10 Internet Connections At Same Time

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."

Comments

Can't use it like one connection

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Can't use it like one connection

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Can't use it like one connection

[funwithBSD]

And the latency does not get any better, which sucks on 3G and 4G.

Re:Can't use it like one connection

[Lennie]

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/

Re:Can't use it like one connection

[Gerzel]

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.

Re:Can't use it like one connection

[Cormacus]

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.

Re:Can't use it like one connection

[BadgerRush]

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.

Re:Can't use it like one connection

[KingMotley]

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.

Re:Can't use it like one connection

[cayenne8]

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?

Re:Can't use it like one connection

[ZorinLynx]

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.

Re:Can't use it like one connection

[Cormacus]

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?

Re:Can't use it like one connection

[ZorinLynx]

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

[gurps_npc]

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.

Re:Nook

[tangelogee]

Battery issues? The nook (1st gen at least) had user-replaceable batteries.

Re:Nook

[VortexCortex]

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.

Re:Nook

[craash420]

Go home, Dad, you're drunk.

Re:Wasn't it limited?

[sexconker]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll tell you what I'd do, man: 10 internet connections at the same time, man.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[Anonymous Coward]

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%.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[Jeng]

No, you have to be so rich that you would never spend the money anyways to get a 13% tax rate.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[somarilnos]

And I think if I was a millionaire I could hook that up, too, 'cause internet connections dig dudes with money.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[Reasonable Facsimile]

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.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[Samantha Wright]

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...

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[HapSlappy_2222]

Sigh where are my mod points today?

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Am I the only one that pictured 10 monitors in a circle, each showing porn, and a swivel chair in the middle?

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[GameboyRMH]

And a dude spinning in that chair and doing a 1-man circle jerk?

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[KhabaLox]

Are you arguing for a regressive tax system?

Can't tell if young, naive pseudo-libertarian or just trolling.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[h4rr4r]

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.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[Jeng]

Those who benefit the most from society owes society the most.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[mark-t]

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.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[KhabaLox]

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.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[icebraining]

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.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[icebraining]

But it's not the law, otherwise they would be paying!

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[h4rr4r]

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.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[KhabaLox]

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?

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[KhabaLox]

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.

Re:What would you do if you had a million dollars?

[KhabaLox]

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.

Bring me Google Fiber

[Picass0]

The reason you need to jump through hoops like this video only underscores how crappy internet service is in the US.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[gl4ss]

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.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[cpu6502]

>>>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.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[angel'o'sphere]

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?

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[gman003]

It's slightly over seven billion now, actually. 7.034 billion, to be precise.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[pjt33]

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.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[camperdave]

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.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[grumpyman]

It comes with Google (TM) Internet.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[Picass0]

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

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[Anonymous Coward]

FACT: The average U.S. speed is EQUAL to the average EU speed.

[citation needed]

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[fa2k]

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

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[Zlib pt]

States? is the EU a country now?

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[Zlib pt]

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

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[angel'o'sphere]

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 ...

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[Picass0]

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.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[gitano_dbs]

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 ?

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[TheUnFounded]

[citation needed]

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[Zlib pt]

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.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[Shados]

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...

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[Zordak]

I give you: The Dictionary!

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[Zlib pt]

your only giving me reason

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[rebelwarlock]

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.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[Jesus_666]

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.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[Ecuador]

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).

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[Krneki]

And what is your upload speed?

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[cpu6502]

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.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[cpu6502]

>>>cpu6502 who called me an entitlement generation leftist

No I didn't. The word "leftist" is nowhere in my post. Strawman argument.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[cpu6502]

>>>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.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[cpu6502]

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.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[pjt33]

That's not so good - about 0.85Mb/s.

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[pjt33]

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).

Re:Bring me Google Fiber

[Krneki]

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. :)

Re:Wasn't it limited?

[wiedzmin]

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

Re:Wasn't it limited?

[alexgieg]

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.

Why is this impressive?

[Jeng]

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

Re:Why is this impressive?

[HapSlappy_2222]

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".

My Kindle 3G still works

[cpu6502]

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.

Re:My Kindle 3G still works

[arnott]

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

[Joe_Dragon]

likely even faster if not useing USB to link them all.

FINALLY!!!

[jemenake]

... 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?

[bwintx]

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

Re:New meme?

[gman003]

"Beowulf connection" has a nice ring to it.

Re:New meme?

[Jeng]

It needs a legendary name to compete with "Beawolf Cluster", hmm perhaps "Hydra Connection"?

Webramp

[CambodiaSam]

I played with one of these back in the 90s that did the same thing. http://www.speedguide.net/reviews/webramp-700s-89

Pointless

[brainzach]

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.

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[magarity]

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"?

[no_such_user]

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

[Chirs]

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.

Re:depends how you live

[geminidomino]

Christ, if you're single and not extravagant, you could probably live off 5% of $400k

Done that with 4 cable modem.

[erraticus]

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.

Re:Wasn't it limited?

[Ecuador]

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.

Give me Gigabit.

[Chalnoth]

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