Slashdot Mirror


All New Homes In China Must Have Fiber Optic Internet Connections

redletterdave writes "Only a small number of U.S. cities can boast fiber optic connections, but in China, it's either fiber or bust. China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has now ordered all newly built residences to install fiber optic connections in any city or county 'where a public fiber optic telecom network is available.' The new standards will take effect starting on April 1, 2013, and residents will be able to choose their own ISP with equal connections to services. The Chinese government reportedly hopes to have 40 million families connected to fiber networks by 2015."

202 comments

  1. Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm pretty sure internet services providers and the telecommunications market in China is dominated by two or three massive companies just like it unfortunately is in the states.

    However, even China is offering something Google and Verizon aren’t here in the US: Open access, and the choice of multiple service providers once the fiber is installed.

    Um, yeah so you can pick from China Telecom and China Unicom which are both -- SURPRISE SURPRISE -- state run and controlled providers. So, yeah, go ahead and select between Super Auspicious Provider A and Premium Auspicious Provider B and think you have a choice just like Cox and Comcast are two sides of the same inept coin.

    According to the China Daily report, the Chinese government hopes to have “40 million families connected to fiber networks by 2015,” which is almost one-third of the country’s entire population.

    Emphasis mine. Anyone see a believable plan on how that's going to happen? I mean, I bet every government hopes to have a third of its nations homes on fiber networks by 2015 ... that sounds like a rather expensive project that you're not going to see a return on until the state owned providers pay it back though. You've got a state owned and state controlled newspaper telling you about something unbelievably awesome enforcing some totally unrealistic (unless there are few fiber neighborhoods) regulation. Am I the only one saying that I will applaud them when it's actually in place and working?

    2015 is two years away. Um, yeah, they had better get crackin'. Well, I guess when you can just force the poorer farming people to work for free it might be possible! That little project was called “Speed up the Roads and Enrich the People” hahaha. Here's your shovel, comrade. Now start digging until you're enriched.

    The skeptic in me is just thinking that the home builders in China just need to pay off one more inspector to get a structure standing. Hell, their sheet rock and cement are clearly bribed through quality control -- why not structural, electrical and fiber officials?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by ButchDeLoria · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course it's too good to be true, just look at the deployment date of the standards.

    2. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree with your skepticism. I think the bigger question is what's the politburo is trying to accomplish as a whole--not just with the internet. I think what people have to understand is that every company in China is owned by the communist government--whether covertly or overtly, just look at who founded Huawei for an example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren_Zhengfei). China is slowly taking over the general aviation businesses in the US either by buying them out or requiring that that a China-based company be a partner to sell aircraft in China--just look at Cessna's LSA plan for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162#Chinese_production_controversy).

    3. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think this might work. Mandating a modern connection is a smart thing to do. And its basically no different than mandating that new houses be connected to other public utilities like water, electric, or sewer. And its smart because it loads the capital expense of the network connection into the build cost of the house versus inefficiently pulling cable whenever someone new wants service.

      Sadly our corrupt politicians in the US choose to legislate anti-competitive measures; such as outlawing municipal broadband projects. (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/south-carolina-passes-bill-against-municipal-broadband/)

    4. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      China Telecom and China Unicom which are both ... two sides of the same inept coin.

      Except the are not inept. Internet service in China is far cheaper, faster, more reliable, and more pervasive than what you find in the USA. Since these are SOEs, they are not entirely profit driven, but also consider wider societal goals, such as the economic and business benefits of a well connected population. There are certainly downsides to authoritarian socialism, but building out public infrastructure isn't one of them.

    5. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 2

      There's something you got to realize. Having 40 millions families connected to fiber in China, equals to have 2 major cities to switch to fiber. That's really doable.

      What's not right, is whey they say that 40 million families represent one-third of the country’s entire population. That's in fact one third of the CONNECTED entire population. That's a big difference.

      Apart from that, I'm totally with you concerning the "choice". China Telecom or China Unicom are both crap when it comes to international connectivity. Though it's better and better.

      The big joke though, is that even if you get fiber to the home, you only get 20 Mbits down, and ... tadaaaa ... 512 Kbits up! For that kind of connectivity, using fiber is overly stupid. ADSL is enough.

    6. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hell, their sheet rock and cement are clearly bribed through quality control -- why not structural, electrical and fiber officials?

      Because part of the fiber installation contains a few little chips that better enable the Chinese govt. to monitor what the resident is doing. Eventually, there will even be a few strategically placed cameras.

    7. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      What are they doing? Eating, sleeping, watching TV, masturbating. It can't be that interesting.

    8. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      That helps some but you are still left with the internal wiring. Unless there are some mandates in that regard, the usefulness of that fiber connection will be limited.

      Even relatively low end streamer appliances benefit from a real, wired ethernet connection.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The big joke though, is that even if you get fiber to the home, you only get 20 Mbits down, and ... tadaaaa ... 512 Kbits up! For that kind of connectivity, using fiber is overly stupid. ADSL is enough.

      And in ten years when you want to upgrade you would have to install fiber in every house. By install fiber in the houses you only need to upgrade the connection to the house later.
      Going for ADSL directly only makes sense if you plan to tear the house down within ten years.

    10. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . you can pick from China Telecom and China Unicom which are both -- SURPRISE SURPRISE -- state run and controlled providers . . . just like Cox and Comcast are two sides of the same inept coin.

      Wrong!

      Cox and Comcast are separate entities in competition with each other. While they generally are not competing for the same customers, their pricing and service offerings do contribute to the competitive ISP market in the US. While you may not be able to choose a different cable-based ISP, you are generally able to choose from several different ISPs offering several different services at several different price points, which is one of the primary advantages of our free market system. Our system, far from inept, brought about the Internet itself and associated technologies that the Chinese, as well as the rest of the world, now want greater access to.

      While China's state-run monopoly of their telecom market may be able to throw large amounts of cash at growing greater accessibility, they will continue to chase the lead of those making the real innovations brought about by free enterprise and the free market.

    11. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China Telecom and China Unicom which are both ... two sides of the same inept coin.

      Except the are not inept. Internet service in China is far cheaper, faster, more reliable, and more pervasive than what you find in the USA. Since these are SOEs, they are not entirely profit driven, but also consider wider societal goals, such as the economic and business benefits of a well connected population. There are certainly downsides to authoritarian socialism, but building out public infrastructure isn't one of them.

      It's quite amusing that this is flagged as '2, Troll'. It does read a bit like a advertisement.

      What does amount to reliability in China? Is is the ability to connect to chinese services (Which I think is likely) or ability to connect to the "corrupted" western world. Even in europe I consider the most important facility to connect to is local services, like the bank, not the fact that I can browser random American Big Corporation Web Sites, or websites describing how to create a disk drive emulator using secure digital cards for my "brand new" amiga.

    12. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      Our system, far from inept, brought about the Internet itself

      The internet was developed by the free market? And I thought DARPA played a major role ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    13. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Synerg1y · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a lot easier & cheaper to deploy infrastructure where there is none rather than replace existing infrastructure. It'll add cost to building the homes & laying the fiber, but it'll ultimately be a lot cheaper than doing it later. I'd like to see more countries follow suite actually minus the human rights problems that China always seems to be at the epicenter of.

    14. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Bengie · · Score: 2

      According to the China Daily report, the Chinese government hopes to have “40 million families connected to fiber networks by 2015,” which is almost one-third of the country’s entire population.

      Average family size is a hair over 4. 40mil families is about 160mil people, or about 1/8 of their population. I could be missing something.

    15. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All new homes? Does that include new caves? http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/21st-century-cavemen-30-million-chinese-live-in-caves.html

    16. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, certain markets like cellular and internet can only support a few major entities at any given time, at which point collusion takes effect because the existing entities do not need to fear newcomers undercutting them.

    17. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are certainly downsides to authoritarian socialism, but building out public infrastructure isn't one of them.

      Seriously? No corruption in building out public infrastructure under authoritarian socialism? No bribery to allow using substandard materials or construction methods?

      Wow, authoritarian socialism is a utopian miracle!

    18. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are certainly downsides to authoritarian socialism, but building out public infrastructure isn't one of them.

      Seriously? No corruption in building out public infrastructure under authoritarian socialism? No bribery to allow using substandard materials or construction methods?

      Wow, authoritarian socialism is a utopian miracle!

      Calm down, calm down. The GP troll was just trying to say "the trains run on time" while attempting to bypass everyone's anti-fascism mental filter in the process.

    19. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      I don't see how the advance of the display technology is in any way linked to the internet infrastructure, other than producing more demand for bandwidth. Indeed, I'm pretty sure display technology would have advanced even without the internet; the gaming industry was probably much more a drive to this.

      Not to mention that displays are clearly not infrastructure, so it's irrelevant in this discussion anyway.

      And no, I'm not government-worshipping. But I'm also not government-demonising or market-worshipping. There are things which are better done by the market, and there are things better done by the government.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    20. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but have you ever lived in mainland China? Internet service there for anything other than local Chinese sites is pathetic. Even local sites have speed issues sometimes. Not to mention the insane/random filtering. So they will sell you 5mbps, 10mbps, 25mbps but cannot guarantee the speeds on any of them.

    21. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fiber optic cables and cable paths can be shared to the point that a near infinite amount of ISPs can provide services over them. Similar things can be said of wireless, but currently, to a much lesser degree.

      What you call a limitation of the free market is actually a problem brought about by government mandated monopoly. Even so, the history of the Internet and the myriad available options to those in sufficiently populated areas contradicts your conspiratorial claims of collusion.

      The problem with the collusion claim is that, if some are greedy enough to collude with others to keep prices high, some will be greedy enough to break the collusion agreement or not collude at all in order to undercut those still in collusion and reap the profits. That boogeyman has been debunked over and over again in theory and in practice. Yet, leftists continue to faithfully repeat the tired claim . . .

    22. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It might be a forest through the trees situation, but I'm not seeing the problem you see. At the minimum, just like with normal communications wiring such as coaxial cable or phone lines, the fiber will go to a POP box that converts the signal to to a connection format that the property owner can use. Optimally, new houses built will have internal wiring for ethernet outlets to accompany the phone line, cable line, and power jacks installed at build time. Older houses can be retrofit in the same way new cable outlets are put into a house now. We're talking comm lines, not electrical lines where self installed homeowner screwups could potentially cause block fires.

    23. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by icebike · · Score: 2

      That helps some but you are still left with the internal wiring. Unless there are some mandates in that regard, the usefulness of that fiber connection will be limited.

      Even relatively low end streamer appliances benefit from a real, wired ethernet connection.

      Think of the backhaul capabilities fiber offers compared to copper. (Also think of the copper savings).
      Also think of digital TV capabilities.

      The usefulness of the fiber may not be as limited as you think.

      Sure, there may be some home monitoring capabilities as well because the backhaul allows easier monitoring capabilities (video or audio) within the household, office, or school.

      You've already seen announcements of in-household video monitoring via cable boxes. Hard to tell if these are truthful simply planned for Skype support.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    24. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are certainly downsides to authoritarian socialism, but building out public infrastructure isn't one of them.

      Seriously? No corruption in building out public infrastructure under authoritarian socialism? No bribery to allow using substandard materials or construction methods?

      Wow, authoritarian socialism is a utopian miracle!

      That's actually quite amusing considering the problems the american basic infrastructure has had, that includes maintenance. Capitalism will drive their trains and power on their lines until they are complete rubbish and break down before they are fixed. I'd however point out that China nor Russia, were authoritarian socialism, they were communist, which quite frankly, isn't socialism. Atleast the way socialism works in Europe is driving the interests of the good of the people. (This doesn't necessarily mean what the people want, like with the Greece problem, but what they think is good for the people).

    25. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I hear what you're saying, but it's hard to damn China when they're trying to make progress while the US monopolies rest on their profits! Their RECORD PROFITS!

      FIOS or FTTP in my area? Only whispers of conjecture. Phone companies providing DSL? Sure, but it still maxes at maybe 10-20MB if you're close enough to an exchange. Cable companies offering DOCSIS? Sure, but they only just pushed a massive infrastructure roll out to provide DOCSIS-2, a year and a half ago. I'm sure they'll sit on that for 5 years to 'make up' for lost profits from the roll out, which was actually paid for by the Government, and NOT the provider.

      Have lived here my whole life, and I've had Cable modem Internet access for 16 years. Same location, same coax aside from infrastructure upgrades, and I get 20Mbps/1.5Mbps D/U. That's of course, after the service switching hands 5-6 different times.

      And where's Wireless in all this? Sprint 4G 'supposedly' in the area, as well as AT&T 4G and Verizon. You want me on that for ALL of my home computers? Yea, right.

      My point? Permanent high speed infrastructure to the home, needs to be done, and it isn't. Fiber to the home, ISN'T happening in the US. Only exception is Googles project, but I don't consider it part of the equation unless they start a project in every state, at the same time. Face it, they're R&D'ing for $pick_a_reason.

      There's a reason why everyone and their dog is trying to use existing cable and coax infrastructures rather than lay out Fiber. Cost. Or so they say. Which I find amusing, given the Government, by way of those nice Infrastructure fees on your cellular, telephone, and cable modem bills, actually funds such infrastructure upgrades. No no, let's see if we can push multi-freq. DSL over the same copper pairs that have been in the ground for 30 years. That will surely last another 20 years, right? And coax for cable modems? Hmm... We have a finite frequency to work with and we still haven't pushed everything over to HD. Probably lots of space left for more bandwidth, right? I'm sure no OTHER service will be around which will steam-roll whatever quality they can provide during that timeframe.

      Sorry, but the US has become lazy on it's Monopolistic, OH SORRY... Capitalist telecomm and communications markets. While they're reaping record breaking PROFITS, and trying to milk every ad dollar along the way, the rest of the developed world will pass us by. Including CHINA!!!

      The future of Fiber in the US? What roadblocks that haven't been legislated into position, which vary from state to state that prevent non-monopolies from picking up the slack, need massive funding. And unfortunately, such funding will need to be private or co-op'ed, and won't come from the Government.

      In short, the US is screwing itself over for profits because what we have right now, is 'good enough'!

      /end rant

    26. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      I'd have to think this ISP thing in China is mostly in urban center, which is densely populated. Hong Kong is at 34% . Similar to mobile services, because of the scale and density, the service is much cheaper. As long as we love our single family house with double garage....

    27. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, if you are saying the entities are colluding to keep prices as low as possible while still making a small profit, this should be to the benefit of the customer, as they are receiving the service they desire at the lowest possible cost to them. Also, don't mistake a highly competitive market for collusion.

      As long as the customers are happy with the service and the price, it is the customer who leaves no room for new competitors, not the existing providers -- they are just providing what the customers want at, what must be, a very reasonable price. Otherwise, the customer desire for different service and/or lower prices would inevitably attract new competitors. That's the very nature of the free market.

    28. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by leenks · · Score: 1

      40 million is one third of the country's population? Someone can't read decimals - it's more like 3% of the population.

      http://worldpopulationreview.com/population-of-china-2012/

    29. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how the advance of the display technology is in any way linked to the internet infrastructure

      It turns out you do:

      . . . other than producing more demand for bandwidth.

      Not to mention that displays are clearly not infrastructure, so it's irrelevant in this discussion anyway.

      Wrong, again. You already admitted that displays produced more demand for bandwidth, which is completely relevant to infrastructure, as are the economics of how best to fund infrastructures. Nice try, though . . .

      There are things which are better done by the market, and there are things better done by the government.

      I agree, except I tend to assign tasks to government that can't practically be done by the free market, whereas I'm guessing you would assign more to government than is necessary and, ultimately, beneficial to free people. At least your opinions to this point seem to indicate as much . . .

    30. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by leenks · · Score: 1

      And I can't read families vs people - but still, its less than 10%.

    31. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by dywolf · · Score: 2

      What's the ultimate goal? To be competitive.
      They may be kinda sorta communists, but they aren't stupid.

      Over the past decade China added 3x as much interstate highway as exists in the entire United States. Theyre entire country is as well linked by high speed highway as the US, if not better. They saw how the movement of goods, service,a nd people, helps an economy grow, gives it room to grow, and linking the country quickly and efficiently is a big part of that. So they dd the same. And it's been a big part of their economic growth just like it was ours. plus it provided jobs for many thousands of people and companies during the construction.

      This fiber requirement is similar. Internet is core infrastructure. And as economies grow, as data requirements grow, that infrastructure needs to grow too, just like asphalt highawys do.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    32. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      I live in Shanghai half time, and have 50 Mbps fiber to my apartment. And the VPN router I brought over from the US not only keeps prying eyes off my pipe, it lets me consume Hulu, Youtube, Netflix, and music streaming sources without an issue. Fiber's readily available in most of the bigger cities already, this is a pretty small step forward.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    33. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree with your skepticism. I think the bigger question is what's the politburo is trying to accomplish as a whole--not just with the internet. I think what people have to understand is that every company in China is owned by the communist government--whether covertly or overtly, just look at who founded Huawei for an example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren_Zhengfei).

      Really? Every company? I guess the company I own - of which I am the sole registered owner, and the only person on the bank accounts - is somehow State owned. It's no more State owned than my company in the US, meaning it's my private property until the Government decides I'm either doing something they don't like, or am doing it too successfully and need "their assistance" to make it better. But for now - it's 100% privately held by a foreign national. And there's no problem with that.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    34. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      I spend about 1/4 of my time in China. Different cities. And internet service is routinely slow and irregular. People routinely complain about how expensive and bad it is. And trying to access sites outside China can sometimes feel like using dial-up.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    35. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As another expat spending inordinate amounts of time in Shanghai, the Internet available (50 Mbps fiber for me) is a lot better than the options I have in my other home in Santa Barbara. And whilst China does block access to some foreign (US) sites, and many US sites (Hulu, Netflix, Pandora, MOG, etc) block me, my nice little low-cost VPN perforates through all that stuff without a hitch.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    36. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, yes I live in mainland China, and have done so for 6-7 months a year for the last 7 years. The 50 Mbps fiber I have for my apartment in Shanghai (Lujiazui district) provides nearly that via my VPN back to the US so I can stream several channels of MOG as well as Netflix. It's pretty darn good. Is it always 50 Mbps? Nope. But then again, my other place (Santa Barbara, served by Cox Internet) rarely can provide what it advertises as well.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    37. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by daninaustin · · Score: 1

      Maybe things have changed, but last time i was there, their highways system wasn't anywhere near as good as ours.

    38. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world is like this for a long time already. There were Jeep delivered to the US army in Korea and there were Jeep produced in China for the Chinese and Nord Korean Army when they fought the Korean War.
      Some call it capitalism, some communism, I call this fascism.

    39. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Spectre · · Score: 1

      Things are changing, but a lot of it is probably what you remember.

      Tourist is skateboarding across two provinces right now ... big highway used almost exclusively by construction trucks extending the highway ... then a rocky trail to get over to another highway, also used almost exclusively by construction trucks building THAT highway ... and that was the BEST option for getting from point A to point B.

      --
      "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
    40. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Why would they fake something like that? Remember, if you're building a brand new building from the ground up, and you aren't terribly hung up on maintaining official certifications, single-mode fiber is cheaper per foot than Home Depot-quality cat6 cable (copper is shockingly expensive now). Fiber doesn't really get expensive (in new construction) until you actually go to TERMINATE it... and that's an expense you can defer until the day you really *have* to.

      As for the great firewall and duopoly, both are strikes against its usefulness... but on the other hand, I think it's safe to say that the fiber will probably be around longer than the politics and duopoly will. At least when a more competitive business environment arrives in China, they'll have the fiber in place and ready to go. We'll probably still have... AT&T and Verizon, both trying their hardest to abandon more wired infrastructure than the other, while using their lawyers and lobbyists to ensure that their abandoned right of ways remain that way forever.

    41. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      I think the bigger question is what's the politburo is trying to accomplish as a whole--not just with the internet.

      The same thing we do every night, Pinky.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    42. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Emphasis mine. Anyone see a believable plan on how that's going to happen?

      Clearly you've never seen how quickly infrastructure is built in China. This is a country that more than tripled the number of the subway lines in less than four years. The US can't even build one in less than nine years.

      They can move incredibly fast.

    43. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      It's unfortunate, but lots of Americans get hung up on the name of China's governing political party, take it at face value, and blindly read cold-war Soviet memes into it that are about as relevant to modern China and accurately descriptive as "Leave it to Beaver" was to life in 1960s America.

    44. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Beijing, real 50Mbps costs at least 15,000 RMB per month - my apartment is a 10 Mbps connection which is actually rate capped at 3Mbps total - this is common for most of my friends too. The best I've seen for an apartment in Beijing is 8Mbps, oh except for that one weekend where there rate cap broke and I was getting about 30Mbps for a few days before they realised.

      Getting fibre will not make any difference, the ISPs all lie and rate cap a lot regardless of the wall socket you have.

      If they actually cared, they wouldn't even have to use fibre all the time, even the new ADSL standards would be a big step up from here.

    45. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Above · · Score: 1

      If you look at some of their other infrastructure projects connecting 40M homes by 2015 is an almost trivial task.

    46. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More pervasive...

      Comparing the US and China is a far more complex comparison than you make it out to be. China is building up from very little to modern technology; the US did the same only it was decades ago when cable telephone wires were all the rage. China's skipping that step. It's also a lot cheaper to build this kind of infrastructure in China than it is in the US due to vastly different labor costs (China has cheaper per rate labor, along with a lot fewer taxes as they have no comparison to Medicare or Social Security; the aging population in China with little elderly care is a growing concern in China).

      But pervasive? Hardly. China's internet may be more pervasive in the coastal cities, which has a densely packed population of ~400 M, but the remainder of China's population of ~900M is in the rural parts and does not have access to even basic internet services, heck some places don't even have electricity. That's hardly what I would call pervasive.

    47. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      A lot of Americans (well, not just Americans) get hung up on the fact that there is a thriving network of Gulags in China. Granted, the 'g' in gulag is perhaps lower case. This is not simply a cold-war meme.

    48. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      But for now - it's 100% privately held by a foreign national. And there's no problem with that.

      There likely would be if you, as the owner of this company and it's assets, decided to move your production facility to Mexico. Suddenly it becomes very difficult and expensive to move your expensive tooling and other capital equipment.

      Maybe you just have a software company, and it can all move around in a laptop.... But the big companies who set up subsidiaries in China find a lot of their capital trapped there.

    49. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      You live in Shanghai. That's one of the worlds biggest cities, which happens to be in China. Your observations have little meaning in the context of all of China.

    50. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I've never been to China but the recent mining boom here in Oz was said to be due to domestic growth in China. Apparently they are investing in infrastructure at a pace never seen before, for the past few years they have been using up 1/3 of the world's output in steel for domestic construction, that's construction alone, not the total consumption. They have stated they want to create a strong middle class to spur domestic growth, it appears to be working in a spectacularly fashion.

      I don't think it will be very long in historical terms before China and the US have a similar standard of living. In "big picture" terms, since the time I was born, the USSR and the US have both blown their inheritance on military power to the point of domestic bankruptcy/extinction, China was bankrupt and experiencing regular famines when I was a kid, the year I left HS they kicked the gang of four to the curb and since that time they have have dragged more people out of abject poverty than the rest of the world combined.

      Of course carefully selected "little picture" stories can make either place look like heaven or hell, but in historical terms I'd say the Chinese people won the cold war while the rest of the world were busy dancing on the remains of a wall in Germany.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    51. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      Though most large companies are state-own, it doesn't mean they are more monopolistic or less competing than the private duopolies we have. For examples, after their only airline that was known for bad services was broken into many state-own airlines, each of them have become much more efficient and provide good services and prices driven by the market. The two telcos were not known for bad services within their own customers; rather they set up barrier between them so trying to keep customers from leaving (until such practices got crack down by the government.) In short, state-own in China probably means not too much more than US government owning majority AIG. Both are trying to lobby or bribe their respective governments to their advantages.

    52. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shanghai is actually famous for having some of the worst internet service in the country. It's supposedly getting better, but still, the previous poster's experience sounds way out of the mainstream to me.

    53. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Living in a small but relatively well-to-do village in western China, I never got over the giant dreadlock of phone wires overhanging the main street. Needless to say, every time it rained the internet came to a screeching halt. Even on a good day it came nowhere near the 4Mbps China Telecom claimed.

    54. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Balthisar · · Score: 1

      My 50 Mbps fiber (in Nanjing) usually gets me about 30 Mbps service, which is still excellent. However, how do you manage to get that throughput through the VPN? I find that unless I open multiple simultaneous connections, I can't get any serious speed outside of China. For example I can use lftp to open 20 parallel transfers to my VPS in France and saturate my connection, but the VPN (whether to my commercial provider in California, my Amazon EC2 instance in California, or my house in Michigan). I'm certain it's not throttling, and the router's CPU doesn't ever get over 15% (OpenVPN running in the router).

      --
      --Jim (me)
    55. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Of course it's too good to be true, just look at the deployment date of the standards.

      How else will they find your body in front of the computer under the non-earthquake proof house you're forced to live in.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    56. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well would you rather get your Internet from Google ("Hello Kansas City!") and know that they can now see every website that you visit rather than just those you visit as a result of searches? With the recent anti-trust findings against Google, it is pretty clear that they are going to use data from one part of the business to feed into other parts of the business.

      So there you have it. Corporate overlords or government overlords. Both seem just as evil to me.

    57. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by QQBoss · · Score: 1

      Try to change to Fangzhuang (Fortune) in Beijing if you have the option.

      My last apartment didn't have any options, and the provider sucked: 4 Mbit cost 55 RMB/month (if you paid in 6 month blocks) and couldn't manage 1 Mbit down to Chinese sites, The up actually wasn't bad, sustaining 1 Mbit was no problem. Oh, and when I asked the install tech to give the PPPoE password so I could put it into my router, he refused up to the point where I refused to allow him to leave my apartment unless he gave it to me. It was a farce.

        My new place gives me a choice of that same old provider, that no one uses, or GTao (I have used them in the past, good service) or Fortune. Fortune offered me 2 years of 20 Mbit down/3 Mbit up for 1880 RMB. So for about $3 USD more a month compared to the old service, I can get 18 Mbit to HK providers (if they can source it) and the up can go to 3.5 Mbit, so I think the rate cap is actually around 4. To Texas sites, I still sustain about 12 Mbit down and 2 Mbit up because they don't seem to be able to feed me more, though my LA based VPN can cut those numbers in half (any recommendations for a new VPN provider?). Latency still sucks, of course.

      All of this only applies if you live in a 'mansion' (apartment/condo building, depending on how you like to think of it). If you are in a hutong, fiber internet service isn't such a huge requirement when you still don't have indoor toilet facilities.

    58. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      loads the capital expense of the network connection into the build cost of the house versus inefficiently pulling cable whenever someone new wants service.

      It also helps with city planning in general, just like planning for sewage, water and electricity does. Planning in future projects likely involves reporting about all installed cabling to the building officials as a part of the permitting process, serving once again for multiple purposes.

    59. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Taishan -- a small city with 250K people in the Guangdong area.

      My place is built in 2008 and had fiber wired up here back in 2011. However, we only recently signed up for it.

      We are paying for the cheapest possible option: 0rmb per month for 4Mbps up/down.

      Yes, that's ZERO -- NADA -- NIL -- NOTHING. Our provider is China Mobile and we signed up for service by prepaying 499rmb ($80) on our cellphone account. In effect, our cost is foregoing the yearly 2% interest on $80.

      China Unicom has a similar deal -- 759rmb prepaid on a cellphone plan and you get 6Mbps up/down.

    60. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      It's actually in speaker manufacturing. I've bought and sold heavy equipment, as well as moved tools in and out of China. Not a problem at all.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    61. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I typically get 4-8 concurrent tunnels running, and have no problems getting speed to the US. I don't think I've ever pushed the streams from the US, but I've done three MOG streams (3 SONOS players), a Netflix HD stream, and some general browsing from the US all at the same time. Never had a problem with bandwidth...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    62. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Ever lived in Shanghai? It is huge - but it's famous for bad telecom/infrastructure. Partly because much of it is so old, and partly because it's been growing so fast. My friends and coworkers in Beijing, Tianjin, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Xiamen, and Ningbo all have similar experiences with Internet. Cheap, pretty fast, and with a VPN no problems getting what you want from the US.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    63. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      The problem with the collusion claim is that, if some are greedy enough to collude with others to keep prices high, some will be greedy enough to break the collusion agreement or not collude at all in order to undercut those still in collusion and reap the profits.

      And that's why the US didn't have a coal trust, a steel trust, a sugar trust, a cotton trust, and a tobacco trust and the Sherman Antitrust act was actually completely unneeded.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    64. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      Are you one of these guys paid 5 mao per post?

      Seriously, it might be cheaper, but not at all faster or more reliable, especially if you aren't in Beijing, or Shanghai. And that's without talking about the countless blocks which the Chinese population has to deal with, making it even harder and slower to go online.

    65. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      Probably it's been quite some time you didn't go in China (eg: prior last November). Just using a VPN doesn't cut it. (There are (new tricky) ways around it, but I'd rather not broadcast them all and keep it for myself, than seeing more blocks.)

    66. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      my apartment in Shanghai (Lujiazui district) provides nearly that

      Of course... You couldn't find such a better counter-example. It's like talking about Manhattan and generalize for the whole of USA. In other words, your experience is not the one of Chinese people.

      Now, such post by some rich guys coming in the most rich parts of Shanghai for 6 months, then believing they know everything, bothers me. Try to go in more rural parts for few years, then we talk again.

      via my VPN back to the US so I can stream several channels of MOG as well as Netflix. It's pretty darn good. Is it always 50 Mbps? Nope. But then again, my other place (Santa Barbara, served by Cox Internet) rarely can provide what it advertises as well.

      You already posted that above. No need to post it a 2nd time. I replied to you that just using a VPN is nowadays not enough, you'd get it blocked within few hours (yeah, it's that simple, vpn = port block...).

    67. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of China's IPv9 announcement.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    68. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Yomers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, famous Chinese gulags! Thats why they have 121 prisoners per 100 000 population, while in truly democratic US... Wait, OH SHI.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

    69. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      40 million is about one-thirtith of china's population(1.3 billion).

    70. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      They are Communist - what did you expect?

    71. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Internet service in China is far cheaper, faster, more reliable, and more pervasive than what you find in the USA

      Pervasive is just the word I'm looking for. Why, you may find you experience pervasive effects if you search for factual information on the country you live in!

      There are certainly downsides to authoritarian socialism, but building out public infrastructure isn't one of them.

      The existence of infrastructure is only as interesting as the purposes to which you are permitted to put it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    72. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by number17 · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing the fact that the average family size in 2010 was 3.1 and shrinking. In 2000 it was 3.44.

      http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/newsandcomingevents/t20110428_402722237.htm

    73. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Was there for most of December (man it was cold, even got thick rain and snow - but nothing stuck), returned back to the States just in time for CES. Using a VPN works pretty darn well - my SONOS system was happily streaming MOG for me, and I watched more than a few movies on Netflix.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    74. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Of course... You couldn't find such a better counter-example. It's like talking about Manhattan and generalize for the whole of USA. In other words, your experience is not the one of Chinese people. Now, such post by some rich guys coming in the most rich parts of Shanghai for 6 months, then believing they know everything, bothers me. Try to go in more rural parts for few years, then we talk again.

      Rich parts? Na Ma Tou Lu isn't very rich, and my 2800 RMB per month apartment isn't out of the ordinary at all. I'm the sole lao wai in the complex, and have yet to see another one at the nearest Lotus (down on Shangnan Lu) or Carrefour. Far from a "rich guy", I'm living in a place like many middle-class Shanghainese.

      Or maybe when I was living in Minhang district, out by Qibao town, I was considered "regular"?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    75. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure internet services providers and the telecommunications market in China is dominated by two or three massive companies just like it unfortunately is in the states.

      All the easier to monitor and record everything each citizen of China does 24 hours per day, 365.25 solar days per year, for every year of their life.

      Government: I see you and your spouse were engaged in martial activity despite the ban on child birth.
      Citizen: How did you know we had sex?
      Government: The FIBNet altered us and recommended a face-to-face meeting in lieu of a prison sentence.
      Citizen: I'm screwed.
      Government: No, you are disallowed from screwing unless we can clip the reproductive organs from you and your spouse.
      Citizen: Fuck you!
      Government: Yes, you all allowed to fuck me. I am infertile as all Government workers must agree at time of employment by our People's Republic of China.

    76. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Living in Pudong is like living in Manhattan, hardly representative of the US as a whole.
      Once you get outside of Shanghai's financial district then things are very different.
      Try explaining why the internet is so dog slow in Shenzhen, even though it is right next to Hong Kong.
      What is the situation in Liuzhou, Yuxi, Qujing or Xingyi?
      Have you even heard of these places from the luxury of your Lujiazui apartment?

    77. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      If you actually KNEW Shanghai, you'd know Pudong is huge. Living in Pudong is like living in New York. There is Manhattan, and there is Queens. Na Ma Tou Lu isn't a rich area, and a 2800 RMB apartment is pretty darn middle class for Shanghai. Of course, you probably don't know that, since such information can't be found in Wikipedia for an anon coward to "act the part"...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    78. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      Well, you wrote Lujiazui, so it was quite confusing. Though my words still stand, people living in Lujiazui are the few lucky ones with a decent Internet connectivity.

    79. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by nobodie · · Score: 1

      There is a third one, but it is small and serves only the centers of large cities. Sorry but I forget the name, I've been gone almost 2 years now.
      Still, because of the scale of what the providers do the service is sometimes very slow, and it really only matters if you want to surf inside China. Outside you still get throttled at the firewall, and that throttling is sometimes terminal ;)

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    80. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      If you knew Shanghai, you'd know that Na Ma Tou Road is on the SW border of Lujiazui. My nearest metro stop is Gaoke Xi Lu on line 7.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    81. Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      Hi. Have you ever hanged out with the Shanghai Linux user group? It'd be great to see you some days at the hacking thursday event, at JA cafe, every thursday evening, from 7pm to 9pm-ish. It's always nice to meet new friends. Probably, we're better off continuing this privately. Please write to me using zigo at debian.org.

  2. One question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    How hard is it to learn Chinese?

    1. Re:One question. by logjon · · Score: 0

      I think I'll continue paying my $30 a month for cable. I'm fine with that.

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
    2. Re:One question. by the_other_chewey · · Score: 4, Funny

      How hard is it to learn Chinese?

      Very.

    3. Re:One question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where the hell are you getting cable for $30/month ??

    4. Re:One question. by logjon · · Score: 0

      OPSEC

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
    5. Re:One question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. I've know it since birth.

    6. Re:One question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dang, no wonder they're beating us - most lazy Americans don't know English until they're at least 1 year old!

    7. Re:One question. by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Darn you, I lost 30 minutes reading that - time well spent, tho ;)

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    8. Re:One question. by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Quite hard, just learning the alphabet takes years.

  3. Sounds good by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    in any city or county 'where a public fiber optic telecom network is available.'

    Any how many of these houses will meet that rather essential qualification?

    Hell, I could install a fiber network in my house and run it out to the curb. But that isn't going to make any difference if there is nothing to connect it to, now is it?

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:Sounds good by AaronLS · · Score: 0

      "But that isn't going to make any difference if there is nothing to connect it to, now is it?"

      Obviously they realize this, hence the very reason for the clause you quoted.

    2. Re:Sounds good by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Currently, the only cities with high speed fiber connectivity include Chenggong, Zhengzhou, and even Nova Cidade de Kilamba, in Africa.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    3. Re:Sounds good by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Any what word you might have missed?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    4. Re:Sounds good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

      Kutztown (the city and not the school) have had fiber runs to home for several years now. It isn't 100% of the town although it does include much of it. It is a small town. 4,000-5000 year round residents I think and another 5 or 10k students attending the university at the edge of town. I think about half the school population though lives off campus (in town or lives in surrounding cities/at home).

    5. Re:Sounds good by Sique · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Geyer, Germany, which has a town wide fiber network since 25 years now.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:Sounds good by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I think it would be harder to name cities without highspeed fiber.

      You can get 1Gb links in damn near every city in the USA, provided you are willing to pay.

  4. Too bad by lazarus · · Score: 0

    Too bad you can't go anywhere...

    One of the benefits of government-run everything is that big infrastructure is easier to mandate and implement. The downsides are, well, freedom...

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    1. Re:Too bad by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      One of the benefits of government-run everything is that big infrastructure is easier to mandate and implement. The downsides are, well, freedom...

      Infrastructure is one of the few things that the free market manages badly. Sewer, garbage, electricity, communications, and roads have all fared poorly when given over to for-profit corporations. Almost always the service is poor, overpriced, and under-maintained. With government control of the same, it happens less often (but still too often). And then there's the hybrid systems... they're economic lovecraftian horror beasts, devouring everything it comes in contact with. Take taxi medallions as an example... horrible, horrible idea. I can feel its tenacles wrapping around my leg just thinking about it. Wait... OH GOD IT'S GOT ME! ARRG---(hold music)

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what freedom?

    3. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Typical Americanist standpoint. Incoherent, unqualified, unspecific complaint about "freedom" in the face of things that are ostensibly going to do quite well, or are already working well.

      Oh no, people might not be charged exorbitant fees for terrible service by Comcast or, if they're lucky, another company as well. What an affront to Freedom (TM).

      Quite the same as the Americanist approach to a national healthcare system.

    4. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So roads and other infrastructure are all expertly maintained by the governments that own them?

    5. Re:Too bad by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      If you are talking about the Internet, then "freedom" is a very relevant thing to talk about. That vague concept is what allowed the Internet to develop in the first place. That vague concept also drives commercial activity and allows customers to find merchants.

      There are very practical economic implications of protecting individual liberties.

      That is why China itself is not exactly ideologically pure itself in these matters.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Too bad by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Governments are the most miserable owners of infrastructure -- except all others. I don't know of any case of a public infrastructure going over to private owners and then improving with better services, more complete coverage and lower prices. Even privatizing telecommunication infrastructures in Europa was no privatization of a public infrastructure, it was just allowing private companies to compete either on the shared infrastructure still owned by a company whose majority owner in turn was the government, or with their own infrastructure they had to built themselves.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:Too bad by iamgnat · · Score: 2

      So roads and other infrastructure are all expertly maintained by the governments that own them?

      No, but at least they are there and don't (directly) cost anything to use. VA on the other hand just opened the "hot" lanes on it's portion of 495 around DC and gave the ownership and all revenue from the tolls to a private company (yet we still get to pay for the state police and v-dot to monitor and maintain it). They say the cost of the toll is to be based on traffic, but they basically have a free license to charge almost anything they want (e.g. people will bear). They also did this by selling out the "greenway" portion of 267 and for the few miles between Leesburg and Dulles we've watched the tolls creep up to outrageous rates since there is only minimal control (and again it's the State that pays for the cops and maintenance while getting none of the revenue). They've also given away the rest of 267 (which was a serious cash cow for the state) to the Airport Authority which just jacked up the rates and will do so again next year. And this has apparently worked out so well according to the "Representatives" that got it done that they want to do more of it, yet they keep saying we don't have any transportation budget...

      It's true that for the most part there are other reasonable options (mostly sitting in traffic with everyone else) to avoid the tolls, but if the people that pushed this so far have their way all the major roads are likely going to be turned into toll roads that are owned by private companies that get all the money. Thank you, but I'll live with undersized and over potholed roads that I'm already paying through the various taxes meant to pay for it (but McDonnell is trying to screw with that by removing the gas tax...).

    8. Re:Too bad by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      The question of freedom on the internet is completely different from the question of a free market building the infrastructure. You think that if the Chinese government would one day decide to give internet infrastructure into private hands, it would allow free usage of that net? The government would certainly still maintain its Great Firewall, it would still control what people do online, and it would probably mandate that every ISP, to get/keep a license, has to provide a way for the government to listen.

      On the other hand, you can build a government-supported infrastructure and still give complete freedom of what people do on it, just like in the U.S. you can drive to whereever you want when using state-built roads (well, assuming there's a road going to that place, of course).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    9. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but at least they are there and don't (directly) cost anything to use.

      So you'd rather pay thousands of dollars a year in tax than a dollar or two when you actually the roads?

      Oh, of course, I guess the reality is that your taxes won't go down when the roads are privatised, but the tolls will be added on top.

    10. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you a word? Sorry, Friday humor.

    11. Re:Too bad by iamgnat · · Score: 1

      So you'd rather pay thousands of dollars a year in tax than a dollar or two when you actually the roads?

      All total for our 3 vehicles I pay maybe $1500 for "property" taxes and the tax on the gas we use (no hybrids or electrics). If I was forced to use the greenway everyday to get back and forth to work ($5.80 from one end to the other each way during rush-hours) I'd be looking between $2000 and $2400 for just one part of of the commute.

      Of course, as you point out, they wouldn't (significantly) reduce the taxes if they sold all the roads out to corporations (they need money from somewhere after all).

      So yes, I would prefer to continue to pay the "thousands" in taxes a year vs the "dollar or two" when I use the road.

    12. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trains are an excellent example of this phenomenon. At least in the Benelux, whenever private companies have managed to get their hands on the tran system, prices skyrocket, service declines, safety suffers, and employees get screwed. The Netherlands has been going through this process with ProRail and NS; they handed over maintenance to a private company to "cut costs" through a public-private partnership and the private company just fired a bunch of people, stopped maintaining the tracks, and pocketed the difference. The following Autumn trains ground to a halt because there were leaves on the tracks. Winter faired even worse as switches froze. The government then took it back from the private company amidst complaints from, well, basically everyone. People still bitch non stop about train service and the government is pretty inept at keeping costs down, but at least the trains run on time and work when it gets cold, snows, or the wind blows.

      Then there is the Fyra train, which was supposed to resolve the dispute between the Netherlands and Belgium over who services "intercity" trains that cross the border. And somehow there were no direct trains from The Hague to Brussels. So the government(s) dumped a bunch of money into hi-speed rail lines and turned operations over to Fyra to provide frequent train service between the major cities (Amsterdam Brussels). The service is so terribly unreliable that many, if not most, pay double to use Thalys (the French train that operates in the area) because it is incredibly reliable. The meme that has evolved is that Fyra is a private company, so they are interested in profit, not reliable train service. As if that was an unexpected outcome of handing a private company a monopoly.

      I also happened to live in Los Angeles during the fake power shortage and rolling blackouts created by Enron. Only I lived in a little pocket of LA that was served by LADWP instead of Edison so the blackouts just skipped over me and I paid half of what Edison customers were paying for power. At the same time, the local cable companies were caught colluding to chop of LA Country into mini-monopolies following the complete deregulation of cable/telecom. I actually called AT&T asking when they would offer service in my area because I had tested the cable and found that it was wired for Internet. Long story short, my area was wired for it, but they wouldn't sell Internet service to me because they had a deal with Verizon (i.e., collusion), so I was stuck with DSL.

      For the life of me, I can not figure out what the added value of letting a private company skim a profit off of basic utilities is. Infrastructure, utilities, natural monopolies, these are things best left to government--sure it's inept, but without the profit motive, at least it doesn't actively seek to screw you. Government is, in these cases, the best option only in that it is the least worst.

    13. Re:Too bad by number17 · · Score: 1

      I've seen some videos recently showing that its getting harder and harder to drive freely around the US.

      Abusive Border Patrol Agents NM Checkpoint: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2SkaRvKv8U

  5. Advantages of Authoritarianism by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    This is one of the advantages of authoritarianism. If you have a good idea, you don't need to waste your time on democratic debate and procedures. You just impose it by decree on 1.2 billion people. Nice.

    There are some other things that all new homes should have: Sensors to turn off the lights where the room is empty, higher R insulation (most building codes require much less than actually makes sense), and brackets for solar panels so when the cost of solar panels falls to a reasonable level, the brackets are already there (if the brackets are retrofitted in later, that can more than double the cost).

    1. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 2

      I wish this kind of authoritarianism was there to dictate IPv6 adoption in every country though.

    2. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I were running China, I know exactly why I would want fiber in all houses, and it's not because it's "a good idea" for the people in the houses. It's because I was reading 1984 as a howto.

    3. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by spinkham · · Score: 4, Informative

      We have authoritarianism, it just gets its power from corporate lobbing and campaign donations instead.

      NC started a few public fiber in some towns, so Time Warner lobbied and made broadband operating as any other public utility illegal, ignoring the protests of many local tech businesses and even the FCC.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    4. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh of course, there's such a difference between the amount of censorship that can be done on DSL et al., versus fibre.

    5. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      This is one of the advantages of authoritarianism. If you have a good idea, you don't need to waste your time on democratic debate and procedures. You just impose it by decree on 1.2 billion people. Nice.

      Another advantage with having one standardized information pipe to everyone's house is that is is much easier to standardize the monitoring and control as well.

    6. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can see your sarcasm is very practiced, but you will always be an amateur because you use it to poor effect.

      1984 wasn't just about censorship. It was also about information coming OUT of private spaces.

    7. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by operagost · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      This is called crony capitalism. The response is to reduce government power and oversight so that it is not possible for it to exercise such control over the market. Of course, instead we do the opposite.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry. Manipulation of the government is not capitalism.

    9. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Oh of course, there's such a difference between the amount of censorship that can be done on DSL et al., versus fibre.

      Yes, there is. But the other way round: Since you can send less data over DSL, it's easier to censor it.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    10. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I honestly can't see how people really think that would help.
      So a power vacuum to be filled by exactly those who are the source of the problem would reduce crony capitalism?
      As if nearly all corporate leaders and entrepreneurs being for a smaller government isn't indication enough...

      Sure, reducing government increases personal freedom, and it might be beneficial for those wo think they would do better on their own (Wild West style) than the average, but crony capitalism is best fought by strengthening democracy, educating people and increasing participation. Enlarging/shrinking government actually doesn't affect the transparency issue much.

    11. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that is *a* response, but certainly not the only one. An alternative would be to take the money out of politics: no more buying ads on tv for campaigns, no more lobbying with expensive gifts, no more campaign contributions over $X, no more taking jobs with the firms that lobbied for you, etc.. Remove and make illegal the mechanisms through which corporations bribe politicians, and now you have politicians whom are once again loyal to the people, not corporate lap dogs.

      Or, we could reduce regulations and government oversight. After all, that worked out so well for the financial industry, right?

    12. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      At this point, crying for deregulation as the solution to every market problem is like a drug addict crying for more dope to fix their addiction problem. At some point, you've got to stare reality in the face and realize that there is no perfect free market, never will be, and that we better fix the rules of the game so that some asshole doesn't ruin things for everybody. Yes, having rules of the game doesn't prevent people from ignoring them, but it becomes blatantly obvious who the asshole is who is trying to ruin the game for everyone, and you get to kick them out before they do permanent damage (or at least permanent for anyone alive at that time).

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    13. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Create regulations which allow massive behemoths to form in an industry.
      2. Remove regulations.
      3. When behemoths you created take advantage to everyone's detriment, even their own, bail them out.
      4. Don't blame the behemoths. Don't blame the regulations that made those behemoths possible. Don't blame the system that was designed so those behemoths could form. Blame deregulation.
      5. Profit by having an argument for more regulation (which strengthens said behemoths further).

    14. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously implying that the behemoths wouldn't be there without regulations? I'd much rather have Exxon than Standard Oil, and still much rather have Standard Oil than the British East India Company. Regulation goes from right to left here, while deregulation allowed each one of these to grow unchecked, the less regulated the faster.

      So to your point:
      1. Correlation in some cases, but apart from common carriers this doesn't happen. And for carriers, is there a demonstrably viable alternative except for fully state owned?
      2. Which regulation was removed? Who caused (lobbied for) that and where does the problem lie exactly? (here maybe?)
      3. Again, what is the precise problem here? Blaming regulation (which is, according to you, not there anymore) doesn't make sense, does it?
      4. Don't blame the laws, but those people creating and using them. If corporate behemoths abuse regulation to gain power, then abuse deregulation to gain power, again, where does the problem lie exactly?
      5. Laws increasing transparency and forcing fair-play are reducing the power of those behemoths. Laws increasing their power (which are lobbied through by them) are usually not in the populations interest. Too few of the former and too many of the latter, I agree, but the problem does NOT lie in the process of passing more laws (aka regulation) itself.

    15. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it's done *with MONEY*!!!

    16. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by khallow · · Score: 1

      So a power vacuum to be filled by exactly those who are the source of the problem would reduce crony capitalism?

      The power vacuum would also be filled by the rest of us. And businesses have considerable weakness compared to a government. For example, they have to run a profit and have physical assets that must be protected in order to run that profit.

      Enlarging/shrinking government actually doesn't affect the transparency issue much.

      Sure it does. a vast, complex government can get away with a lot more than a simple one.

      Sure, reducing government increases personal freedom, and it might be beneficial for those wo think they would do better on their own (Wild West style) than the average, but crony capitalism is best fought by strengthening democracy, educating people and increasing participation.

      And what makes you think government reduction won't contribute? Keep in mind that there's probably no more important aspect to democracy than a population willing to act on its own initiative rather than waiting on the local authority figures to act for them. A large government that does everything for you gets in the way of that.

    17. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by zig007 · · Score: 1

      they have to run a profit and have physical assets that must be protected in order to run that profit.

      Well. That is quite easy once there is
      1.no competition to your monopoly or oligolopoly
      2.your war chest is so large that no one will be able to threat it for a foreseeable future.

      Why do you think the U.S. has some of the most strict laws in the world regarding this?
      The answer is experience. Monopoly creation has been the case again and again on local, regional and national levels. And with the case of microsoft, almost an international level. Haven't you heard the song "16 tons"?

      Enlarging/shrinking government actually doesn't affect the transparency issue much.

      Sure it does. a vast, complex government can get away with a lot more than a simple one.

      Not really. In practise, it is far easier to guard secrets in a small organization.
      So not in relation to the fact that a large government will simply have more things to do.

      And what makes you think government reduction won't contribute?

      Because reducing it doesn't change much, especially when the companies taking over the (often huge) job typically becomes huge monopolies after a while.

      Keep in mind that there's probably no more important aspect to democracy than a population willing to act on its own initiative rather than waiting on the local authority figures to act for them. A large government that does everything for you gets in the way of that.

      "Does everything for you" is just straw man-y. No one calls for that kind of government. And large government actually does not get in the way of it seems.
      Most of the countries with the largest governments belongs to the echelon with the highest voter turnouts.
      What DOES seem to correlate strongly with high voter turnout in all forms of democracy is reasonable income equality and general education level.
      One should be careful to not over-emphasize any aspect of democracy.
      Especially when the U.S. has a far lower voter turnout than many other comparable countries, while having a smaller government.

      Anyway, most people tend to not act on their own initiative. Nor should all have to.
      Most just want to work to live and love and for that reason they want to contribute to a society.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    18. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well. That is quite easy once there is
      1.no competition to your monopoly or oligolopoly
      2.your war chest is so large that no one will be able to threat it for a foreseeable future.

      Why are we speaking of monopolies of all things? Keep in mind that the largest monopoly is the government which supposedly is keeping these from being created! And that monopoly prevention is a relatively small task for a government to have. It doesn't need a lot of power or resources to enact narrow functions like that.

      Plus, you can sue a business while governments typically can hide behind sovereign immunity.

      Why do you think the U.S. has some of the most strict laws in the world regarding this?

      Because the US has long desired and supported relatively free and competitive markets. For example, one of the causes of the Revolutionary War was the British government passing a tax on tea so that the East India company could have a market advantage in trade in the American colonies. That lead in turn to the Boston Tea Party, the illegal dumping of a bunch of East India tea into the Boston harbor.

      And with the case of microsoft, almost an international level.

      Microsoft has never been a monopoly. It's had market dominance for a time, but there's always been substantial competition.

      In practise, it is far easier to guard secrets in a small organization.

      Sure it is. Now even if we grant that unwarranted assertion, consider that there are a zillion such small organizations in the US government and some of these are probably so secret that even their current names are classified.

      The ability to evade oversight is the biggest issue with large and complex governments. But you also have the problem of various forms of unintended aggregation of power. A government tasked with health care has a new avenue for accessing personal information about you and a lower threshold of risk for those in power who break the law. Rather than having to break into a doctor's office, they can just tap into a national data base, a far less risky approach.

      And what makes you think government reduction won't contribute?

      Because reducing it doesn't change much, especially when the companies taking over the (often huge) job typically becomes huge monopolies after a while.

      Government does a lot more than just prevent monopolies from forming (well monopolies other than the government itself). We can cut the parts that government shouldn't be doing and well, keep the itty bitty parts you want, like the ability to prevent monopolies.

      Anyway, most people tend to not act on their own initiative. Nor should all have to.

      So what? There are consequences both positive and negative to such choices. One shouldn't expect a government to play a hand in such choices.

      "Does everything for you" is just straw man-y. No one calls for that kind of government.

      Well, that was a bit of rhetorical puffery on my part. It does remain that there doesn't seem a natural limit or extent to what government could allegedly be doing for me. The same people who argue that government should be interfering in my work, my health care, my education, my retirement, or any of a bunch of things that have at best minor relevance to society probably will probably find new needs for government action down the road.

      And the general justification for government intervention is pretty open-ended. For example, the "safety net" concept is based on the fact that bad things happen to us. But most such safety nets go well beyond anything that addresses the original problem, such as mandatory pensions and health insurance coverage.

      Most just want to work to live and love and for that reason they want to contribute to a society.

      Why does "contributing" to society involve taking from society?

    19. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by zig007 · · Score: 1

      Why are we speaking of monopolies of all things?
      Keep in mind that the largest monopoly is the government which supposedly is keeping these from being created! And that monopoly prevention is a relatively small task for a government to have. It doesn't need a lot of power or resources to enact narrow functions like that.

      Nope. Government is not a monopoly as long as the voters can vote for it to no longer be one. A true monopoly is beyond reach of basically everything and becomes a state within the state.

      Plus, you can sue a business while governments typically can hide behind sovereign immunity.

      Wrong. It is quite common to sue governments. And win, too.
      In what cases can they hide?

      Why do you think the U.S. has some of the most strict laws in the world regarding this?

      Because the US has long desired and supported relatively free and competitive markets. For example, one of the causes of the Revolutionary War was the British government passing a tax on tea so that the East India company could have a market advantage in trade in the American colonies. That lead in turn to the Boston Tea Party, the illegal dumping of a bunch of East India tea into the Boston harbor.

      Your point being what exactly? You are making my point.

      And with the case of microsoft, almost an international level.

      Microsoft has never been a monopoly. It's had market dominance for a time, but there's always been substantial competition.

      Well, I'd say that could be debated. There was a long time were it was almost impossible to choose anything else and the acted like complete assholes if one did. Actually it was often worse in other countries, which is not very well known in the U.S.
      Anyway, the market was saved by those laws.

      In practise, it is far easier to guard secrets in a small organization.

      Sure it is. Now even if we grant that unwarranted assertion, consider that there are a zillion such small organizations in the US government and some of these are probably so secret that even their current names are classified.
      The ability to evade oversight is the biggest issue with large and complex governments. But you also have the problem of various forms of unintended aggregation of power. A government tasked with health care has a new avenue for accessing personal information about you and a lower threshold of risk for those in power who break the law. Rather than having to break into a doctor's office, they can just tap into a national data base, a far less risky approach.

      Yeah, well now that is a totally different matter, and not a part of the discussion as I understood it.
      Anyway, companies be just as omnipresent.

      Because reducing it doesn't change much, especially when the companies taking over the (often huge) job typically becomes huge monopolies after a while.

      Government does a lot more than just prevent monopolies from forming (well monopolies other than the government itself). We can cut the parts that government shouldn't be doing and well, keep the itty bitty parts you want, like the ability to prevent monopolies.

      Well, the problem is that the this that it is not itty bitty things that I wan't.
      Simply because there are huge things that cannot be entrusted to other entities.
      So many things work like crap because people think that the same ideology can be applied to every area of society.

      Anyway, most people tend to not act on their own initiative. Nor should all have to.

      So what? There are consequences both positive and negative to such choices. One shouldn't expect a government to play a hand in such choices.

      So what?? That is where we part ways, I think.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    20. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by khallow · · Score: 1

      Government is not a monopoly as long as the voters can vote for it to no longer be one.

      And where can voters do that? It makes no sense to make such claims when those claims don't apply anywhere.

      A true monopoly is beyond reach of basically everything and becomes a state within the state.

      Well, then none of your examples have been "true" monopolies.

      Anyway, companies be just as omnipresent.

      They could be in theory, but they aren't.

      Negative "contributions" usually result in jail time.
      Society is usually not very forgiving when it comes to that.
      I would advise you to reconsider your interpretation of that word.

      There's no reason to. First, your observation is just wrong. Negative contributions don't usually result in jail time.

      Second, negative contributions are quite standard in federal level spending, for example. When one spends at least an order of magnitude more than necessary for a service or good (which is pretty much standard operating procedure at the federal level, especially in defense and R&D), there's a negative contribution to society hidden in there.

      When one uncritically subsidizes college-level education making it not just more expensive for everyone (and remarkably onerous for many college students), but less useful as well (since schools have less incentive to provide a challenging academic environment), that's a huge negative contribution to society. And all quite legal.

      To go to our current example, there's no reason to have a lot of paid vacation and such policies harm people who want to work hard.

    21. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And where can voters do that? It makes no sense to make such claims when those claims don't apply anywhere.

      Exactly, it's as silly as the Founding Fathers making claims about all men created equal; or life, liberty etc. Those claims don't apply anywhere, especially during their time.

      I'm so happy people are finally waking up to realize that all the popular beliefs on what "made America great" are simply naive dreams at best, lies at worst. No, America didn't become great thanks to freedom, democracy, capitalism, or all that wonderful sounding propaganda they try to brainwash you with.

      America became great thanks to one thing and one thing only - strength .Might makes right as it always has - US was relatively stronger at the time, so it won, and wrote the history books.

      Negative contributions don't usually result in jail time.

      Exactly, negative contributions don't usually result in jail time, or any negative consequences for those committing those negative contributions.

      So rationally, it's silly to believe in what the Founding Fathers and what "traditional" or "freedom loving" Americans preach. It's irrational to be a freedom loving capitalist entrepreneurial individual who respects each others' rights and freedoms, avoiding negative contributions to society.

      The rational and historically successful way to live is be the tyrant, who has no problem crushing your enemies to get what you want to get ahead. Contribute as much negative contributes as your power allows, grow your power, and contribute more negatively for fun and profit!

      Second, negative contributions are quite standard in federal level spending

      Awesome. Again, the rational way to live is to be a tyrant. They (the politicians and big businessmen behind regulations) acted as such, and have "made it".

      To go to our current example, there's no reason to have a lot of paid vacation and such policies harm people who want to work hard.

      Sure, if you're a freedom lover, there's no reason to harm others. But as said, being a freedom lover is silly and irrational. You should strive to be a tyrant. When you're a tyrant, there is a perfectly good reason: you get more power (and sometimes fun) out of it.

      Well, maybe not *you* specifically, but the person who engineered the system gets the power, but that's good enough since he certainly isn't obligated to care for your well being (or those hard working people)

      The fun part is watching those hard working people become jobless and poor, then you can come to slashdot and call them lazy bums who are a clog to the system. Why should *I* pay so much taxes just to keep those lefties on welfare? Cut spending (on other people)!

    22. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by khallow · · Score: 1

      Let me guess. You're trying to be sarcastic. I guess higher brain function fails hard when you run into disagreement.

    23. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guessed wrong. You're the one who won't accept my valid point and resorting to insults. Here I thought you woke up and realized that the American Dream is just that: a fantasy

    24. Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism by khallow · · Score: 1

      You guessed wrong. You're the one who won't accept my valid point and resorting to insults. Here I thought you woke up and realized that the American Dream is just that: a fantasy

      Don't get me wrong. I don't believe you at all. But let me address an obvious point.

      I'm so happy people are finally waking up to realize that all the popular beliefs on what "made America great" are simply naive dreams at best, lies at worst. No, America didn't become great thanks to freedom, democracy, capitalism, or all that wonderful sounding propaganda they try to brainwash you with.

      America became great thanks to one thing and one thing only - strength .Might makes right as it always has - US was relatively stronger at the time, so it won, and wrote the history books.

      Strength doesn't just happen. The US didn't get hit by cosmic rays and just become strong one day. Things like "freedom, democracy, capitalism" not only made the US "great", but they also made it strong.

  6. New homes in China must have Fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    April 1 2013 huh? APRIL FOOLS! HAR har, you built honorable home on site that is only DSL capable har har, Have a velly velly melly melly xmas and a happy new year! Fa RA ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra raaaaaaaaaaaa

  7. I smell alterior motives... by swschrad · · Score: 4, Funny

    you can choose from Red Army #3 ISP, or Domestic Security Glorious Revolution ISP #1, or Internal Enforcement ISP #7...

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:I smell alterior motives... by ButchDeLoria · · Score: 0

      Harr dee harr. My point is, this is probably just an elaborate April Fools joke by the Chinese government.

    2. Re:I smell alterior motives... by smitty97 · · Score: 1

      Aprir Foors!

      --
      mod me funny
    3. Re:I smell alterior motives... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      There will be a mandatory web-cam, and the volume control on the, *ahem* Viewscreen, can be turned down, but never off.

    4. Re:I smell alterior motives... by aurispector · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately this is no joke. The chinese government uses the book "1984" is an instruction manual instead of as a warning.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
  8. Chinese Fiber homes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    April 1 2013 huh? APRIL FOOLS! HAR har, you built honorable home on site that is only DSL capable har har, Have a velly velly melly melly xmas and a happy new year! Fa RA ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra raaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

  9. Orwell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the government minders deploy the mandatory, always-on home teleconference system they'll have plenty of bandwidth.

    1. Re:Orwell by Kadagan+AU · · Score: 1

      This was the first thing that came to my mind as well. When the authoritarian government is requiring high speed internet access to every home, it can't just be for the public to have faster access to the censored internet. There has to be a bigger reason, and I'm sure it's more to do with upload speeds than download..

      --
      This space for rent, inquire within.
  10. Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the side benefit is all packets are routed through their DPI servers, no?

    1. Re:Yeah right by Tridus · · Score: 1

      That happens if the house is using slow Internet as well, so it really doesn't change much.

      This standard is actually a good one, on its own.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
  11. Makes sense by Animats · · Score: 1

    Bear in mind that China is building lots of new apartment buildings. This says "wire them with optical fiber, not CAT-5". The cost isn't that different. It's probably cheaper to have a big pipe to a building rather than multiconductor phone cables.

  12. meaningless by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "ll newly built residences to install fiber optic connections in any city or county 'where a public fiber optic telecom network is available"

    Duh. if the network IS AVAILABLE of course it will be installed. The cost is negligible if you do it with the other services.

    This is just some bureaucrats trying to take credit for something that's already happening.

  13. Building construction by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just about all residential buildings are poured concrete. This includes the walls which carry the load. Most AC wiring is done externally. Fuck up an internal wiring run, and you might not be able to fish it out. This leaves installing external conduit as your only form of repair. The idea of running glass is a smart move as it doesn't suffer from corrosion, attenuation, and interference like twisted pair or coax would.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Building construction by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      That sounds like commercial construction.

      So there should be nothing like romex or bare cat5 anywhere to be seen. It should all be run through conduits so that it can be maintained and repaired like any other building that falls under commercial construction codes.

      So what they run during initial construction should be pretty irrelevant so long as there is proper conduit laid for communications.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Building construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends on the country or region. Where I grew up, walls of residential houses and apartments were pretty much all either brick or concrete, mostly finished off with plaster and/or wallpaper on the inside. When I moved to the US (LA to be precise), it was strange to see almost all residential construction using wood and drywall over a wooden frame instead, a building style I had previously associated only with rural utility buildings, storage sheds, and the like. The latter is a lot flimsier and less weatherproof, but probably cheaper and more earthquake-resistant, and a lot easier to rewire.

  14. Small number? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Describe "small?" There's something like 20 million homes in the U.S. with a fibre internet connection. Not anything near the penetration of copper cable modems, but also nothing to ignore.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  15. It does make a difference! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hell, I could install a fiber network in my house and run it out to the curb.But that isn't going to make any difference if there is nothing to connect it to, now is it?

    But you can say, "Fiber Optic connected"!

  16. Ah, yes, China... by boethius · · Score: 1

    ... that bastion of open access to the Internet.

    Very, very few Chinese even have homes that would warrant this. Look at the Australian documentary on China's "ghost cities" to see the sheer volume of unfilled condos that are vastly too expensive for about 99.9% of all Chinese to afford.

     

  17. bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's nice for low latency to mainland hosts, but the bandwidth available to private customers is nothing special. ( ~250kB/s downstream in shanghai)

  18. Math? by leplen · · Score: 2
    The article claims 'the Chinese government hopes to have “40 million families connected to fiber networks by 2015,” which is almost one-third of the country’s entire population.'

    Since when is 40 million families 1/3 of 1.3 billion people? How big are these families? Either there should be another zero and it should be 400 million people, or this 1/3 claim is bogus.

    40 million families represents ~10% of China's population, no where near 1/3.

    1. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh math, my dear friend, is quite hard. 40/1300 is about 3%.

    2. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Help me remember, wasn't there some very strict "1 ... per ..." policy in China some time ago? Ah, must've been "1 person per family", otherwise your 40 by 1300 division makes no sense.

    3. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, my friend, math is quite hard. 40 (families) / 1300 (individuals) = wait, what?

      Assuming each family is composed of approximately 3 people, you get (40 * 3) / 1300 = 0.092307 = 9.2%.

    4. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow that is sad...
      When if you assume each family has 5 people people in it...
      40/260 = 15%
      but assume each family in China has 11 people in it.
      40/119 = 33%
      That seems reasonable right?
      grandma/dad -2
      parents -2
      3 married kids -6
      1 unmarried kid -1

      Totally reasonable! see!

  19. Communism sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    until you use internet

  20. This is what government is for by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    I wish that they would do this sort of thing here but I just know that what would happen is that the government would cave into lobbyists that would then set up the regulations that didn't boil down to houses needing to have a fiber hook up but to pay the telcos to have fiber. Then the telcos could call it "building infrastructure" instead of "lining pockets".

    But instead of creating the conditions for all people/companies to thrive the government they will keep trying to pick winners. In my area the government recently gave hundreds of millions to two failing pulp mills. The very word mill evokes images of 1920. "I goin' to quit school and work at da mill like me grandpappy."

  21. sounds like you are a bit jealous, and nieve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ahh john, your lack of understanding of Chinese determination makes me laugh. you see john, china may be lacking some civil liberties, but it surely is not a country of lazy, uninspired sit-arounds like the united states. Im sure behind the red curtain they are laughing as hard as I am right now at your pathetic sentiment. Do you think once during the housing boom in the USA the US government had any interest whatsoever in securing USA as the top place for connectivity in the world? FUCK NO! Their primary concern was keeping that bubble going and letting bankers, banks, financial people, and home builders reap massive profits. The united states government could give a fuck about the american people technology wise, and *Anything* that has even benefited the american people IT infrastructure-wise has come from private industry (at a hefty bloated price). the united states government is a broken, useless, wasteful, retarded piece of non-working, never-will-work piece of shit, and our actual infrastructure (such as building the interstate in the 20th century - a new interstate for internet) will never be realized in my lifetime - and if china has fiber and the USA doesn't, it's going to make us look like a bunch of fucking retards.

    Also john, the nice thing about China is that at least there is a quasi dictator in place to put a fucking foot down. Their said dictator, president, whatever they are - they can't be bought by hollywood. They don't give a shit about international telecoms OR hollywood john. The telecom companies and the entertainment industry have a huge vested interest in keeping your internet connection slow, so that you have a harder time pirating their material. Telecoms price gouge their bandwidth so that we never see true bandwidth increases, and the huge government subsidy's that *have* went to the telecoms with the intention of upgrading networks country-wide has been pocked by them blindly without anyone saying a word.

    I look at china right now as the USA before world war 2. HUGE manufacturing capacity and industry, and with the nationalistic mind set can that “40 million families connected to fiber networks by 2015,” would seem trivial for them to pull off now.

    You may not like the Chinese, but judging from their actions but at least they can't be bought and paid for like your precious USA gov

    1. Re:sounds like you are a bit jealous, and nieve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ignore human rights lawyers being imprisoned, ignore forced confiscation of land, ignore pollution of poor inland industrial regions to benefit coastal trading centers, ignore the greatest censorship of individual expression in industrialized nations, ignore government collusion with real estate developers, ignore the very same housing bubble driven by speculation

      as long as Chinese people can more freely pirate movies they are more free; as long as Chinese people can get get high speed internet via government fiat, China is doing something right and is pretty cool in my book

  22. Don't underestimate China by Kergan · · Score: 1

    Keep China's high population, the latter's geographical repartition (mostly to the east), its economy's high growth rates by western standards, and the fact that it's a developing country (still under-equipped) all in mind. Not to mention its government's authoritarianism. In that light, 40 million connected households in two years is not unrealistic imho.

  23. ftfy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All New Homes In China Must Have Fiber Optic Telescreen Connections

  24. Keeping up with the Jones' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is already common in the more cosmo major cities in China. Something that is getting left out of this: It's actually Fiber-to-the-building. Not Fiber-to-your-apartment. The fiber only goes to the building. Meaning, you'll be sharing it with the other 100s, 1000s of people in the building. In which case, they are doing this out of necessity rather than luxury. Nothing new here. It's an article meant to appease the "OMG WE'RE FALLING BEHIND THE WORLD" crowd.

  25. Do the chinese authorities do april fools jokes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The new standards will take effect starting on April 1, 2013, and residents will be able to choose their own ISP with equal connections to services."

    I thought april fools was mainly a western thing.

  26. They need a lot of bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in order to be able to run those two way video screens that watch your reaction to the Two Minutes of Hate broadcasts.

  27. China Unicorn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't read Unicom... I always read Unicorn.

    1. Re:China Unicorn? by Meyaht · · Score: 1

      i just read both of those the exact same way until i realized there was an "m" on Unicom, lol. i guess you're not alone.

      --
      I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
  28. I thought it was Huawei routers.... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    I thought the new rule is every new home must have a single point of connection to the internet via a Huawei router, with firmware version more recent than 8.2.2012.build 1346- known in the industry as the Beiging T Tap version.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  29. Been there, done that. by thyristor+pt · · Score: 2

    In Portugal it's mandatory since 2009 to equip new buildings with fiber optic cabling from the front door to each apartment, two fibers for every client, and a telecom cabinet housing equipment ready to be connected to the service provider.

  30. Puppets On Strings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So they'll have fiber but won't be allowed to access the Internet. And every keystroke will be watched and analyzed.

  31. The lesson is...? by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Informative

    If the point is to point out that a fascist totalitarian state can implement broad policies more efficiently, then that's not news; the Romans understood that since 249BC when they appointed Aulus Atilius Calatinus as dictator.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator

    But even the Romans understood that there were likely some unpleasant consequences to be found living in a totalitarian state. But hey, they probably had the best internet access times of anyone in the ancient world, right?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:The lesson is...? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, dictators can legislate policies much more easily, but they are not always best at the actual execution.

      Nazi Germany, for instance, was extremely inefficient, particularly because one facet of the system is that Hitler played various high officials off one another to make sure they never got enough power to cause problems. That also had the effect of relegating needed war projects to the ability of their patron to oversee completion, while fending off constant attempts at back stabbing.

      Hitler himself also meddled incessantly in projects as outside his experience as creating specific requirements for tanks, aircraft and other war materiel. His ability to get things done often meant that the wrong shit got done.

      Germany turned it around somewhat when they put Albert Speer in charge of armaments, but the dictatorship was a lot less regimented and efficient than most realize. The Nazis pretty much sailed far on their well trained troops, high morale, good doctrine, and excellent staff work.

  32. Another attack on anonyminity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If everyone is connected at home, there will be no need for Internet cafe's. Traffic to/from homes in China is already traceable to the person who registered the telephone. I imagine that the fiber will work the same way.

    1. Re:Another attack on anonyminity by koxkoxkox · · Score: 1

      And you need to show an ID to go to an internet cafe, so no difference here...

    2. Re:Another attack on anonyminity by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      It's the same good old technology using PPPoE, even over fiber. So yeah, of course it's traceable!

  33. Very fast censored/monitored internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the point of that then?

  34. It prevents many types of tampering.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A signal over traditional copper cable can be spliced into easily and have the signal manipulated.
    It is a lot more difficult to do that sort of thing with Fiber.... forcing residents to find new ways to send out rogue internet messages while making their home PC look innocent.

  35. Bandwidth requirements for the Worker's State by tnk1 · · Score: 0

    They need the extra bandwidth to get more and better data from the two way, always on, wall sized view screens that they are also requiring in every household.

  36. Meh. It's all relative. by zooblethorpe · · Score: 3, Informative

    How hard is it to learn Chinese?

    Very.

    Depends on what you mean by "learn Chinese". If you're only talking about the spoken language, then I'd argue -- from first-hand experience -- that Chinese will be easier in many respects than, say, Japanese or Korean. Just off the top of my head: Chinese is conceptually and grammatically quite similar to English: for simple utterances, like "I go to the store," the words parse almost as-is into Chinese as "I go to store" (only missing the article "the"), but translation into Japanese or Korean requires a major conceptual reworking into "store to go" (where articles are missing, prepositions are postpositions, verbs come at the end, and person is often implied by context). Chinese has no grammatical number or tense or person or gender, and verbs don't conjugate: and anyone, but anyone, who's struggled with "der/die/das", "está/estaba/estuvo", "touchez/touchons/touchent", "mouse/mice" and "goose/geese" but "moose/moose", will find Chinese incredibly easier in this regard.

    Reading the linked article, I really have to say the author comes off as a horrible whinger. Of the nine concrete examples he tries to explain:

    1. a full four are complaints about the writing system (these could all be reduced to one long-winded complaint, and all are irrelevant to the spoken language),
    2. one complains about romanization schemes (again irrelevant to the spoken language, and generally only a real challenge if you start trying to learn different dialects of Chinese, like Taiwanese and Cantonese in addition to Mandarin),
    3. one complains about tonality (at least the author has the sense to realize he's biased on this one),
    4. one complains about a lack of cognates (laughable -- may as well say the same thing about any non-Indo-European language),
    5. one complains about classical Chinese (ridiculously irrelevant -- may as well bitch about Beowulf),
    6. and one complains about different cultural contexts (again, you could say the same about most non-European languages...).

    Basically, he comes across as a whinging, unworldly boob.

    Even allowing for writing system issues, Japanese uses several thousand Chinese characters, with the added bonus that many of them have multiple, often quite different, readings, depending on the context. Imagine if the prefix "pre" was sometimes read as "fore" in some words, "pre" in others, and "front" in yet other words, but was always spelled the same. Chinese occasionally does that, but nowhere near as often, or as complicatedly, as Japanese.
    Fail.

    Japanese itself has at least three romanization schemes that I commonly run into: Hepburn, which most of us in the US will see and recognize as romaji (closest to "phonetic" spelling from an American English perspective); Kunrei, which the Japanese government uses on public signage in Japan to help foreigners (which has oddities like "zyo" for the sound spelled "jo" in Hepburn, and pronounced like the common given name "Joe"), and Yale, which was invented by academics for phonemic accuracy, but is horrid to try to read. So yeah, guess what? Languages not historically written in the Latin alphabet, and that have sounds not found in European languages, are a bitch to romanize. Have a look at the wild variations of Latin-alphabet spellings for Hebrew or Arabic words some day.
    Fail.

    Tonality? Even English has tonality, after a fashion. Try enunciating the difference between "record", the thing, and "record", the action, without changing your tone. Sure, Chinese has a lot more of it, and the truly tone-deaf must first learn to

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  37. Same thing effectively happening in Saskatchewan by anthonyfk · · Score: 2

    We have, effectively, the same thing happening in Saskatchewan. Sasktel is the one and only true telephone provider in the province and it's mandated that every lot must have a connection with them (you don't have to pay for their service, but their wires must run to your house). They've recently introduced their fibre-to-the-premises service that will supersede existing connections. All new houses in our two largest cities are now getting fibre connections; old neighbourhoods are being converted one-by-one and smaller cities will start following suit once the big city rush slows down. So it's not just oppressive governments that can get this done, like other comments here suggest.

  38. Not really. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    It is not 2-3 companies. It is just one company. They are all owned and controlled by the same group: Chinese gov.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  39. Don't give a shit..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone else find it ironic that in a country where it's not uncommon to a home with no functional toilet, they are mandating fiber optic internet connections?

  40. What it is really for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, the state mandated fiber is not to deliver content, it is so cameras can be installed in all rooms and transmit out.

  41. perhaps you've heard of the internet by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Look up the ARPANet, the NSFNet and the current internet infrastructure.

    The government did okay with what they had, but once private enterprise took over prices plummeted and coverage expanded hugely. I would say service got better too, but that depends on how you measure better.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:perhaps you've heard of the internet by Sique · · Score: 1

      The ARPAnet was never a public infrastructure. Thus the example is not valid.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  42. Re:CHINESE SPYING ZTE HUAWEI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chinese firms are spying big time in the US. Samsung is not. Do not buy these Chinese brands with trojan horses built into all of them. Proven to be done by various studies recently

  43. Tibet had Fibre to main cities 4 years ago by eionmac · · Score: 1

    1.Our Village society from a talk by a UK aid worker back from Tibet, he promoted use of a Tibetan small self help private company who would do your website, distance IT etc, and no problem as they had a link to 40GB fibre optic interne, so could do job better than most UK companies re file size or connection, jams were at UK end as slow copper old telecom internet.

    --
    Regards Eion MacDonald
  44. To the trolls downmodding me? Challenge... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To whoever downmodded me? DIsprove my poin/theory... go for it!

    * Not only have I done the research on it, but experimented PROFESSIONALLY in a cyber-security capacity DOING it in tests!

    APK

    P.S.=> Good luck disproving my point, as again - I've actually SEEN this type of attack be done in tests & it's terribly effective (I wouldn't put it past China to implement for cyber-warfare purposes either)...

    ... apk

  45. much of China is built on Internet Cafes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I would not see that taking off too much, because most clientele are really low class, and most of China is on Internet Cafes, and only using QQ, and a few video games from Tecent, that you can do on dialup. Neither would I see that such a grandiose idea, because quite frankly, people are not inspired to do anything that would require high bandwidth to began with... sad.

  46. I was right (per this from "The Register") by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Asia has fastest internet, launches most cyber-attacks -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/24/akamai_state_of_internet_q3_2012/

    * So again - it's QUITE possible the leadership there is making SURE everyone has access to FAST connections, for the purposes of "CyberWarfare" as I stated...

    APK

    P.S.=> It's not like that article doesn't back me either - I see who is doing WHAT with maliciously coded sites when I build a custom hosts file (since 1997, via -> http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74 ) & the predominant areas doing MOST of it from what I have seen in that timeframe, with MILLIONS of such bogus sites/servers? Outta the communist block - mostly the Russias, & China... apk