with the kernel routing tables. I remember that BitTorrent was the sole thing where I could get the total speed being the sum of each link. The problem was that the routes are cached by session (dhost, dport I think) so parallel HTTP/FTP download of a file would go through the same link. However, routes expiring gave me problems with some services which doesn't like your IP to change.
Stealing Wi-Fi? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 13:03 · Score: 0

It would be neat if it was just a technical demonstration of thinking outside the box, but Connectify is actually promoting a real product here (on KickStarter no less). Somebody's paying for that internet connection, just not them. And make no mistake, given limited bandwidth this is depriving other users, particularly legitimate users, of their service. They're taking it from people or businesses around them: "But instead of just using the tethered phone to get on the Internet when Wi-Fi isn’t working, they decided to use it in addition to every other unsecured Wi-Fi network located around our office building."
So, they're advertising a device that effectively steals the bandwidth from other people. You can use whatever excuses you want, but "they were asking for it by not having protection" is not justifiable, and "they advertise it as free Wi-Fi" ignores that even Starbucks and McDonalds expect their Wi-Fi to be used by actual customers, not drained by people or businesses that won't be giving them a dime.
Re:Wasn't it limited? by Ecuador · 2012-08-21 19:22 · Score: 2

When I am at home I connect to WiFi as you say every few weeks. However when I travel abroad it is an indispensable tool giving me access to maps, travel info, reservations etc without having to rely - on sometimes very expensive - local access options.
I consider my kindle 3G the best purchase I have ever made as it has already more than paid itself. Not to mention that I have been reading much more since I got a Kindle.
Although 50MB is enough for the usage I need to get from the browser, congrats to the guys who were taking advantage of Amazon's amazing service and were tethering the device, hence probably ruining it for everyone.

--
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Give me Gigabit. by Chalnoth · 2012-08-22 01:24 · Score: 1

So, one tenth the speed of Google Fiber? Makes me almost wish I lived in Kansas City...